The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent from her 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. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an art teacher at Western High School ("Western High"). Respondent's career with the School Board, which spans some 21 years, has not proceeded entirely without incident: on January 31, 1997, Respondent uttered profanity in the presence of her students, which resulted in the issuance of a written reprimand that directed her to "cease and desist from inappropriate remarks"; several months later, Respondent's further use of colorful language led to a second written reprimand; and, in August 2009, Respondent agreed to serve a three-day suspension "for inappropriate language." The School Board now seeks to suspend Respondent for five days based upon an allegation that, on August 16, 2013, she used profanity and "aggressively grabbed" a female student's arm during an episode in Western High's parking lot. The facts relating to the instant charges are recounted below. Instant Allegations On the morning of August 16, 2013——the final weekday before the start of the 2013-2014 school year——Respondent arrived at Western High's campus to place the finishing touches on her classroom. On several occasions throughout the day, one of Western High's assistant principals announced that the school's parking lot would be locked at 5:30 p.m. The final such warning, which was made at 5:15 p.m., prompted Respondent to exit the building approximately five minutes later. As she headed toward her vehicle, Respondent (accompanied by her mother, Carol Fischer, herself a longtime educator) noticed several groups of students decorating parking spaces in the school lot. As explained during the final hearing, the students' presence was not unusual, for incoming seniors at Western High were authorized, pursuant to a school fundraiser, to "purchase" a parking space and adorn it as each saw fit. Mindful that the school gate would soon be locked, Respondent walked toward the groups and, from a distance of approximately 50 yards, loudly directed them to pack up their belongings and leave the campus. Each of the groups complied, save for one, which prompted Respondent to approach the stragglers and repeatedly announce——with diminishing volume as she made her way closer——that they needed to go home. Suffice it to say that these importunings had no discernable effect on the group's activities; as a result, Respondent continued toward the parking spot where the students were working. Now in their immediate vicinity, Respondent informed the group (which included two female students, N.S. and T.C., both of whom were incoming seniors at Western High) that they had two minutes to gather their possessions and leave the campus. During the ensuing interaction, T.C. began to argue with Respondent and, to make matters worse, acted as if she intended to continue painting. Her patience understandably waning, Respondent reached toward T.C. and, in a non-violent fashion, placed her hand on the student's upper arm. This brief physical contact, intended to secure T.C.'s complete attention and gesture her in the direction of the exit, was instantly met with a vocal objection. Respondent immediately reacted by stepping backwards,1/ at which point the group began to gather up the painting materials. T.C. and the other students departed the parking lot a short time later. Contrary to the complaint's allegations, the credible evidence demonstrates that, although Respondent addressed the students with an elevated voice (but only as she approached from a distance), she at no point used profanity or any other inappropriate language.2/ Further, the record is pellucid that Respondent's momentary, gesturing contact with T.C. was completely innocuous and in no way constituted an "aggressive grab."3/ Indeed, T.C. acknowledged during her final hearing testimony that Respondent plainly intended no harm.4/ Finally, and with respect to the charge of insubordination, there has been no showing that Respondent's behavior ran afoul of any direct order. Although the School Board attempted to prove the existence of a "no touching whatsoever" rule, the testimony on that point was internally contradictory and ultimately unpersuasive. In any event, and as discussed shortly, a general policy——i.e., one applicable to all employees——does not constitute a direct order for the purpose of sustaining an insubordination charge. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of misconduct in office. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of insubordination.
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: exonerating Respondent of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; and awarding Respondent any lost pay and benefits she experienced as a result of the five-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, 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 3rd day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year. Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators. Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997. On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised. At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students. On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive. Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were, and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised. Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students. On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete. At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999. Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment. Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators. September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day. Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him. Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline. A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments. Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him. Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule. On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students. The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment. After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day. On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up." The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved. On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors. At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend. Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices. He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule. On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures. Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it. On February 8 Respondent did not come to work. Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late. On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action. Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue. On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students. The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered. On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt. Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment. Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time. Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence. Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline. Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom. Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit." Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing. He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes. Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury. The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time. The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students. On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000. On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised. On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000. On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, whether the two-day unpaid suspension imposed by Petitioner should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Petitioner is the duly-constituted school board of Broward County, Florida. It is charged with the duty to provide a public education to the students of Broward County and to establish policies and programs consistent with state law and rules, necessary for the efficient operation and general improvement of the Broward County district school system. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a physical education teacher at West Broward High School during the 2014- 2015 school year. March 19, 2015, Incident On March 19, 2015, Respondent was teaching a ninth-grade health and physical fitness class known as HOPE, during the seventh period of the school day. March 19, 2015, was the day before the students were going to be released for Spring Break. As was the common practice, many of the students in his class opted to attend a "pep rally" being conducted on campus, which began shortly after his HOPE class started. After the students departed for the "pep rally," approximately 12 students remained in the class under Respondent's supervision. The class remained in session, and Respondent showed the remaining class students an educational video. As the video played, the lights were dimmed. Respondent was at the front of the class sitting behind his desk in a chair that reclined. During the video, one of the students, J.R., observed Respondent leaning back, reclined in his chair with his eyes fully closed. Respondent's chair was turned partially away from the class. J.R.'s desk was approximately 15 to 20 feet from Respondent's desk. J.R. observed Respondent in this posture for close to ten minutes. At some point, J.R. got up from his desk and approached Respondent to hand in some paperwork. While standing directly in front of Respondent's desk, he took a photograph of Respondent in this posture. See Pet. Ex. 5. When J.R. approached Respondent's desk and stood in front of it, Respondent did not wake up, stir, or acknowledge J.R.'s presence or take the papers from him. Notably, J.R. heard Respondent lightly snoring during the time he was asleep.1/ J.R. shared this photograph with several friends on a social media site. One of his friends, J.L., who was also attending the same class, saved the photograph by taking a screen shot of it.2/ While all of this occurred, J.L. was sitting in close proximity to J.R. J.L. also noticed that Respondent was sleeping and reclined in his chair with his eyes closed. During the period of time that Respondent was in this posture and slumber, he was not properly attending to his duties as a teacher and was not properly supervising the students in his class. While it is not necessary to recount in detail, the record reflects that Respondent had been counseled, written up, or warned about not properly supervising or monitoring students in other classes during the years preceding this incident. These various memos and written or verbal warnings constituted sufficient directives or orders by supervisors, the violation(s) of which constituted insubordination. See generally Pet. Ex. 18, composed of multiple subparts and pages. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence, it should have been obvious to Respondent on March 19, 2015, that this type of conduct was strictly prohibited, in violation of School Board rules and regulations, and exposed him to progressively stricter discipline. Sometime later, J.L. met with the assistant principal, Richard Gonzalez, to complain about his grades in Respondent's class. It was during this meeting that Gonzalez was shown the picture that J.R. had taken on March 19, 2015. After conducting an investigation, Gonzalez and the principal, Teresa Hall, met with Respondent and his union representative during a pre-determination meeting to discuss the incident and provide Respondent with an opportunity to respond. Initially, and before being shown the picture, Respondent denied that he had been sleeping in the HOPE class. However, after being shown the picture, Petitioner's Exhibit 5, he asserted that the picture was not in a classroom. He went on to add that it "would not be like me to do that." He lamented that he was going through marital problems and was on medication. He told Hall and Gonzalez that he was embarrassed. Respondent cried during the meeting. He also told Hall and Gonzalez that he had never done this before and could not believe that it happened. He appeared very embarrassed. He told both of them, as he handed back the photograph, "I can't believe this happened." The undersigned concludes that despite the lack of a direct or forthright admission that he had been caught sleeping, Respondent acknowledged through his verbal and physical responses, demeanor, and body language that he had been inattentive, sleeping, and caught in this posture in violation of School Board rules and policies. Further, it is clear that Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6 alone show Respondent fully asleep and/or in a very deep state of slumber and clearly inattentive to his duties as a supervising teacher for the HOPE class on March 19, 2015. During the hearing, Respondent was questioned by his attorney about the picture that appeared to show that he was sleeping. He denied closing his eyes. He acknowledged that the picture was of him, but asserted, "I'm not sleeping." Rather, he deflected the point of the inquiry and stated "I've never slept, especially with students in class." Inexplicably, he left it at that and offered no credible explanation concerning what the picture showed or depicted. At some point after this incident, Respondent approached the school resource officer, John Sammarco. They discussed the photo of Respondent taken by J.R. which purportedly showed him sleeping. He asked the officer to talk to the student and have J.R. retract the photograph from the internet and write a statement saying that Respondent was not sleeping. Needless to say, Sammarco refused to assist Respondent in this manner and, instead, immediately reported this meeting to Hall and Gonzalez. Shortly thereafter, Respondent came back to the officer and apologized to him for "putting him [sic] in that position." March 30, 2015, Incident The school principal, Hall, was conducting a routine walk-through of the West Broward High School campus with her assistant principal, Gonzalez. As they passed Respondent's classroom, they noticed that the lights were dimmed. Interested to know what was happening, they entered the class room by using the back door. The classroom was dimly lit and full of students. They walked up the right side of the classroom along the wall from the rear of the classroom. Respondent was seated at his desk, turned away from the class, and facing more in the direction of the video screen that was located at the front of the class. Respondent was leaning back in a relaxed posture and had his cell phone in his hand. He was not facing the class or watching the students. From her vantage point, several feet behind and to the right of Respondent, Hall could see that Respondent was looking at pictures of females on his cell phone and scrolling through them with his finger. He would occasionally glance up at the video being shown on the screen and then glance back down at his cell phone. Hall stood quietly behind Respondent observing this activity for approximately one to two minutes. Respondent never acknowledged her presence, nor did he turn and notice that the school principal was in the room with Gonzalez. Gonzalez was slightly behind Hall. He could also tell that Respondent had his cell phone in his hand, but was not able to see what he was looking at. Nonetheless, Gonzalez confirmed that Respondent did not acknowledge their presence or even appear to know that they were in the classroom.3/ When asked during the administrative hearing about this particular incident, Respondent testified that he knew they were there but that he was not required to acknowledge their presence. He said he did look at his cell phone but does not recall what pictures he was looking at. The pictures may have been from Facebook or some other social media. When asked if it is appropriate to look at social media in a classroom of students, with the school's principal present, he stated that "I did it, but I didn't think nothing of it." Based on the more credible and persuasive evidence, the undersigned finds that Respondent was not aware that Hall and Gonzalez were in the room observing his actions, nor was he properly supervising his students during Hall's visit. Further, these separate incidents on March 19 and 30, 2015, constituted: (1) a lack of proper supervision of his classes; (2) willful neglect of his duties as a teacher; and (3) insubordination.
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 imposing its intended penalty of a two-day, unpaid suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2016, 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 6th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 28, 2011, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on a contract that is subject to a collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade, applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Near the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was placed on a 25-day suspension without pay for having inappropriate communications with students. Prior to serving her suspension, Respondent was issued directives that she was not to make personal comments to students and she was not to communicate with students via text and personal letters at any time. For the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Yassin was assigned to South Miami Community Middle School (SMCMS), where she taught language arts to five classes. Ms. Alvarez was the principal of SMCMS for the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Yassin's suspension ended in October 2010, at which time she reported for duty at SMCMS. Shortly after Ms. Yassin reported for duty at SMCMS, Ms. Alvarez received a complaint from a parent that Respondent had requested that students bring school supplies into class in exchange for receiving extra academic credit. Ms. Alvarez held a conference with Respondent. Ms. Alvarez instructed Ms. Yassin that School Board rules prohibit a teacher from giving extra academic credit in exchange for a student providing school supplies. Ms. Alvarez specifically told Ms. Yassin to cease and desist that practice. Ms. Yassin admitted that she had given extra academic credit to students who had brought in school supplies and told Ms. Alvarez that it would not happen again. In January 2011, Ms. Alvarez received a complaint from a student in one of Ms. Yassin's classes that Ms. Yassin had offered the students in the class assistance on a test in exchange for students bringing items of food to Ms. Yassin. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Ms. Yassin offered her students assistance on tests if they brought candy and other food items such as pastries to her. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that during the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Yassin made such an offer to students in one or more of her classes on one or more occasions. Ms. Alvarez verbally informed Ms. Yassin of the allegations and told her that an investigation would be initiated. There was also a conflict as to whether Ms. Yassin quizzed her students as to the investigation and as to whether she made inappropriate comments to students about the investigation. The conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Yassin made inappropriate comments to one or more students to lie about Ms. Yassin's conduct and told other students "to watch her back." Ms. Yassin also quizzed one or more students as to the discussion the student(s) had had with the investigator. On January 12, 2011, Respondent was removed from MSCMS and placed on alternative assignment. Respondent was specifically informed that she "must not contact, visit or exchange in any type of communications with faculty/staff/students/family of students from the work location to which you were assigned at the time of the incident leading to this administrative placement." Ms. Yassin violated that clear and unequivocal directive by communicating with parents and students by text and email between January 12 and February 3, 2011.1/ Respondent's misconduct, as described herein, has impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, 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 sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on misconduct in office and gross insubordination. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Davis began working with the Board on September 16, 1974, as a custodian in the maintenance department. In 1980 Davis was transferred to the Stewart Street Elementary School as a custodian. In 1988 Davis was transferred to the Carter-Parramore Middle School as a custodian. On March 23, 1992, Davis was suspended by the Superintendent with pay. On March 25, 1992, Davis was recommended for termination and was suspended without pay by the Board. The suspension and recommended termination were the result of accusations made by Tomeka Mitchell and Tiesha Parker that Davis had made sexually explicit comments to them and had inappropriately touched them. Tomeka and Tiesha both testified regarding their versions of what occurred on January 28, 1992. Two other students, Cheryl Denise Roberts and Lashea Alexander also testified. Based on the demeanor of these witnesses and on the pervasive conflicts in their versions of the events, it is determined that their testimony is not credible or worthy of belief. Tomeka testified that on January 22 or 23, 1992, she and "Sherry" were going to meet Tiesha near the gym and that Davis stopped them, put his arms around Tomeka and Tiesha and said "This is what he wanted" and opened her button. She said nothing else happened. However, she apparently reported to HRS that Davis had touched her breast and unbuttoned her blouse. HRS determined that there was no evidence to verify these allegations. [See Finding of Fact #14] Tiesha said she was going to meet Tomeka, who was already talking to Davis, and when she and Tomeka began to walk away, Davis asked where they were going, called them over to where he was standing, and told them he "wanted some." When they asked what he "wanted," she said Davis pulled their heads together, tried to open her blouse which was buttoned, and then he "did it to Tomeka and looked down her shirt." Tiesha said that Cheryl Roberts and Lashea Alexander were standing next to them and all four discussed what happened and decided to go to the office and report it. On cross-examination, Tiesha acknowledged that Tomeka's blouse was unbuttoned before Davis called them over. Cheryl testified that she saw Davis look down Tomeka's blouse and that she (not Tiesha) was with Tomeka when Davis said he "wanted some." However, when Cheryl talked to Mr. Pace, the principal, on January 28, 1992, she said she had not seen anything, but was reporting what she had been told by Tomeka and Tiesha. Additionally, the information given by Cheryl at the time of the incident, the testimony she gave in her deposition on May 14, 1992, and her testimony at the hearing were inconsistent. Finally, Cheryl never mentioned that Davis had allegedly tried to look into Tiesha's blouse. Lashea's testimony was also contrary to that of Tomeka and Tiesha. According to Lashea's version, Tomeka and Tiesha had told her that Tomeka was afraid to go to class because Davis might say something to her, so Tiesha walked Tomeka part way to class. Lashea was near the gym with Cheryl and she saw Davis try to look into Tomeka's blouse. Lashea and Cheryl discussed what they had seen and Tomeka and Tiesha came back to the gym. Lashea told Tomeka that Davis had tried to look into her blouse and Tomeka said "Yeah, he tried to, but I didn't let him." Lashea denied that Davis tried to look in Tiesha's blouse. However, Mr. Pace recorded that on January 28, 1992, Lashea had not seen anything and had only told him what she was told by Tomeka and Tiesha. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the demeanor of these girls and from the differences in their stories is that no sexually explicit statements were made by Davis and that he did not he touch them in an inappropriate manner. The version of the incident given by Davis is credible and worthy of belief. On January 28, 1992, Davis saw Tomeka and Tiesha in the open corridor near the gym after the final bell for sixth period had rung. They were heading away from the gym. Davis asked them what class they were supposed to be in, and by their responses he thought they were supposed to be in gym. Tomeka's blouse was open and the top few buttons were undone. Davis told her to button her shirt up and he said he was sure that her parents wouldn't want her going around campus "looking like a 10 whore." Davis then told them they should be in class and he put his hand on the upper arm of each girl to guide them in the direction of the class. When it appeared they were going in the correct direction, Davis left them. Davis is a credible witness and his statements at all times between January 28, 1992, and the hearing have been consistent and forthright. According to Mr. Pace, the principal, and Lt. Morris, the school resource officer, Davis is a man of his word who is known to be honest and trustworthy. Further, Davis' reputation in the community is one of honesty and truthfulness. John D. Mathers, a Child Protective Investigator for HRS, sent a letter to Bryant dated March 18, 1992, and therein stated "The victim's statements of language addressed them by Dr. Davis [sic] meets departmental guidelines to verify the allegation of sexual exploitation, i.e. indecent solicitation of a child or explicit verbal enticement, and closing of report with classification of proposed confirmed." While this sentence is so poorly written as to render it unintelligible, Bryant interpreted it as saying that HRS had found that Davis had made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments and that these allegations of sexual exploitation were verified. In fact, the letter from Mr. Mather doesn't quite say that. Additionally, Mather said in his letter that Tomeka Mitchell told him that Davis had touched her left breast and had unbuttoned her blouse, but that no other witness verified Tomeka's allegations, and that those allegations of sexual maltreatment were not classified as proposed confirmed. The letter to Davis from Bryant dated March 23, 1992, advised Davis that the reason for the suspension and recommended termination was Davis' violation of Gadsden County Board Rule 5.112 which provides in pertinent part: Any member of the non-instructional staff may be dismissed by the School Board during his term of appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, giving good and sufficient reason therefor. Good and sufficient reason shall include but not be limited to: * * * (h) Violation of law, State Board of Education Rules, or School Board Rules. Upon investigation, it has been determined that on January 22, 1992 and January 28, 1992, you made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments to several female students at Carter- Parramore Middle School. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has also completed its investigation and has advised me that based on its investigation and interviews with the victims, their statements regarding your comments verify the allegations of sexual exploitation. Such behavior is violative of Gadsden County School Board rules. This determination by Bryant was based on the "information" he was given in the "final report" prepared by Pace and on the HRS letter. Bryant was unable to articulate the bases for his determination, but that is not surprising when the origin and nature of the "information" he considered is examined. The three men who gathered the information were Cecil Morris, the school resource officer employed by the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office; Rocky Pace, the principal at Carter-Parramore; and James W. Brown, Jr., the assistant superintendent for administrative services. According to Bryant, he was given a "final report" from Pace in a letter dated February 7, 1992, (Exhibit 4) with attachments: Pace's letter to Brown dated January 28, 1992, (Exhibit 5); a case report filed by Lt. Morris (Exhibits 9a and 9b); and a letter of reprimand to Davis from Pace (Exhibit 3). In that letter Pace advised that he had a tape of the interviews of Tomeka, Tiesha, a girl named Aquiana Delapierre, and Davis, however, Pace did not give Bryant the tape until sometime in March, 1992, when Bryant asked for it. Bryant never listened to the tape, but instead read written statements from the girls. No one was able to establish where these written statements came from or how they came to be in Bryant's possession. They first appeared in Lt. Morris' case file when he opened it to prepare for a deposition on July 2, 1992. He doesn't know where they came from or who took them. Pace knew nothing about the statements and did not give them to Bryant. Brown also had no knowledge of the statements. Ironically, there was no written statement from Davis. Bryant says he made his determination based on these written statements which he assumed contained the same information as the tape which he never heard. Bryant did not identify any information which he reviewed that set forth Davis' version of the event. The case report prepared by Lt. Morris contained a brief summary of the accusations made by Tomeka and Tiesha, but Morris apparently never even talked to Davis. In fact, from the testimony of Pace, Morris, and Brown, it cannot even be determined whether any investigation was ever done. Morris talked to Tomeka and Tiesha briefly and then took them to Pace. Pace taped statements from Tomeka and Tiesha and Davis. Morris was in and out of the room during the taping of statements from Tomeka and Tiesha, but he did not hear much of what they said. Brown then came to the school and again talked briefly to Cheryl Roberts because he knew her parents and to some other girls, but he doesn't remember their names. Morris had no investigatory responsibilities in the matter. Pace did no further investigation after he took the taped statements because Brown came to the school and Pace was informed that Bryant had put Brown in charge of the investigation. Brown says he was not in charge of the investigation, but had told Pace to do a thorough investigation and then report his findings to Bryant. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that none of these men did any investigation beyond the interviews conducted on January 28 and 29, 1992. The letter from Pace to Bryant (Exhibit 4), which Bryant calls the "final report," clearly states that Pace thought the investigation was still on going and that action beyond the letter of reprimand (Exhibit 3) may have been warranted at a later date. However the only continuing action involved that of HRS in its abuse investigation, which resulted in a letter which advised that no touching or unbuttoning had occurred. Bryant's accusations against Davis were limited to allegations of explicit and inappropriate sexual comments. These reasons given for the suspension and recommended termination must have been based almost entirely on the letter from Mather at HRS since there was so little competent and probative information considered by Bryant. However, the statements made by Mather in his letter are insufficient to show whether HRS actually took any action against Davis in this matter and no evidence was presented to show whether any such action was taken. Since Bryant never reviewed any statement by Davis regarding his version of the events, Bryant never knew that Davis' words and actions in trying to get the girls to go to their class and to get Tomeka to straighten and button her clothes were routine for Davis. From the time Davis was assigned to Carter-Parramore in 1988 until March 18, 1991, a Mr. White had been the principal at that school. White had asked Davis to assist in keeping order at the school and had authorized Davis to open the gym on cold mornings at around 7:15 a.m. so that early-arriving students could be warm. At times, Davis was the only Board employee on campus and he was to remain in the gym to keep order until other adults arrived. White also used Davis' assistance to break up fights and control campus access by non- students during the school day. With White's knowledge and consent, Davis also directed students to go to class when they were not where they were supposed to be, to straighten up their attire or behavior, and to stay in school and not skip class. Mr. White died unexpectedly in March, 1991, and Pace became the acting principal and ultimately the principal. Pace knew of all these activities by Davis and never told him to restrict himself to duties directly related to his job as head custodian. Pace acknowledges that Davis was friendly and interacted with students and pitched in wherever he was needed. It was entirely consistent with these acknowledged activities of Davis that he would stop two students who were outside after the sixth period bell had rung, would direct them to go to class and would insist that one of them straighten her clothing which was unbuttoned and allowed her breasts to be seen. Finally, the alleged matter involving Aquiana Delapierre must be examined. Aquiana made an allegation against Davis that he said he "wanted some" from her also. Aquiana was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing but she failed to appear. All other documentation of these allegations constitutes hearsay and absent her live testimony, that hearsay cannot form the basis for any findings of fact. Exhibit 9a is the report prepared by Lt. Morris regarding Aquiana's allegations. It is insufficient to support a finding about the alleged incident. Davis was employed pursuant to an annual contract. His contract had been renewed yearly for the preceding eighteen years. Davis had always received satisfactory job ratings. Because of the recommended termination and Davis' suspension in March, 1992, no recommendation or action was taken to renew his annual contract for the 1992-93 school year. Davis' contract for the 1991-92 school year expired on June 30, 1992. Davis has no statutory entitlement to renewal of his contract, but no evidence was presented to show any reason why his annual contract would not have been renewed but for this case. Further, Davis' position has not been filled by another employee. The clear fact is that Davis' contract would have been renewed but for these wrongful allegations and this action which followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Gadsden County enter a Final Order and therein: Award to Charlie C. Davis back pay for the period from March 25, 1992, until the expiration of his annual contract. Reinstate Charlie C. Davis to his position as head custodian at Carter- Parramore Middle School and renew his annual contract for that position for the entire 1992-1993 school year. Award to Davis back pay for the period covered by the annual contract for 1992-1993 during which has not been working or being paid. Deny the request for Davis' attorney's fees and costs necessitated for his defense against the suspension and termination on March 25, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2375 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Gadsden County School Board 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29-35, and 38-41 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 2. Proposed findings of fact 18, 20, 26 and 37 are irrelevant to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Charlie C. Davis Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5. Proposed findings of fact 6-18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Bryant, Superintendent Gadsden County School Board Post Office Box 818 Quincy, FL 32351 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Deborah J. Stephens Attorney at Law The Ausley Law Firm 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 David Brooks Kundin Attorney at Law Dobson & Kundin, P.A. Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a middle school teacher had a consensual sexual relationship with a teenage student; if this allegation is proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to fire the teacher.
Findings Of Fact Parties. The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. Respondent Mariella Brenlla ("Brenlla") holds a Florida Educator Certificate. She is certified in Emotionally Handicapped, Reading, and Educational Leadership. Brenlla also holds a National Board of Education certification in exceptional needs. She was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for nearly 18 years, from 1992 until November 2009, at which time the School Board suspended her without pay and gave notice that it intended to dismiss her for cause, giving rise to the instant proceeding. During the 2001- 02 school year, which is the period relevant to this case, Brenlla taught students who, having been diagnosed as Severely Emotionally Disturbed ("SED"), received special education services in the Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") program at Ponce de Leon Middle School ("Ponce de Leon"). Allegations and Investigation. In May 2006, a former ESE student of Ponce de Leon named J. B. sent Brenlla an e-mail inviting her to attend his high school graduation. Although she had not heard from him in nearly four years, Brenlla knew J. B. because she had been his "confidant" (her word) during the better part of 2002; their relationship, the nature of which is at the heart of the instant dispute, had begun when J. B. was a 14-year-old eighth grader who attended class in a room adjacent to Brenlla's, and ended about midway through J. B.'s freshman year of high school. Brenlla did not reply to the electronic invitation, and she did not go to J. B.'s graduation ceremony. On October 23, 2006, J. B. sent Brenlla another e-mail. In this message, J. B. demanded that Brenlla call him "ASAP" on a matter of "the utmost importance." He added, "I have terrible news for you." Concerned, Brenlla called. When they spoke, J. B. told Brenlla that he wanted to see her. Brenlla expressed her unwillingness to meet with J. B. Then J. B. revealed the "terrible news": he was thinking about disclosing that he and Brenlla had had a sexual affair in 2002. Brenlla instructed J. B. not to call or contact her again. J. B. did not accede to Brenlla's directive. He sent more e-mails, and placed more phone calls to Brenlla. On October 24, 2006, Brenlla filed a report with the Miami-Dade Schools Police, complaining that J. B. had made threatening comments to her, such as "start saying goodbye to your family." On November 2, 2006, J. B. filed a complaint with the Coral Gables Police Department, alleging that, in 2002, while he was in middle school and, later, high school, he and Brenlla had been involved in a consensual sexual relationship which had begun shortly after spring break and continued until around December. On November 16, 2006, J. B. gave a sworn statement that detailed the numerous and diverse sexual activities in which, he claimed, he and the teacher had engaged. The police commenced an investigation. On November 21, 2006, the detective in charge directed J. B. to place a telephone call to Brenlla, which the police would record, in hopes that J. B. might coax Brenlla into making some incriminating comments. The controlled call was made but failed to produce any unambiguously inculpatory remarks. During the brief conversation, Brenlla neither admitted nor denied the existence of a previous sexual relationship; her unremarkable responses to J. B.'s questions can be construed as being consistent with either possibility. In sum, the digital recording of this call, which is in evidence, is not probative one way or the other. Another attempt to trick Brenlla into incriminating herself was made a few months later. On February 6, 2007, the police equipped J. B. with a "wire" (some sort of recording device) and instructed him to approach Brenlla in the school parking lot, where he was supposed to initiate a conversation about their sexual relationship. This plan came a cropper because, rather than talk with J. B., who accosted Brenlla as she was getting into her car after work, Brenlla insisted that J. B. leave the school premises (on which he was trespassing), and she called the school police. Arrest and Prosecution. On February 21, 2007, J. B. informed the police (for the first time) that Brenlla had a mole or freckle near her vagina. Armed with this information, the police eventually obtained a search warrant, which was issued on August 9, 2007. The warrant authorized detectives to inspect and photograph Brenlla's pubic area. Law enforcement officers executed the warrant and, as the resulting pictures (which are in evidence) show, Brenlla does have a nondescript pigmented spot in the vicinity of her vagina. Soon after the service of the search warrant, Brenlla was arrested and charged with four felony counts of sexual battery on a minor. The criminal prosecution of Brenlla ended when she entered into a Pre-Trial Diversion Program, which required that she plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of child abuse (no harm) and agree not to take a classroom teaching position for the 2009-10 school year.1 Holding up its end of the bargain, the state entered a nolle prosequi on the felony charges. As far as the record in this case shows, Brenlla is no longer in jeopardy of being prosecuted for crimes she might have committed in connection with her relationship with J. B. The Operative Historical Events. Credibility and Weight of the Evidence. The operative historical facts——especially the nature of the relationship between Brenlla and J. B.——are sharply disputed. Moreover, the gravamen of the School Board's case being that Brenlla had sexual relations with an underage student, the conduct in question is the kind which occurs in private, unobserved by disinterested eyewitnesses. Resolving disputes of fact in a case such as this largely boils down to determining which of the only two witnesses who really know for sure what happened is the more believable. Having listened carefully to and closely observed J. B. and Brenlla at final hearing, the undersigned found Brenlla to be, on balance, the better witness. For the most part, her demeanor was poised and professional; the content of her testimony (with a couple of significant exceptions) is reasonable; she seemed responsible and mature, her denials of wrongdoing sincere. The undersigned wanted to believe her, because the behavior of which she is accused is so reckless and outrageous (not to mention criminal), and she appeared to be none of those things. J. B., in contrast, while appropriate in demeanor and articulate in speech (though glib at times), made a less favorable impression. In part this was because he occasionally came across as vindictive. But also, and more important, the content of J. B.'s testimony has elements that seem, on the surface at least, to be fictional or (as Brenlla contends) fantastic; that——coupled with the fact that J. B.'s story, like a snowball rolling downhill, has gotten bigger and gathered additional details as it moves forward through time——casts doubt on his veracity. Were this case merely a "swearing contest" between Brenlla and J. B., therefore, Brenlla would have won. There are, however, some pieces of circumstantial evidence that corroborate J. B.'s testimony and tip the balance in favor of his version of the relevant events. These will be discussed next. J. B.'s Knowledge of Brenlla's Inconspicuous Mole. J. B. told the police that Brenlla had a mole near her vagina, and this turned out to be true. Thus, either J. B. made a lucky guess, or he somehow had learned about this personal detail concerning Brenlla's body. The undersigned considers the first possibility to be too remote to credit: if J. B. were clever enough to gamble that Brenlla would be found to have a mark in her pubic area, he also would have been aware that sending the police on a wild goose chase which proved him wrong would leave his credibility in tatters. More likely, therefore, is that J. B. knew about the mole, and the undersigned so finds. The question then is: how he know? The simplest (and hence most likely) explanations are: (a) somebody with personal or secondhand knowledge told him; (b) he saw a photograph of Brenlla in a state of undress; or (c) he saw the mole in person. Brenlla's explanation that J. B. might have overheard her talking about the mole with another teacher, or on the phone making a waxing appointment, strikes the undersigned as highly implausible and is rejected. Of the most obvious explanations for J. B.'s knowledge, the undersigned considers (c) above to be the likeliest possibility, notwithstanding that J. B. did not immediately tell the police about this crucial bit of information, because it is the simplest explanation for which, as will be seen, there is other credible evidence besides J. B.'s own testimony (the believability of which is the point presently under consideration). At bottom, the fact that J. B. knew about the mole near Brenlla's vagina is neither direct nor conclusive proof that he and she had a sexual relationship, as he claims; his knowledge of this intimate detail does, however, corroborate his testimony in this regard. The Telephone Calls. Shortly before the final hearing, the School Board obtained from T-Mobile, U.S.A., Inc., via subpoena, the invoices for J. B.'s cell phone service for the period from May 25, 2002 to July 16, 2002, comprising 53 days (the "First Stage"); and the period from August 26, 2002 to October 12, 2002, comprising 48 days (the "Third Stage"). The evidence does not make clear why there were no invoices for the 40-day period running from July 17, 2002 to August 25, 2002. This middle period for which there are no phone service details will be called the "Second Stage". The invoices show the date, time, and duration of calls to J. B.'s cell phone ("incoming calls"), and calls from J. B.'s cell phone ("outgoing calls"). For each call, whether incoming or outgoing, the bills identify the other party's phone number. At hearing, Brenlla identified two telephone numbers which appear in the bills as being hers. One, she explained, was her home number (a landline), and the other she identified as her work number. Although Brenlla testified that J. B. and other students called her occasionally on her cell phone, she did not volunteer her cell phone number(s) for the relevant periods and was not pressed to do so; thus, no cell-to-cell phone calls are accounted for in the discussion that follows. The undersigned has studied the invoices, and it is no exaggeration to say that they are the smoking gun. For what the bills show is that, during the 101 days they cover, Brenlla and J. B. talked on the phone——a lot. The volume, frequency, duration, and timing of these conversations simply defy innocent explanation. The records show that Brenlla and J. B. had approximately 197 conversations. (This does not include calls of one minute or less, which the undersigned interpreted as mere attempts; there were about 120 of those. Also, the undersigned counted multiple calls as a single conversation if they occurred in rapid sequence, as would happen if a call were dropped or momentarily interrupted from some other reason. Thus, a different reviewer might come up with different numbers at the margins. The undersigned is highly confident, however, that the observations made herein are fair and accurate.) Nearly 80 percent of the documented conversations, or 156 of them, took place during the First Stage, which corroborates J. B.'s testimony that this period corresponded to the most intense stage of his relationship with Brenlla. Combined, these conversations, which occurred during a period of 53 days, consumed approximately 1,451 minutes——about 24 hours in all. Brenlla initiated 138 of these conversations. In other words, Brenlla called J. B. about 88 percent of the time during the First Stage. The frequency of their contact is notable as well. During the First Stage, the pair talked on 46 of the 53 days covered by the bills. The numbers drop significantly in the Third Stage, again corroborating J. B.'s testimony that the relationship began to unravel after he started high school in the fall. In this period there were 41 documented conversations comprising about 303 minutes. Brenlla initiated nearly three-quarters (30) of these calls, continuing the previous pattern of Brenlla being the one who, by far, most often made the first move. The two had conversations on 23 out of the 48 days in this period——a marked decrease in intensity relative to the First Stage. Still, with a phone conversation occurring on average about every other day, the two remained in suspiciously close contact by most reasonable measures, especially in view of the fact that J. B. was now in high school and therefore would have few, if any, school-related reasons to talk regularly with a teacher at his old school. Some further observations underscore the inculpatory nature of these documented calls. Many of them took place during non-business hours (before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m.) and on weekends. Approximately 19 percent——nearly one in five—— occurred between 9:00 p.m. and midnight, hours during which a teacher rarely should have a legitimate pedagogical reason for calling a student. Another 26 percent, roughly, or about one quarter, of the conversations were held between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Five percent or so of the calls took place between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. While the majority of the conversations (102) took place on weekdays, of which 69 fell during the covered periods, the couple spent more time on the phone (957 minutes vs. 749 minutes) during the 29 weekend days than on regular workdays. There were, in addition, seven conversations totaling 48 minutes during three holidays, i.e. Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day. Brenlla testified that she called J. B. because she was concerned about his transition to high school, which she asserted could be difficult for SED students such as J. B. to make, and because she had become J. B.'s confidant, someone he trusted and with whom he could share his secrets. These explanations do not hold water and are rejected. The available records show that Brenlla was contacting J. B. almost literally around the clock, day and night, constantly, even on weekends and holidays. (Remember, too, that Brenlla's cell phone number was not disclosed; it is possible that the over-the-top degree of telephonic contact between her and J. B. as revealed above was in fact even higher. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that Brenlla and J. B. stopped talking on the phone during the 40 days between the First Stage and the Third Stage. To the contrary, it is probable that there was a substantial amount of contact between the two during the Second Stage, for which records are not available.) The telephone records do not prove the content of the conversations between Brenlla and J. B., nor do they establish that the two had a sexual relationship. The records are circumstantial evidence of a very close and probably intimate personal relationship, however, and as such they not only provide some independent support for the finding above regarding how J. B. likely came to know about Brenlla's mole, but also they corroborate J. B.'s testimony that he and Brenlla engaged in a consensual sexual affair. The Affair. At the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, Brenlla administered a standardized test to determine J. B.'s abilities in reading, math, and basic humanities. This was how Brenlla first met J. B., who was at the time a 14-year- old, eighth grade SED student in the ESE program at Ponce de Leon. Though J. B. was not one of Brenlla's students, his teachers' (he had two) classroom was next door to the classroom in which Brenlla and another teacher taught their SED students. As the school year progressed, Brenlla became better acquainted with J. B. because he and other SED students occasionally would visit her classroom during the "free period," usually on Fridays, when ESE students who had completed their assignments and otherwise behaved themselves were rewarded with time to enjoy nonacademic activities. Brenlla taught J. B. how to play chess, and he assisted her with classroom chores. The relationship between Brenlla and J. B. became increasingly personal. One Friday shortly after spring break, Brenlla invited J. B. to have an online conversation with her that night via instant messaging. He agreed. An IM chat was attempted but failed due to computer problems, forcing J. B. and Brenlla to communicate by telephone. This led to a lengthy session of "phone sex." Thereafter, Brenlla and J. B. became physically intimate. J. B. testified that he and Brenlla engaged in a variety of foreplay in Brenlla's classroom. J. B. claimed that these encounters occurred before class, at lunchtime, and after school, two or three times a day, nearly every day. The undersigned, however, credits Brenlla's testimony regarding the unlikelihood of this much contact going unnoticed, given the proximity of other adults, the fact that the SED classrooms were never locked, and the generally high level of supervision to which SED students are subjected. J. B.'s account more likely than not is exaggerative. Nevertheless, even after discounting J. B.'s testimony for probable embellishments, the undersigned finds that, more likely than not, Brenlla and J. B. found ways to engage in furtive kissing and petting in moments when no one was around. While such moments probably did not arise as frequently as J. B. recalls, it is likely (and thus found) that the couple grabbed opportunities to disappear briefly from time to time. J. B. testified that he and Brenlla frequently engaged in oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) in her car after school. While some aspects of J. B.'s testimony in this regard are difficult to believe——such as that Brenlla sometimes parked her car in residential neighborhoods, where the two would engage in oral sex and, on occasion, nearly be caught——the undersigned considers it likely, and finds, that, among other sexual activities, J. B. and Brenlla performed oral sex on one another many times inside her vehicle. J. B. testified that he and Brenlla often had "phone sex." J. B. did not define "phone sex," but the undersigned reasonably infers, from the totality of J. B.'s testimony and the plain meaning of the term, that the phone sex in question entailed conversations having explicit sexual or erotic content. The undersigned credits J. B.'s testimony in this regard, which is corroborated by the cell phone bills discussed above, and finds that Brenlla had phone sex with J. B. on numerous occasions. J. B. claimed that he and Brenlla engaged in sexual activities in his apartment, and that it was at this location that they had anal and vaginal intercourse, but only a few times. J. B. testified that these trysts occurred during the day when his father was at work and his mother out running errands. J. B.'s mother, however, testified that she saw Brenlla leaving the apartment on some occasions, and was aware that her son was involved in a sexual relationship with the teacher. The undersigned doubts the reliability of the mother's testimony but finds that, more likely than not, Brenlla visited J. B. at his apartment once or twice and had sexual intercourse with him there. The sexual affair between Brenlla and J. B. continued through the summer months following the 2001-02 school year and even after J. B. started high school in the fall of 2002. Gradually, though, the relationship began to fizzle out. With J. B. attending a different school, the two saw each other less frequently, and they began to fight and argue on the phone. In or around December 2002, Brenlla expressed her desire to end the relationship. The two would have no more contact for nearly four years, until May 2006, when (as found above) J. B. sent Brenlla an e-mail asking her to come to his high school graduation. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Brenlla engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a 14- year-old SED student that lasted for more than six months and included numerous instances of intimate physical contact in addition to many hours of documented telephonic contact. Based on this course of conduct, it is determined that Brenlla is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Mariella Brenlla's employment in the Miami-Dade County Public School System. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2010.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board in July 2006 and assigned to teach at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"). At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The 2010-2011 School Year During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Horace Mann. Dr. Carmen Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011, involving Respondent "yelling," "throwing things around" in her classroom, and making an inappropriate comment to another employee. The reprimand directed Respondent to refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and making inappropriate comments to or about staff members that may be interpreted as offensive or threatening. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent regarding the April 27, 2011, incident, at which time Respondent was directed to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives will be deemed as insubordination which may result in disciplinary action. The 2011-2012 School Year On April 13, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey and Paul J. Greenfield, administrative director for North Regional Center, held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in the cafeteria involving Respondent yelling at and pulling a student by the bottom of her shirt, slinging the student around, and causing the student to fall into a metal counter. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. As a result of the alleged incident, Respondent was suspended without pay for 17 days and informed that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. The 2012-2013 School Year On November 16, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in Respondent's sixth-period class involving a verbal altercation between Respondent and a student during which Respondent used inappropriate language when addressing the student and the entire class. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed of the issuance of a letter of reprimand and that failure to comply with the directives will result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on November 28, 2012, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's sixth-period class. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On March 21, 2013, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013, in which Respondent yelled at the entire class and forcefully moved desks, which caused another desk to hit a student causing the student to lose her balance and injure her arm. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed that failure to comply with the directives will constitute gross insubordination and result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on April 9, 2013, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from losing her temper in class, getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On June 19, 2013, at its scheduled meeting, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing, and, on June 26, 2013, the School Board referred the matter to DOAH. The matter was styled Miami- Dade County School Board v. Shavonne Anderson, DOAH Case No. 13-2414TTS, and assigned to Administrative Law Judge Todd P. Resavage. 2013-2014 School Year On January 14, 2014, following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Resavage issued a Recommended Order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination. Judge Resavage recommended that the School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, suspending her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and placing her on probation for a period of two years. On February 12, 2014, the School Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Resavage's Recommended Order, imposing the suspension without pay for a period of 180 days. Respondent received credit for time served and was reinstated for the 2014-2015 school year. 2018-2019 School Year Respondent was re-assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School for the 2018-2019 school year, where she taught physical science. The proposed discipline is based on conduct occurring on January 31, 2019, during Respondent's fourth-period inclusion physical science class, co-taught by Respondent and another teacher, Joanna Semeniuk. On January 31, 2019, D.A. was a ninth-grade male special education student in the class. During class, D.A. questioned Respondent about the quality of his written work. Displeased with Respondent's answer, a verbal confrontation ensued between D.A. and Respondent. The argument escalated after D.A. stood up, threw his paper on the floor of the classroom, used profane language toward Respondent, and attempted to leave the room. In response to D.A.'s conduct, Respondent became irate, grabbed the paper off the floor, used profane language toward D.A., grabbed D.A. by his shirt, and shoved the piece of paper down his shirt. The incident was witnessed by Ms. Semeniuk and other students in the classroom. Respondent's conduct on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate, disparaging, reflected poorly upon herself and the School Board, and reduced Respondent's ability to effectively perform duties. Respondent could certainly have projected authority and addressed the student's behavior without escalating the situation and resorting to the profane and disparaging verbal attack and initiating inappropriate physical contact with D.A. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Through the profane and disparaging verbal tirade and inappropriate physical contact upon the student on January 31, 2019, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety, intentionally exposing the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and intentionally violating the student's rights. Respondent also violated School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.3., 7., and 8., and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics, Conduct Regarding Students, sections A., E., and F., which mirror rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4) by intentionally refusing to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. By failing to comply with the specific directives detailed above to refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace; refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board, Respondent intentionally refused a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that her language and use of profanity toward her student in the classroom on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate. Specifically, Respondent acknowledged that during the incident she called D.A. a "faggot" and directed the word "shit" toward him. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., or School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.9. and 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension and terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Shavonne L. Anderson 2868 Northwest 197th Terrace Miami Gardens, Florida 33056 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Respondent's recommendation received by the Superintendent made to the School Board that George H. Steel, Petitioner, be terminated for "gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty", as more particularly set forth hereinafter, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the documentary evidence received during the course of the proceedings, the following relevant facts are found. The School Board of Hendry County is the governing body of the school district of Hendry County, and as such, is the employer of all personnel within the school system. Section 230.23, Florida Statutes (1977). James C. Edwards, as the Superintendent of Schools for Hendry County, Florida, is the Chief Executive Officer for the entire school system. (TR. I-20). The Superintendent is charged with the responsibility for controlling and directing all employees of the school system. Subsection 230.33(7)(i), Florida Statutes, (1977). The position of Superintendent of Schools of Hendry County is an elected position. In the November, 1976, general election, George H. Steele, the Petitioner herein, was the incumbent Superintendent. The other candidate in that election was James C. Edwards, who was, at that time, principal in the Hendry County School System under Mr. Steele. Edwards defeated Steel in the election and assumed the office of Superintendent in January, 1977. Upon leaving office as Superintendent, the defeated Mr. Steele was re- employed by the Hendry County School Board and placed in the position of Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the remainder of the school year. The basis of the charge of gross insubordination was as follows: From the months of August through November, 1977, Steele failed to follow specific directives of the Superintendent and School Board policies concerning submitting payrolls through the sub-office. From the months of August through November, 1977, Steele failed to follow procedures for ordering textbooks and other items through the sub-office. During the months of September and October, 1977, Steele failed to secure all doors and gates of the school before going off duty each night as he was directed by the Superintendent and his job description. Steele attempted to undermine the programs of the adult community school by prematurely cancelling classes without proper authorization; improperly discouraging students from registering in the program of the adult community school; complaining about the organization and operation of the school in the presence of students; and being openly hostile and antagonistic toward the coordinator of the community schools. On November 3, 1977, Steele closed the school without authorization and without following the prescribed procedures as set forth in School Board policy. The basis of the charge of willful neglect of duty was as follows: During the months of June through November, 1977, Steele was absent from his assigned work location during the times that he should have been present, such absences not being authorized by duly approved leave. During the month of September, 1977, Steele failed to secure a teacher for a scheduled class and did not inform the coordinator of the unavailability of the teacher. On September 29, 1977, Steele was absent from his assigned work location and was not performing his assigned duties while watching a junior varsity football game with students in the night classes. On December 6, 1977, the School Board suspended Steele without pay pending a hearing on the charges, if requested. On November 29, 1977, prior to the School Board action suspending him without pay, Steele requested a hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act. On April 18, 1977, Mr. Edwards, the new Superintendent, called Mr. Steele in for a conference regarding his assignment for the next school year. Also present at that conference were William Perry (Director of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education) and Thomas Conner (Community School Coordinator). Steele's attitude at that meeting has been characterized as belligerent. (TR I-44-46; TR II-231-234.) He started off the meeting by telling the Superintendent which assignments he would refuse to accept. (TR I- 45; TR II-232.) When the Superintendent informed Steele that he was going to be recommended as principal of the Adult Community School, Steele's reaction was openly hostile. (TR I-46.) Steele appeared at the next School Board meeting to protest his new assignment. At that meeting, he read a prepared statement to the School Board accusing the new Superintendent of "political hatchery". (TR I-49; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) While Steele's right to speak directly to his public employer regarding the operation of the school system is unquestioned, his choice of works and his quarrelsome tone exceeded the bounds of propriety. Although Steel's conduct at this meeting is not cited as grounds for his termination, it is indicative of his attitude, which was repeatedly displayed thereafter, until the Superintendent recommended his dismissal. In August of 1977, when Steele assumed the position of principal of the Adult Community School, his immediate supervisor was Clarence Jones, the new Community School Coordinator. Jones' supervisor was William Perry, Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education. Perry's supervisor, in turn, was Mr. Edwards, the Superintendent. (TR-I-62, 131, 132; TR II-229.) As a result of Steele's desiring a clarification of his duties in his new position, a meeting was held on August 18, 1977, between the Superintendent and Steele. (TR I-52, 174, 175; TR II-236.) Perry and Jones were also present at this meeting. The Superintendent reviewed Steele's job description explaining, item by item, what he expected of Steele in his new assignment. Steele had a copy of the job description before him during this discussion. (TR I-56, 175; TR II-236.) Superintendent Edwards reminded Steele that his office hours were to be from 3:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., and that he must not leave the campus under any circumstances, except in an emergency. (TR I-63, 175, 176; TR II-237.) Whenever it became necessary for Steele to leave the campus--either for emergencies or because he was ill--he was instructed to call Jones, Perry, or the Superintendent before leaving. (TR I-63, 175, 176; TR II-237.) On August 31, 1977, Jones received a call from the Superintendent asking him to meet the Superintendent at the Adult Community School, Clewiston. Jones went to the school and arrived there at approximately 9:58 p.m. Jones and the Superintendent inspected the campus and did not find Steele present. Steele's car was not present. They remained there until approximately 10:30 p.m. (TR I-181.) On September 15, 1977, Jones went to the school at 10:17 p.m. and found all the lights off and nobody there. Steele's car was not present. He stayed there until 10:30 p.m. Steele had not called Jones to tell him that he was leaving that night. (TR I-187 and 188.) On September 19, 1977, Jones went tot he office of the Adult Community School, Clewiston, during the first night of classes to assist in registration. He noticed that on the first night eleven classes had been cancelled. Some of the classes cancelled were some of the most important ones that were offered, such as English, GED, mathematics and drivers education. (TR I-190 and 191.) The proper procedure and the procedure that has always been followed since the beginning of the program under Steele as Superintendent was that registration was to be held open for two weeks. At the end of two weeks, if the class was under the fifteen students that were needed to continue the class, the class would be cancelled after a conference between Perry and Jones. There was no conference to cancel any of the classes, and if any cancellations occurred, they were done without going through Perry and without following the proper procedures. (TR I-194 and 196; TR II-241, 244, 245 and 247.) In September, 1977, Steele changed the course offering of shorthand to speedwriting. (TR II-247 and 247; TR III-18.) The proper procedure for changing a course that had been scheduled would be for the principal, Mr. Steele, to consult with the Coordinator of Community Schools, Mr. Jones, and then consult with the Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, Mr. Perry, and then change the course from what had been offered. Perry had not been consulted before the course was changed from shorthand to speedwriting, but subsequently approved the change after the fact. (TR II-247, 248, 249 and 250.) During the night of registration for the fall term of 1977, Steele was complaining to the students that he did not know what was going on around the adult school and did not have the authority to do anything and did not know what was happening. Steele's attitude toward Jones that night in front of the students was belligerent. (TR I-191 and 201.) On September 20, 1977, the first night that the class of bookkeeping was scheduled to begin, Steele called Jones about 3:40 p.m. and informed Jones that Steele did not have a teacher for the bookkeeping course that was to begin at 7:00 p.m. that night. There were twenty people enrolled in the class. It is the principal's responsibility to be sure that each class that is to be taught has a teacher and it is unusual for a class to start without a teacher, particularly when there are twenty people enrolled in it. Jones had to secure the person to teach the class. (TR I-203, 206; TR II-245.) On September 21, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at 10:00 p.m. and found that Steele was not present. Jones called the Superintendent and the Superintendent arrived at the school at approximately 10:12 p.m. and remained until about 10:30 p.m. During that period of time Steele was not present. (TR I-66 and 213.) On September 22, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at 10:05 p.m. and Steele was not present. Jones and Phifer, the principal of Clewiston High School, walked around the campus to see if they could find Steele, but could not find him. Jones remained there until approximately 10:30 p.m. and Steele was not present. Steele had not called him to inform him that he would not be there. (TR II-9 and 10.) On October 11, 1977, at 10:05 p.m. Jones went to Steele's work location and found that Steele was not on duty. He found the gates were not locked and that both access gates on the north side of the campus were standing open and unlocked. Jones secured the campus and inspected the entire campus, but could not find Steele. There were no cars present at the campus. He was there until around 10:30 p.m. and did not see Steele the entire time. Steele had not called in to say that he would not be there. (TR II-56, 57 and 58.) On October 14, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at approximately 9:30 p.m. and all the lights were out and doors were locked. Steele was not on campus and had not called Jones to say that he would not be there. Jones inspected the campus and did not find Steele. There were no cars on the campus. Jones stayed there for about twenty minutes and Steele did not return. (TR II-59.) On October 21, 1977, Jones went to Steele's work location at 8:30 p.m. and found that Steele was not there. All the doors were locked and lights were out. Steele had not called him about leaving. Jones discovered that Steele had filed a leave form for October 21, 1977, but it was filed in the county office in LaBelle and did not come through the suboffice as instructed by the Superintendent. (TRII-60 and 61.) On November 2, 1977, at 9:55 p.m. Jones went to Steele's work location and Steele was not present. The lights in the office were out and all doors were locked. Jones searched the entire campus and Steele was not there. Jones remained there for about forty minutes. Steele had not called him to say that he would not be there. (TR II-65, 66 and 67.) The Superintendent also directed Steele to send his payrolls through the county sub-office in Clewiston, where Jones maintained an office, rather than directly to the district office in LaBelle. Similarly, the Superintendent directed Steele to send all purchase orders for materials, books and supplies through the county sub0office in Clewiston for Jones' review, rather than directly to the supplier. The Superintendent also directed Steele to send all sick leave forms, whether for himself or his employees, through Jones in the county sub0office in Clewiston. In short, the Superintendent re-emphasized that Jones was Steele's supervisor. Finally, the Superintendent directed Steele to insure that the school plant was secure each night before he left campus. (TR I-64.) At the conclusion of this August 18, 1977, meeting, the Superintendent requested Steele to conform to all School Board policies and all of the orders that he had been given at the conference. There can be little doubt that Steele fully understood the Superintendent's orders. After each item, the Superintendent asked Steele if he understood what he had just been told; on each occasion, Steel acknowledged that he understood his instruction. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239, 240.) In closing, the Superintendent warned Mr. Steele that if he did not follow each and every directive of the Superintendent and adhere to School Board policy, the Superintendent would consider each breach an act of gross insubordination. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239.) Steele indicated that he understood the import of the Superintendent's orders. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239, 240.) The tone of the meeting was very serious and the other administrators present testified that they had no problem understanding exactly what the Superintendent had directed Steele to do. (TR I-178.) Following that August meeting, Steele, based on the acts and conduct set forth above, failed or refused to follow the standards of conduct laid down by the Superintendent, ultimately resulting in the Superintendent's recommendation to the School Board that Steele be terminated for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. The particular conduct by Steel is detailed below. On numerous occasions after the August meeting, Steele left school early without informing Jones, Perry or the Superintendent. (TR I-66, 97, 181, 188, 213; TR II-9, 10, 56-61, 65-67.) He refused to send his payrolls through Jones at the sub-office, but persisted in sending them directly to the county office in LaBelle (TR II-11, 65; Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 & 4), in clear violation of the Superintendent's express orders. He also refused to send his book orders and his requisitions for materials and supplies through Jones, choosing instead to send them directly to the suppliers. (TR II-13, 14,15, 17, 18; Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 3 & 4.) He consistently failed to send his sick leave forms through Jones in the sub-office (TR II-60, 61), as he had been specifically instructed to do. On several occasions, he failed to secure the school plant before leaving the campus. (TR II-56, 57 &58.) In addition to repeatedly disobeying various lawful orders of the Superintendent, Steele openly displayed a hostile and contemptuous attitude toward his supervisors. From the first meeting between Jones and Steele, Steele was contemptuous and hostile toward Jones. (TR I-51.) Jones, as was his practice, recorded those encounters with Steele which he considered out of the ordinary, either favorable or unfavorable. (TR I-141.) Steele's attitude towards his immediate supervisor, Clarence Jones, was particularly disrespectful, discourteous, and belligerent -- not only in private, but in public. On occasion, he would totally ignore Jones in the presence of others, under circumstances where his refusal to acknowledge Jones' presence could reasonably be considered as an attempt to demonstrate his contempt for Jones. On other occasions, Steele displayed open hostility toward his supervisor. For example, he angrily slammed a handful of papers down on his desk and invited Jones outside to settle the matter of who was going to be principal of the school. (TR I-288.) In view of the circumstances, Jones perceived Steel's statement as an invitation to fight; however, Steele -- further displaying his contemptuous attitude toward Jones -- claimed he would never challenge Jones to a fight because he did not feel Jones was a man. (TR III-104, 170.) On another occasion, Steele told Jones' supervisor, Mr. Perry, that he thought Jones was a "pip squeak" and that he "would like to bust him in the mouth" (TR II-260.) Steele's insolent attitude toward Jones became apparent to others, as well. In September, 1977, a student, Margaret DeCastro, wrote a letter to Perry commenting on the rude and disrespectful attitude Steele had displayed toward Jones in her presence. Upon receiving Ms. DeCastro's letter, Perry requested a report from Jones about his relationship with Steel. In response, Jones detailed all the problems he had with Steele up to that point. Perry, in turn, reported this matter to the Superintendent. However, Clarence Jones was not the only administrator to face Mr. Steele's wrath: Steele also acted in a disrespectful manner toward William Perry, who was director of all adult and vocational-technical programs in Hendry County. For example, in the latter part of September, 1977, Steele upbraided Perry in front of several staff members. (TR II 256-260.) Mr. Perry was sufficiently upset by the incident that he wrote a letter to Steele directing him to change his attitude. (TR II-261; Respondent's Exhibit No. 7.) Finally, Steele's hostile, belligerent, and insubordinate attitude extended directly to the Superintendent. In a meeting with Steele on November 7, 1977, in the presence of Perry and Jones, the Superintendent informed Steele that he and Clarence Jones had, on several occasions as set forth above, discovered that Steele was absent from his assigned work location during duty hours. Steele angrily responded that anybody who said that he had not been at his work location when he was supposed to be was "a damn liar and full of shit." (TR II-267.) At that same November meeting, the Superintendent also questioned Steele about closing the adult school on the evening of November 3, 1977, without prior permission from Jones, Perry or Edwards. District policy prohibits principals from closing their schools without first receiving approval from the County office. (TR I-101.) Mr. Steele had been instructed to comply with all School Board policies at the August 18, 1977, meeting between Steele, Edwards, Perry and Jones. (TR I-65, 177; TR II-239.) Steele admitted that he had closed the school that evening; however, he claimed the weather was extremely bad and contended that he was justified in closing the school. (TR I- 102; TR II-73, 266.) While Steele's decision to close the school may have been sound, in view of the weather, he had once again failed to follow School Board policy, and the Superintendent's direct orders that he advise Jones, Perry or the Superintendent of the conditions so that they could make the decision. School Board policy did not give a principal, such as Steele, the discretion to close a school without first consulting with the Superintendent or his delegate. The mere fact that his decision may have ultimately proved proper does not excuse Steele from his obligation to follow the procedures set down by the Superintendent. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A Principal with continuing contract status may be dismissed for gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty. Subsection 231.36(5), Florida Statutes (1977). The harmful effect of an administrator's insubordinate attitude on the operation of the school system has long been recognized. For example, in Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles v. Swan, 250 P.2d 305 (Cal. 2d DCA 1952) the Court, citing precedent, noted: A teacher, and more particularly a principal, in the public school system is regarded by the public and pupils in the light of exemplar, whose words and conduct are likely to be followed by the children taught. An important part of the education of any child is the instilling of a proper respect for authority and obedience to necessary discipline. Lessons are learned from example as well as from percept. The example of a teacher who is continually insubordinate and who refuses to recognize constituted authority may seriously affect the discipline in a school, impairs efficiency and teach children lessons they should not learn. Such conduct may unfit a teacher for service in a school even though her other qualifications may be sufficient. Johnson v. Taft School District, 19 Cal.App. 2d 912, 913; Voorhees, Law of Public Schools, p. 136. Id. at 309 (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the term "gross insubordination" has not yet been defined by Florida courts. However, in conformity with a fundamental rule of statutory construction, the term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Pederson v. Green, 105 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1958). Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976 Ed.) defines "insubordination" as "unwilling to submit to authority." In the context of public education, the term has been defined as: "A constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct or implied order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority." Ray v. Minneapolis Board of Education, 202 N.W. 375, 378 (Minn. 1972). Another Court has stated: Insubordination imports a willful disregard of express or implied directions of the employer, and a refusal to obey reasonable orders. McIntosh v. Abbot, 231 Mass. 180, 120 N.E. 383. A practically indentical definition is found at 21A, Words and Phrases, Insubordination, 554, and was applied to uphold the dismissal of a teacher in Ellenburg v. Hartselle City Board of Education, 349 So.2d 605, 509, n. 2d (Ala.Civ.Appl1977): Insubordination imports willful disregard of express or implied directions or such defiant attitude as to be the equivalent thereto. (emphasis supplied) In the single Florida case construing the term, a teacher's dismissal for insubordination was upheld where he displayed "a disobedience of orders, infractions of rules, or a generally disaffected attitude toward authority." Muldow v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, 189 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Lack of cooperation has been considered "a subtle species of insubordination." School District No. 8 v. Superior Court of Pinal County, 433 P.2d 28, 30 (Ariz. 1977). However, Florida Statutes requires something more than "a subtle species of insubordination" in order to terminate a continuing contract. The Continuing Contract Law says that the attitude or conduct of the educator must be "gross insubordination." Subsection 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1977). The modifier "gross" when used with the term "insubordination" may also be interpreted in its common sense: "glaringly noticeable." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976 Ed.). One Federal Circuit Court, in Horton v. Orange County Board of Education, 464 F.2d 536 (4th Cir. 1972) affirming 342 F.Supp. 1244, construed the following actions as "downright" subordination: A teacher required her students to purchase two paperback books, despite a district policy which prohibited teachers from buying books for use in class or selling books to students, or collecting any fee from students, without first obtaining approval from the local Board of Education. When told of her violation, and informed that she must refund student monies, the teacher allowed a student to sell the book, in an apparent effort to avoid the regulation. 342 F.Supp. at 124. In Delaware, the statutory term analogous to "gross insubordination" is "willful or persistent insubordination", 14 Del. C. Subsection 1411. That term has been judicially defined as: "A constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct or implied order which is reasonable in nature and has been given by and with proper authority." Shockley v. Board of Education, 149 A.2d 331, 334 (Del. Superior Ct., 1959). Although not dealing in those terms, a sensible and workable distinction between simple insubordination and "gross" insubordination is suggested by the Court in Fernald v. City of Ellsworth Superintending School Committee, 342 A.2d 704 (Me. 1975): In short, we are not dealing here with a teacher's ephemeral bad mood, minor clerical omission, or arguable negligence or inattention concerning an incidental matter. Rather, Plaintiff's conduct has the marks of a persistent, sustained, and unreasonable course of defiance. Such an attitude, over a course of time, breaches harmonious relations among colleagues and administrators. Id. at 708 (emphasis added). 1/ In other words, an occasional lapse of decorum or failure to follow orders may not be "gross" insubordination, since it may merely reflect an "ephemeral bad mood" rather than a disaffected attitude toward authority. But, when the misconduct is repeated, the breaches are more likely to be the result of persistent defiance rather than an "ephemeral bad mood." In order to flesh out the concept of insubordination as it applies in the context of public schools, a brief review of the manner in which the term has been applied in several specific cases is helpful. In Ray v. Minneapolis Board of Education, 202 N.W.2d, 375 (Minn. 1972) a "well-qualified Minneapolis high school teacher" (Id. at 377) was discharged for insubordination based upon his refusal to fill out an eight-page form which was part of the curriculum evaluation study conducted by an independent professional group, the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. 1. In Fernald, a teacher had notified the Superintendent that she intended to take leave. When he denied her request, she absented herself from class for two days. Her termination for insubordination was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maine. When Mr. Ray finally completed the form, he failed to answer several questions. A month later, when his principal asked him to fill out a second form, Mr. Ray again left several questions blank and answered some of the questions in an unresponsive fashion. At that point, he told his supervisor to quit harrassing him. Thereafter, Mr. Ray was advised by the Associate Superintendent that his failure to complete the form would be regarded as an act of insubordination. When, in April, Mr. Ray once again refused to complete the from, he was dismissed for insubordination. Even though Mr. Ray had contended that he had a First Amendment right to refuse to fill out the form, the Court found that he was discharged because he deliberately failed to cooperate in a program which was within the scope of his duties as an educator. (Id.) After reviewing the evidence, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that Mr. Ray's refusal to complete the form was insubordinate (Id. at 378). In Calvin v. Rupp, 334 F.Supp. 358 (E.D. Mo., 1971), the Court rejected Mr. Calvin's contention that the true reason for his dismissal was his union organization activities (Id. at 359). Instead, the Corut--after taking testimony--found that Mr. Calvin "was guilty of undermining the school administration and of insubordination." (Id. at 362.) The specific acts of misconduct which the Court found constituted insubordination were his repeated failure to comply with the District policy regarding the report of drug use by students, coupled with his directing the publications class to cease working on the school newspaper. 2/ 2. The specific acts which were cited were: failure to report evidence of student drug activity, an omission which Mr. Calvin knew violated school policy (Id. at 361); notifying the Federal Narcotics Bureau about the suspected drug activity without first notifying the school officials (Id.); conferring with a narcotics agent on school property, without first notifying the school administration (Id.); discussing his suspicions with a student, after having been ordered by Superintendent Rupp "to say nothing further about the incident to anyone." (ID.); and directing his publications class to cease work on the student newspaper (Id. at 362). In Barnes v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board, 548 P.2d. 988 (Oregon Court of Appeals, 1976), a tenured teacher was dismissed for insubordination where, on three separate occasions, he violated district procedures relating to corporal punishment of students. After the first incident, Mr. Barnes was warned by the principal that his conduct did not conform to the district policies. Nevertheless, some three years later, MR. Barnes again violated the district policies. A year later, in May, 1975, Mr. Barnes again punished a student without following the proper procedures. Two weeks later, the Superintendent notified Mr. Barnes that he was recommending his dismissal or insubordination. One other event which occurred between the second and third disciplinary incidents was cited by the Superintendent as evidence of Barnes' insubordination: On or about August 28, 1974, while attending the first day of in-service as a teacher *** you were asked to sign a roster of the record of your attendance. When you were advised it necessary that you do so, you did sign it by scrawling your name completely across the paper and making the remark, 'Give me that thing, and I will sign it for the son-of-a-bitch.' 548 P.2d at 990 n. 4. The Fair Dismissal Appeals Board concurred with the Superintendent and the School Board of Scappoose School District that Mr. Barnes' actions constituted insubordination, and upheld his dismissal. The Court of Appeals of Oregon, in the Opinion cited, affirmed the Appeals Board's action. Id. at 991. In view of the foregoing cases, and the misconduct of Steele cited herein, it is evident that Steele had engaged in a willful and persistent defiance of his duties as laid down by the Superintendent of Schools at the August 18 meeting. Steele's misconduct was exacerbated by his openly hostile and contemptuous attitude toward his immediate supervisor, Clarence Jones, whom he subjected to verbal abuse, snubbing, and even threatened with physical harm. Despite the express orders of the Superintendent, Steele often left school early, occasionally failing to even secure the campus. Apparently, Mr. Steele's defeat at the polls festered within him, and made him unwilling to graciously accept the fact that he was now subject to the direction and control of other administrators, whom he held in contempt. Steele's behavior during the period August through November, 1977, clearly constitutes gross insubordination and justifies his dismissal. As with "gross insubordination", the Florida Legislature failed to define "willful neglect of duty", which is another ground for dismissal under Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (1977). However, the term "neglect of duty", as used in Art. IV, Subsection 7, Fla. Const. (1968) and its predecessor, Art. IV, Subsection 15, Fla Const. (1885), was defined in State, ex rel Hardie v. Coleman, 115 Fla. 119, 155 So. 129 (1934): Failure on the part of a public officer to do and perform some duty or duties laid on him as such by virtue of his office or which is required of him by law. 155 So. at 132 Although both "gross insubordination" and "willful neglect of duty" involve failure to obey orders, the Legislature must have intended some distinction between the terms, or its use of the two terms in Section 231.36 would be redundant. Since the Superintendent of Schools has lawful authority to supervise or provide for the supervision and management of all school district personnel, Subsection 230.33(7), Florida Statutes' failure to abide by his orders would constitute willful neglect, if the failure to obey the orders was intentional, and gross insubordination if the disobedience was attended by disrespect. To avoid the redundancy, then, one must assume that breach of even minor rules could constitute "gross insubordination" where it is repeated, and where the breach is attended by overt defiance or hostility toward one's superiors. For willful neglect of duty, the contemptuous attitude may be lacking, but the rule or order violated must be somewhat more important to the efficient operation of the schools. Thus, for neglect of duty, one should look for the actual harm done; for insubordination, one should look to the attitude displayed towards the employer or supervisor. Statistical evidence is useful in gauging the extent of the harm Steele caused the Hendry County School System, generally, and the adult evening program, particularly, because of his persistent refusal to follow orders. The most telling statistic in this regard is the enrollment of the school before, during, and after Steele's tenure as principal. While Steele was principal of the adult evening school, enrollment in October, 1977, was down 40% from the previous year. The following October, after Steele had departed, enrollment was up over 100% above the level of enrollment for October, 1977. (TR II-84, 85, 88; Respondent's Exhibit No. 5). Thus, there was a severe dip in enrollment under Steele, followed by a significant rise after he left. The loss in enrollment under Steele, which is evidence of his neglect of duties, could logically be attributed to incidents such as the following: On August 17, 1977, Steele displayed his distaste for his new assignment by stating to Jones that he did not intend to be a "flunky" for the Adult Community School Program (TR I-149, 153, 159, 161-162). On September 19, 1977, the first night of registration for the Adult Community School, eleven classes had already been cancelled by Steele, including ones which Jones considered important, such as driver's education, GED, English and mathematics (TR. I-190-191). Even when Steele was Superintendent, classes were not normally cancelled until two weeks after registration night, (TR I-194, 196; TR II-241, 244, 245, 247). Steele changed a course in shorthand to speedwriting without first consulting with Jones or Petty, which was the proper procedure. (TR II-247- 250). More damaging was Steele's apathetic attitude towards the program: On registration night, he openly complained to students that he did not know what was going on around the school and that, in any event, he had no authority to do anything. (TR I-191, 201). Late in the afternoon of the day the bookkeeping class was to begin, Steele informed Jones that he had not yet secured a teacher for the class, even though it turned out that twenty students had already registered. (TR I-203, 206; TR. II-245.) As noted earlier, Steele was absent from school during assigned hours on numerous occasions during the fall of 1977. This, in spite of the Superintendent's direct order that he not leave campus without authorization, even to get a newspaper. (TR I-63, 175, 176; TR II-237.) On October 11, 1977, Steele not only left campus early, he failed to secure the building, as he had been specifically instructed to do. (TR II-59.) In summary, Steele's persistent failure to follow the rules of conduct laid down by the School Board, the Superintendent, or which are obvious requisites of his job as principal constitute willful neglect of duty and justifies his termination under Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. The statutory penalty for "gross insubordination" or "willful neglect of duty" is dismissal. For lesser offenses, lesser penalties may be authorized. However, where a continuing contract principal's misconduct constitutes gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty, as it has in the instant case, dismissal is appropriate. I shall so recommend
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, is is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, District School Board of Hendry County's recommendation that the Petitioner, George H. Steele, be terminated be UPHELD. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Leonard Fleet, Esq. 4001 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 John W. Bowen, Esq. and Andrew B. Thomas, Esq. Rowland, Bowen & Thomas Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 Owen Luckey, Jr., Esq. Post Office Box 865 LaBelle, Florida 33935
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a high-school assistant principal made inappropriate remarks to two female students on campus during school hours, and then later harassed one of them, thereby entitling the district school board to suspend the administrator for 30 workdays without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Anthony C. Brooks ("Brooks") had been employed as either a teacher or administrator in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 23 years. At all times relevant to this case, Brooks was an assistant principal at Miami Jackson Senior High School, where his primary responsibility was discipline. The operative contract of employment between Brooks and the School Board required Brooks to "observe and enforce faithfully the state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and School Board Rules insofar as such laws, rules, regulations, and policies are applicable to the position of employment." Pursuant to the contract, Brooks agreed "to become familiar and comply with state and federal laws, rules, regulations and policies of the School Board and of the Department of Education for which [he] w[ould] be held accountable and subject to[.]" The agreement entitled the School Board to suspend or dismiss Brooks for just cause including "the failure to fulfill the obligations under this Contract." The Alleged Inappropriate Remarks The School Board alleges that on February 12, 2004, Brooks told M. D., a female student, that she should consider becoming a model, and that he would take pictures of her at the beach. The School Board alleges further that, the same day, Brooks separately encouraged another female student, F. J., to think about modeling. The evidence presented at hearing failed persuasively to substantiate these charges. The findings that follow in this section, based on evidence that is in substantial conflict, depict the likeliest scenario derivable from the instant record,1 though the undersigned's confidence in the accuracy of some aspects of this historical narrative is relatively limited.2 On the morning of February 12, 2004, a security monitor called Brooks to a classroom where some students were creating a disturbance. Upon his arrival, the teacher pointed out to Brooks the four students who had been causing problems. Brooks asked them to step outside. One of the four was M. D. Brooks told the students, in effect, to straighten up. In the course of lecturing the students, Brooks said to M. D., "You could be a model or something like that." Brooks was not attempting to proposition M. D. His remark was intended to boost her self-esteem and encourage M. D. to set higher standards of personal behavior for herself. Later that day, Brooks ran into M. D. outside the cafeteria. M. D. was talking to a security monitor, and Brooks overheard her say, "Mr. Brooks said I could be a model." The security monitor loudly and rudely scoffed at that idea. Thereafter, Brooks took M. D. aside, to the doorway of the SCSI (indoor suspension) room, and warned her not to discuss her personal business with everyone. Sometime later (perhaps the same day), Brooks was walking in the cafeteria, and F. J., a friend of M. D.'s, stepped on his foot. F. J. continued on her way without pausing and sat down at a table outside the SCSI room. Brooks walked over to her and invited an apology. F. J. declined. Brooks informed her that he would "model" good manners for her and proceeded to deliver an apology. Then, he left. Soon M. D. and F. J. reported to their cheerleading coach that Brooks had expressed interest in taking them to the beach for a photo shoot. The coach passed this allegation along to the administration, which in turn called the school police and the State Attorney's Office. The prosecutor declined to press criminal charges against Brooks; the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") requested a personnel investigation. Detective Pedro Valdes conducted the investigation. He interviewed M. D., F. J., Brooks, and Trust Counselor Patricia Manson (who disclaimed personal knowledge of the events in dispute). The detective evidently did not believe (or at least gave little weight to) Brooks's denial of wrongdoing, for he determined that the students' statements were sufficiently credible to support the conclusion that Brooks had violated a School Board rule prohibiting improper employee/student relationships. The detective's report announcing that this charge had been "substantiated" was released in July 2004. Having effectively been found guilty by the detective, Brooks was summoned to a conference-for-record ("CFR"), which was held on August 11, 2004. There, Brooks was given an opportunity to deny the charge (but not to confront M. D. and J., whose statements comprised the "evidence" against him). He failed to persuade the administrators that the detective had reached the wrong conclusion. The administrators issued several directives to Brooks, including the following: Refrain from contacting anyone involved in this investigation at any time. Refrain from inappropriate contact and/or comments with students. The Alleged Harassment On August 25, 2004, F. J. came to school dressed inappropriately, in a short skirt and tank top. At the beginning of second or third period, a security monitor named Frantzy Pojo noticed that F. J. was in violation of the dress code and attempted to remove her from class. The teacher refused to let F. J. leave with the security monitor. Faced with the teacher's obstructiveness, Mr. Pojo called Brooks, the assistant principal in charge of discipline whose portfolio included dress code enforcement. Mr. Brooks came to the classroom and spoke with the teacher. He asked that the teacher instruct F. J. to put on a jacket to cover up. The teacher——and F. J.——complied. The very next day, Mr. Pojo spotted F. J. and saw that she was, once again, not dressed appropriately. Mr. Pojo called Brooks to handle the situation. Brooks found F. J. in the library and agreed that she was in violation of the dress code. He observed that two or three other girls were also dressed inappropriately. Mr. Pojo and Brooks escorted these girls to the SCSI room and left them there. Brooks instructed the teacher-in-charge not to suspend the students but rather to let them call their parents and request that appropriate clothes be brought to school. F. J. called her mother and complained that Brooks was harassing her. F. J.'s mother became angry and arranged to meet with the principal, Deborah Love, that afternoon. When F. J., her mother, and Ms. Love met as scheduled, F. J. accused Brooks of having followed her to classes and singled her out unfairly for discipline in connection with the dress code violations. At Ms. Love's request, F. J. submitted written statements concerning the events of August 25 and August 26, 2004.3 Ms. Love believed F. J. and apparently had heard enough. Without investigating F. J.'s allegations or even asking Brooks to respond to them, Ms. Love prepared a memorandum, dated August 27, 2004, in which she charged Brooks with insubordination. Specifically, Ms. Love alleged that Brooks had violated the directive, given at the recent CFR, to refrain from contacting anyone involved in the investigation stemming from the allegation that Brooks had made inappropriate remarks to M. D. and F. J. On or about August 27, 2004, Ms. Love ordered Brooks not to return to campus but instead to report to an alternate worksite pending further action on the charges against him. At its regular meeting on December 15, 2004, the School Board voted to accept the recommendation of OPS that Brooks be suspended without pay for 30 workdays. Ultimate Factual Determinations Brooks's conduct was not shown to have been outside the bounds of accepted standards of right and wrong. He is therefore not guilty of immorality, as that offense is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2). Brooks did not fail to make a reasonable protective effort to guard either M. D. or F. J. against a harmful condition; had he neglected such duty, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not intentionally expose either M. D. or F. J. to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not harass or discriminate against M. D. or F. J. on the basis of any improper consideration, such as race, color, or religion; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not exploit a relationship with either M. D. or F. J. for personal gain or advantage; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not constantly or continually refuse intentionally to obey a direct and reasonable order, which willful defiance, had he shown it, would have constituted "gross insubordination" under Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(4). Brooks did not violate School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, which prohibits unseemly conduct and abusive or profane language. Brooks did not violate School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.09, which prohibits unacceptable relationships and/or communications with students. Accordingly, it is determined that Brooks is not guilty of the charges that the School Board has brought against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order (a) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Brooks without pay and (b) awarding Brooks back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period of 30 workdays, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2014.
