The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, the Palm Beach County School Board (the School Board or Petitioner), had just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a school bus attendant.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. The authority to supervise the school system includes the hiring, discipline, and termination of employees within the school district. Respondent has been a School Board employee since 2000. From 2000 to approximately 2007, she worked as a paraprofessional in the classroom, where her duties included assisting with exceptional education students. In 2007, she moved from the classroom to a position as a bus attendant, again working with exceptional education students as they were transported to and from school. Because of the population she served, her job included making sure that students were secured in their seats, including those who are transported in wheelchairs. As a bus attendant, Respondent was required to attend training each year at the beginning of the school year. The training included the transport of students with disabilities and the management of student conduct. Respondent was also subject to the guidelines contained in the School District of Palm Beach County Bus Drivers and Bus Attendant Handbook (Transportation Handbook), which reflects policies of the Transportation Department of the School Board and has not changed since 2011. She received a copy of the Transportation Handbook and was trained on the rules and procedures it contains. In chapter 2, section 8 of the Transportation Handbook, it states, “[t]he Bus Driver or Bus Attendant do not have the authority to strike or hit a student or to retaliate if struck or hit, but does have the right to reasonably prevent harm to him/herself.” Chapter 6, section 20 includes the following directions: When you are interacting with special needs students it is important to find out if the student understands that her/his actions are inappropriate or unsafe. It may be that the behavior is related to the particular disability and is not willful or intended behavior. If the disability is at the root of the student’s behavior, discipline may not be appropriate. * * * The bus attendant, as well as the Bus Driver, should learn the names of all students on the bus. Greet them kindly each day. Inquire about how they are feeling, how that did in school that day, etc. Let them know you care about them as people. This helps to set a pleasant and positive tone for the bus trip. Respondent also received training on the School Board’s Code of Ethics Policy, as well as receiving a copy of the policy itself. On April 27, 2010, Respondent electronically signed the Code of Ethics Acknowledgement Receipt indicating that she had received the training and read, understood, and agreed to comply with School Board Policy 3.02, the Code of Ethics. Policy 3.02 specifically defines unethical conduct as including committing any act of child abuse, including physical or verbal abuse; committing any act of cruelty to children or any act of child endangerment; and engaging in misconduct that affects the health, safety, and welfare of a student. Respondent worked on the Royal Palm School route. Royal Palm School is a school that is restricted to special needs students with significant cognitive and physical impairments. All bus routes for Royal Palm School require the use of bus attendants to assist with the students. Respondent chose the Royal Palm School bus route in order to work with Vernessa Edwards, a bus driver with whom Respondent worked for over two and a half years. She was working with Ms. Edwards the day of the incident giving rise to these proceedings. M.S.H. is a special needs student on the Royal Palm School bus route. M.S.H. is approximately 18 years old and suffers from an autism spectrum disorder. He is a large, muscular young man and is non-verbal. At the time of the incident giving rise to this case, M.S.H. was a fairly new student on Respondent’s bus. However, in the short time that he had ridden the bus, he had exhibited some disruptive behavior and both Respondent and Ms. Edwards were somewhat afraid of him. His prior behavior had led Ms. Edwards and Ms. Alexander to request that he ride the bus with a harness in order to restrict his movement. Their request had been added to his IEP (Individual Education Plan), but the harness provided was too small for M.S.H. As a result, while his movement was restricted, it was not as restricted as it would have been if the harness had fit him properly. M.S.H.’s shoes also were removed while he was on the bus in order to prevent him from throwing them to get attention. On October 29, 2015, M.S.H. was a student on the Royal Palm School route in the afternoon. Ms. Edwards had instructed Respondent not to seat any student in front of M.S.H. because of his aggressive behavior. Despite this instruction, Respondent placed a younger female student on the bench directly in front of M.S.H. Bus attendants are instructed to sit at the back of the bus, so that the adults on the bus are in different locations. This policy is implemented so that, in the event that there is an accident, at least one adult would be likely to be available to assist the students. Respondent did not follow this policy, but instead sat near the front of the bus, next to the younger student on the bench in front of M.S.H. At the beginning of the bus route, M.S.H. was fairly quiet. He was carrying a baggie filled with cereal, and seemed content. However, several minutes into the bus route, M.S.H. started rocking back and forth in his seat, and then began banging on the bus window. M.S.H. started flailing his arms around, and tried to reach toward Respondent to hit her with his baggie of cereal. Ms. Edwards called the dispatch officer to report the behavior. At first Respondent ignored him, and stood up to let other students off the bus. When she sat down, she continued to ignore him until he hit her with the cereal baggie. Respondent then snatched the baggie out of his hand, looked at him and after a moment returned the baggie to him. M.S.H. then sat in his seat, relatively quiet, for the next two minutes: however, while Respondent and Ms. Edwards assisted a wheelchair-bound student to exit the bus, M.S.H. resumed hitting the window. Soon after the bus resumed forward motion, M.S.H. once again hit the window, and then started reaching for Respondent with both hands. Respondent made no attempt to soothe him. Instead, she stood up and said to him, in an angry voice, “keep your hands to yourself!” M.S.H. responded by hitting her with the baggie of cereal and by reaching forward over the back of Respondent’s seat toward the young girl sitting next to Respondent. Once again, there was no attempt by Respondent to calm M.S.H. To the contrary, Respondent responded by punching M.S.H., three to four times and yelling at him. While Respondent does not dispute hitting M.S.H., she does not take responsibility for her actions and does her best to minimize them. She claims that hitting the student was not intentional and that it was “just a tap.” The undersigned has viewed the videos of the bus trip several times. It was no tap, and the action taken was definitely deliberate. Respondent hit M.S.H. so forcefully that the sound of the impact could be heard clearly on the bus surveillance tapes, as taken from the front, back, and middle of the bus. Respondent claimed that she was defending the little girl sitting in front of M.S.H. because he had hit her, and the child had cried out. While M.S.H. did reach over the seat toward the younger student, he did not make contact with her because of his harness, and she did not cry out. Respondent also stated that she had never before hit a child on the bus. Respondent has a short memory. The District also presented the bus video from October 21, 2015, slightly more than a week earlier. On that day, Respondent was strapping the wheelchair of another disabled student into place. While she was securing the wheelchair, she was standing to the side of the child’s wheelchair, leaning over him with her arms on either side of him. In short, while perhaps necessary, Respondent was definitely invading the child’s personal space. The child pushed against Respondent’s hand, and Respondent slapped him, telling him not to touch her. There was nothing soothing in the way she reacted to this child, just as there was nothing soothing in the way she reacted to M.S.H. When Respondent denied at hearing that she had ever slapped a child before hitting M.S.H., she was asked about the encounter with the wheelchair-bound child from the week before. The following exchange took place: Q. So, Ms. Alexander, you admit that you hit student M.S.H.? A. Yes. Q. And you hit him more than once? A. Yes. Q. And although you claim it’s not intentional; that it was a reflex, you actually hit him four times? A. I didn’t know how many time I hit him. Like his, to myself I counted four time. I don’t know how many time I did it. It was a quick reaction. I don’t know how many time I did. But I do admit it, that I hit him. Q. But you saw the video? A. I saw it. I was shocked. Q. And you had the opportunity to view the entire video? A. With you, yes. Q. And based on what you saw, it wasn’t a reflex, was it? A. Yes. Lord as my witness, yes. Q. So your reflex was to hit him. But you saw the video. It was more – it was more – A. I know it. When it happened I didn’t know until I saw the video because I did it so fast. Q. You just testified that you were shocked? A. I was shocked. Lord as my witness, I was shocked. Q. You were shocked by your own behavior? A. My own behavior, yes. Q. You testified earlier that you’ve never slapped a student before? A. Never slapped a student before, yes. Q. But in my office you also saw the video that’s been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 20-B where you said the other student in the wheelchair, M, and the video shows you slap his hand and you said don’t touch me? A. I didn’t hear that, but if you said it, it happen. Q. But you saw the video, and you slapped his hand? A. I’m always hitting him like that. I’m with him like that, and he like to kick his feet like that. So it’s your normal course to slap the students like that? A. No, no. I play with him, tease with him. I don’t know-–it just a way I interact with him. There was nothing playful about the way Respondent slapped this child’s hand. Moreover, Ms. Edwards’ reaction when Respondent hit M.S.H. does not reflect the surprise or shock that one would expect if Respondent had in fact never previously slapped a child. Instead, Ms. Edwards’ expression could be described as resigned dismay, more indicative of someone who had, sadly, seen this behavior before, and was hoping not to see it again. Ms. Edwards reported the incident with M.S.H. to her superiors. As a result, Respondent was reassigned from her position as a bus attendant and had no further contact with students. It does not matter whether Respondent’s behavior toward M.S.H. was the first time or the fortieth time she had acted this way. A single case of slapping a child in the manner that Respondent slapped M.S.H. is just cause for termination. While the School Board’s collective bargaining agreement provides for progressive discipline, there is authority for termination where the conduct for which discipline is sought is sufficiently egregious. Respondent had no prior formal discipline, although she had on two occasions received formal counseling and directives regarding aggressive behavior toward co- workers that would violate the School Board’s Code of Ethics Policy. Dr. Elvis Epps, the School Board’s human resources manager, testified that based on the investigation into Respondent’s behavior toward M.S.H., the superintendent recommended that she be terminated because her actions represented a real and immediate danger to the students in the school district and a flagrant and purposeful violation of the reasonable rules of the School Board. Dr. Robert Avossa was hired as superintendent of schools for the school district in June 2015. Since his employment as superintendent, the School Board has consistently terminated employees who have hit a student. It is common knowledge for employees of the School Board that hitting a student is grounds for termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order determining that just cause exists for a 15-day suspension without pay and termination of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Dismissal from Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public school operations in Palm Beach County. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school bus attendant since January 25, 2006. She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these proceedings. As a school bus attendant employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the SEIU/Florida Public Services Union (SEIU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and SEIU (SEIU Contract). Article 7 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Employees Contractual Rights." Section 2 of this article provides as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee status shall be continuous unless the Superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). In the event the Superintendent seeks termination of a continuous employee, the School Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined in accordance with Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). Article 8 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Management Rights," and it provides, in pertinent part, that the School Board has the right "to manage and direct its employees, establish reasonable rules and procedures, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." As is its right under Article 8 of the SEIU Contract, the School Board has established requirements for its school bus attendants. These requirements are set forth in a School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook (SDSBA Handbook) distributed to each and every school bus driver and school bus attendant employed by the School Board. The SDSBA Handbook provides, in pertinent part, as follows: X. Transportation of Exceptional Students by School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants * * * B. Bus attendant shall be assigned to ESE routes when necessary and when possible. . . . * * * D. The ESE Bus Attendant * * * . . . . His regular assigned seat should be at the rear of the bus to facilitate student observation and behavior management. Assists the bus driver, parents, and school personnel in loading and unloading students at bus stops and school centers, as necessary and as directed. . . . 5. Assists the bus driver and students in following the school bus rules and procedures. * * * Assures that all seat belts, wheelchair securements, and occupant restraints are put away or locked in the seats when not in use to avoid safety hazards. Shall be alert to student passenger needs at all times, getting up to assist students in route, providing directions to students, and maintaining order. However, unless attending to a student's needs, the attendant shall remain seated at the rear of the bus when the bus is in motion. * * * 11. Performs other relevant duties as required, such as securing wheelchairs, securing students in their occupant restraints, cleaning up students, helping the driver clean up the bus, putting windows up and down, safely securing carry-on items, securing wheelchair trays, and assisting the driver in performing the Pre-Trip and Post- Trip Inspections. * * * 14. Shall be thoroughly familiar and perform in accordance with the training Handbooks of this School District: School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook; and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook. The Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, which is referenced in the SDSBA Handbook, stated the following, among other things, regarding the job responsibilities of "ESE Bus Attendants": Overview of the Job of the Bus Attendant . . . . The Bus Attendant assists the Bus Driver with bus cleanliness, emergency situations, pre-trip and post-trip bus safety inspections, and knowing the route. * * * Preparing for Daily Trips * * * Check the wheelchair securement and occupant restraints for proper functioning. . . . Help the Bus Driver perform the pre-trip inspections. Help the Bus Driver clean up the bus. * * * Safely secure any loose items. Make sure that seat belts, wheel chair securements, and occupant restraints are put away or locked in the seats when not in use in order to avoid hazards. Working with Students A major duty that is required of a Bus Attendant is to care for students while they are on the bus. This means that you are to get out of your seat as necessary to be sure that students are safe, following the bus rules, and are not in any physical, health, or medical danger. You also must assist the Bus Driver, parents, and school personnel with loading and unloading of students at bus stops and school centers. You will do this as necessary and as directed. Specifically Bus Attendants must: Assist all pre-school students up and down the bus stairwell. Assist physically impaired students up and down the bus stairwell. Help any student who needs your assistance getting onto/off the bus. Open and close the bus lift door and assist students who are in a wheelchair onto/off the lift in the absence of a parent or school person, or when a parent/guardian cannot help due to extenuating circumstances. Operate the wheelchair lift. Secure wheelchairs, and secure students in their occupant restraint systems. Clean up students and the bus when students have soiled themselves. Help the students to follow the bus rules and procedures. Be alert to student passenger needs at all times. Give assistance to students, provide direction to them and help to maintain order on the bus. * * * Where you place yourself on the bus is important. It is generally recommended that a Bus Attendant sit at the back of the bus, which allows you to watch the students in front of you. . . . Article 17 of the SEIU Contract addresses "[d]iscipline of [e]mployees" and provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Union, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of the Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written charge of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee as soon as possible after the investigation has begun. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Union representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Union representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article and his/her Union representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and the Union representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited if these previous actions are reasonably related to the existing charge. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Article, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay, or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent and final action taken by the District. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable School Board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee, unless, there is another reasonably related act by the same employee within a twenty four (24) month period. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file upon a receipt of a copy to the employee by certified mail. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay by the School Board may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Article. The notice and specifics of the suspension shall be placed in writing, dated, and signed by the giver of the suspension and a copy provided to the employee by certified mail. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Chapter 119 and 231.291 of the Florida Statutes. An employee may be dismissed when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable law. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has/have been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. However, if the disciplinary action(s) is/are to be taken by the District, then the employee shall have a choice of appeal between either the Department [sic] of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Florida Statutes or the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Such choice must be exercised within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notification of disciplinary action being taken, and the District notified accordingly. If the grievance procedure is selected, the grievance shall be initiated at Step Three. Respondent has been disciplined by the School Board on previous occasions for failing to properly perform her job duties as an ESE school bus attendant. On August 26, 2008, Respondent received a verbal reprimand with written notation "for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under [her] care as a bus attendant." The letter advising her of such disciplinary action read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a verbal reprimand with written notation for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under your care as a bus attendant. Specifically, on June 6, 2008, during your pre-disciplinary meeting you stated that you take a nonprescription medication that makes you sleepy. Furthermore, the review of two (2) videos from buses that you served as an attendant revealed you were asleep and not seated in the rear of the bus while students were being transported. Additionally, these acts w[ere] confirmed by Ms. Evangelina Patterson who stated that you have fallen asleep on every route that you served as an attendant on her bus. Your conduct reflects a failure to exercise the best professional judgment. In addition, you compromised the safety and well-being of a student that you were responsible for monitoring by failing to be alert and properly positioned to carry out your duties as an attendant. This behavior is not permissible according to The School District of Palm Beach County, Transportation Department School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, Sec. X D.8 and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Attendants Handbook Chapter II. Furthermore, you are directed to desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. This letter of verbal reprimand with written notation will be placed in your District personnel file. Please be advised that the above referenced case and related investigative file is considered to be closed. Pursuant to Section 1012.31, Florida Statutes, when an investigation is concluded, all materials related to the investigation shall be treated as a public record, subject to disclosure upon request, minus any allowable exemptions. In addition, you have the right to inspect this public record and to submit any written rebuttal information for enclosure into the public record within ten days after receipt of this letter. On October 28, 2008, Respondent was given a written reprimand "for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under [her] care as a bus attendant." This written reprimand was in the form of a letter, which read as follows This correspondence is being given to you as a written reprimand for failing to ensure the safety and well-being of students under your care as a bus attendant. Specifically on October 22, 2008, during your pre- disciplinary meeting you stated that you were not fully alert while serving as an attendant on Route E536. Furthermore, a review of the video from this bus revealed that you were asleep while students were being transported. Your conduct reflects a failure to exercise the best professional judgment. In addition, you compromised the safety and well-being of a student that you were responsible for monitoring by failing to be alert and properly positioned to carry out your duties as an attendant.. This behavior is not permissible according to The School District of Palm Beach County, Transportation Department School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook, Sec. X D.8 and Special Needs Student Transportation Bus Drivers and Attendants Handbook Chapter II. Furthermore, you are directed to desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. This written reprimand will be placed in your District personnel file. Please be advised that the above referenced case and related investigative file is considered to be closed. Pursuant to Section 1012.31, Florida Statutes, when an investigation is concluded, all materials related to the investigation shall be treated as a public record, subject to disclosure upon request, minus any allowable exemptions. In addition, you have the right to inspect this public record and to submit any written rebuttal information for enclosure into the public record within ten days after receipt of this letter. Notwithstanding (and in brazen disregard of) the reasonable directive contained in this written reprimand that she "desist from engaging in the same or similar actions in the future," less than three months later, on the morning of January 22, 2009, Respondent was once again inattentive while on duty as an ESE school bus attendant. The bus to which she was assigned that morning was Bus #0691, which was driven by Evangelina Patterson. There was an operational video camera (with audio), mounted in the front of the interior of the bus, which captured what occurred on the bus that morning. At 8:08 a.m., Bus #0691 arrived at the school to which the three students then on the bus were being transported. The students unfastened their seat belts, got out of their seats, and exited the bus. Instead of escorting the students off the bus, Respondent stayed in her seat, put her jacket over her face, and leaned her head against the window in an admitted effort to get some rest. She remained essentially in this position for at least the next 18 minutes, keeping her jacket over her face the entire time, except for a brief moment (at approximately 8:16 a.m.) when, startled by a tap on the leg from the driver, Ms. Patterson, who was trying to rouse her, she temporarily removed the jacket. During this 18-minute period, without Respondent's assistance, Ms. Patterson did her post-trip inspection and readied the bus for its next trip that morning. On this next trip, the bus picked up three students and transported them to their high school. For at least the last seven or eight minutes of the trip, none of the three students was wearing a seat belt, a situation that Respondent did nothing, during that time period, to try to correct. One of the three unbelted students (seated three rows in front of Respondent) had his back facing the window and his left lower leg and foot in the aisle. The student's book bag was also in the aisle, immediately next to his left foot, so that the entire width of the aisle was blocked. For almost all of this seven or eight-minute period at the end of the trip, Respondent's eyes were closed and her head was bobbing back and forth. She had no interaction with the students on the bus. After the bus arrived at the school, Respondent walked behind the students as they exited the bus. As she passed by the camera in the front of the bus, Respondent looked like she had just woken up, with her eyes appearing to be adjusting to the light. Respondent has demonstrated, through her actions, that she cannot be depended upon to be alert and attentive at all times while on duty and to otherwise discharge her job responsibilities as a school bus attendant in a manner that will ensure the safety of the students in her care and that will not expose the School Board to liability. Consequently, her continued employment as a school bus attendant constitutes a real and immediate danger to the School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 23rd day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Vicki L. Evans-Pare, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Aikeea Howell 5145 Caribbean Boulevard, Apt. 1027 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Bay County School Board (School Board), had just cause under Subsection 1012.67, Florida Statutes (2008), to terminate the employment of Respondent, Thomas Walker, because of his absence without leave.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed under a Professional Services Contract and teaches at Bozeman School in Bay County. Respondent, without approval or notice to the administrator or staff of Bozeman School, failed to appear for his teaching assignment in the latter part of November 2008. After repeated attempts to reach Respondent, Dr. Tommye Lou Richardson, Director of Human Resources for Bay District Schools, ascertained that Respondent was incarcerated in the Coffee County Jail in New Brockton, Alabama, for his failure to pay child support. Respondent's absence was willful and without approved leave.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent and finding that he has forfeited any compensation since January 14, 2009, the date of his suspension without pay by the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy Duncan & Jackson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402-1579 J. E. Sawyer, Esquire 203 South Edward Street Enterprise, Alabama 36330 Thomas Walker 26802 Highway 69A, North Altha, Florida 32421 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William V. Husfelt, Superintendent Bay County School Board 1311 Balboa Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401-2080
Conclusions On October 27, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) with the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) entered her ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION (“DOAH ORDER”) to the Madison County School Board (the “SCHOOL BOARD” or the “BOARD”) in the above captioned proceeding. A copy of the DOAH ORDER is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The DOAH ORDER indicates that copies were sent to counsel for the SCHOOL BOARD, George T. Reeves, Esq., and counsel for the Petitioner, NEW MILLENNIUM CHARTER SCHOOL, (the “CORPORATION”). The DOAH ORDER was stipulated to by the parties. This matter is now before the SCHOOL BOARD for final agency action.
The Issue As stipulated by the parties, the issue in this case is whether there is “just cause” to terminate the employment of Patricia Davis.
Findings Of Fact The School Board employs Ms. Davis as a bus paraprofessional. Ms. Davis has satisfactorily served the School Board as a bus paraprofessional for approximately ten years, without any significant discipline. Ms. Davis is a continuing status employee. Ms. Davis is covered by the CTA-CU bargaining unit Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). During the 2009-2010 school year, until February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis was assigned to regularly work on bus number 2407. Ms. Marvel Ann Figueroa was the driver regularly assigned to bus number 2407. During the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Davis was assigned to supervise Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students during transport to and from school on bus number 2407. During the 2009-2010 school year, until February 8, 2010, C.P.2/ was regularly transported on bus number 2407, to and from Palm Pointe Educational Research School (Palm Pointe). C.P. is a student with autism. During the 2009-2010 school year, until February 8, 2010, C.P. was under Ms. Davis’ supervision during transport on bus number 2407. Ms. Davis was aware that C.P. was non-verbal. Ms. Davis recognized that student C.P. was an ESE student with autism. Ms. Davis knew that C.P. was required to use a safety harness/E-Z vest during transport. As required by School Board rules, C.P.’s Emergency Information ESE Bus Form was provided to the staff on bus number 2407, and located on the bus on February 8, 2010. The form provided minimal information. It provided family information and contact numbers. A block labeled "Non-verbal" is checked. In a space labeled "Special instructions for Dealing with Student," one word appears: "Autism." In the "Special Bus Equipment" section, "E-Z on Vest" is checked. School officials knew that within the past two years C.P.’s behavior included vigorous head banging. They also knew that within the past two years C.P. had worn a protective helmet. C.P.’s educational plans included techniques developed to manage head banging and other self-injurious behavior. The school did not inform Ms. Davis of the history of head banging or of the risk of the behavior. This information did not appear on the ESE form. The School Board did not provide the bus with a helmet or other protective or cushioning gear. On February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis was working on bus number 2407. On the morning of February 8, 2010, before boarding students, Ms. Davis performed the pre-trip inspection required by her job duties. It included verifying that the seat belts were securely attached to the seats and that all seat belts were in working condition. Ms. Davis was not feeling well that morning. But she chose to work rather than call in sick. This was poor judgment that contributed to the events of the morning. Ms. Davis and the driver, Ms. Figueroa, discussed Ms. Davis’ illness. They agreed that Ms. Figueroa would get off the bus to escort the children to their seats. This service was a responsibility of Ms. Davis, the bus paraprofessional. On the morning of February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis sat at the front of the bus. Her training and instructions said that the aide was to sit at the back of the bus. But the Transportation Director had repeatedly approved seating charts for the bus that showed Ms. Davis sitting at the front. Consequently, the School Board had authorized Ms. Davis to sit in the front. Ms. Davis’ job duties also required her to constantly monitor the students. Although Ms. Davis periodically looked around to check on the students, she did not maintain a constant view of them. Due to her illness, Ms. Davis struggled to stay awake. Her head nodded and her eyes periodically closed momentarily. Ms. Davis was fighting sleep. She never fell completely asleep. But she did not maintain constant observation of the students. C.P. and three other students were riding bus number 2407 on the route to Palm Pointe the morning of February 8, 2010. Ms. Figueroa properly placed C.P. in his E-Z vest and secured him by his harness in the middle seat of his bus seat row. He was not seated beside the window. During the ride to Palm Pointe, C.P. became upset. He began engaging in self-stimulatory behavior, looking out the window, shaking his hands, and rocking back and forward in his seat. The self-stimulatory behavior was intermittent. This behavior, while often and typically exhibited by autistic children, was more vigorous behavior than C.P. had previously exhibited while riding the bus. As the drive to Palm Pointe continued, C.P. began to hit his hands and then his head against the side of the bus and the bus window. He rocked back and forward in his seat. He leaned and rocked from side to side as he banged his head on the bus window. This behavior continued for about eight minutes. Before that day, C.P. had never exhibited those behaviors while riding the bus. On February 8, 2010, C.P. had been riding bus number 2407, since the beginning of the school year, about six months earlier. Ms. Davis and the bus driver noticed the behavior quickly. They were very concerned about C.P.'s behavior and safety, as well as the safety of the other children on the bus. The bus driver could not pull over, because of the traffic conditions and restrictions resulting from the roads on which she was driving. Ms. Davis did not move C.P. farther away from the window. Unfastening C.P. from his harness and attempting to move him would have been dangerous for him and for the others on the bus. Ms. Davis and Ms. Figueroa were panicked and frightened. They discussed what steps they could take. They were hesitant to physically approach C.P. because they remembered being told in training that physical efforts to control a child with autism would likely cause them to become more violent. Ms. Davis’ training required her to seek help from a manager if she did not know how to handle a situation. Throughout the bus ride on February 8, 2010, as the situation worsened, Ms. Davis never used the available cell phone to seek assistance from a manager. Near the end of the ride, C.P.’s head banging broke the window and cut C.P. He began bleeding, but not profusely. Ms. Davis got the phone number of C.P.’s mother from the ESE form and called her. C.P.’s mother asked them to continue to the school and said she would meet them there. Ms. Davis’ call for assistance came too late. Her failure to promptly seek assistance was a neglect of her duties and a failure to exercise sound professional judgment. As the bus pulled in and stopped at the school, C.P. calmed. Ms. Davis approached him and comforted him verbally and physically. Other school employees boarded the bus and escorted C.P. off where his mother met him. The emergency intervention duties of a bus paraprofessional, like Ms. Davis, include providing ESE students physical assistance, if needed, during an emergency. Ms. Davis had seen C.P. mildly agitated before February 8, 2010. But there is no persuasive evidence that his actions included banging his head against the window or anything else, or that he had previously engaged in any self-injurious activities in Ms. Davis' presence. C.P.'s activities when agitated had included rocking, jerking, rubbing his fingers together, and humming. These are all typical self-calming behaviors shown by individuals with autism. They were not unusual for a student with C.P.'s disability. The behaviors were to be expected and would not have triggered concerns sufficient to report the behavior. In the past when C.P. became agitated, Ms. Davis had calmed him by offering cookies and speaking quietly to him. On February 8, 2010, these techniques worked briefly. C.P. paused his head banging, but then resumed. During Ms. Davis’ ten years of employment, the School Board provided her 92 hours of job-related training, an average of 9.2 hours per year. Of that, 20 hours were her initial training. Ms. Davis attended the classes and successfully completed them. The instruction covered a wide range of topics including equipment, procedures for emergencies, such as traffic accidents, school board policies, and employee relations. The training provided by the School Board included initial and refresher training in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). Ms. Davis' most recent CPI training was August, 2007. She successfully completed it. The CPI training is general and addressed a range of situations. It includes training in verbal and non-verbal techniques. The techniques range from soothing and calming to physical restraint. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the CPI or other training specifically addressed the unique problems and dangers presented by a student in need of physical restraint in a moving vehicle. The testimony of School Board witnesses who reviewed the video tape of the incident and the reports highlighted the difficulty of the situation. The School Board witnesses believed that C.P. was sitting in a window seat and said Ms. Davis should have relocated him. Other School Board witnesses, and common sense, more reasonably maintained that trying to relocate a physically agitated student in a moving bus would endanger him and the other passengers. The CPI training did not include techniques specific to the unique issues presented by students with autism. It did not provide information about how to address head banging or suggest techniques such as cushioning the blows’ impact when a person is banging his head against a hard object. Typically, the school’s training involved two days of in-service presentations about general issues, transportation, student and personnel issues, including School Board policy, equipment, safety, and duties of bus drivers and aides. The training in aggregate provided little specific information about students with autism and nothing useful about ways to manage behavior such as that exhibited by C.P. on February 8, 2010. The School Board provided Ms. Davis training in non- violent crisis intervention. It involved techniques for dealing with children who are acting out in an aggressive or violent manner. The training did not emphasize or focus on issues involving behavior of students with autism. It presented techniques as equally applicable and effective for all student populations, including ESE students with autism. The training, however, provided that employees should call their manager for assistance when faced with a problem they cannot handle. Autism presents widely varied types of behavior. The crisis intervention techniques suggest engaging students in conversation and establishing a relationship with them through verbal interaction. This is not particularly useful or instructive in dealing with situations concerning non-verbal children. One of the district's training documents is titled "How well do you KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT ?????." This training document is a representative sample of the training material that the district relies upon as having prepared Ms. Davis for the student's head banging. The information it provided did not. This is all the document had to say about possible behaviors of children with autism and how to react to them. Child may not be able to voice his/her discomfort, this may be apparent by different types of behavior: Rocking Banging with head or hands Biting Yelling, etc. In retrospect things could be fine, and child may exhibit inappropriate language and behavior. Modification training may be required to minimize their actions and reactions, to a more acceptable behavior. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY The information in other training materials is similarly non-specific and not helpful in the emergency Ms. Davis faced. The CBA states: “[a]ny member of the Classified Unit may be dismissed by the School Board during his/her term of appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, for “just cause.” The CBA defines “just cause” to include “insubordination; neglect of duty; unsatisfactory work performance; and violation of School Board Policy and/or Rules . . .”. School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), provides a non-inclusive list of infractions that support disciplinary action. They include: neglect of duty; violation of any rule, policy, or regulation; sleeping during working hours; violation of safety rules; violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession; violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; violation of the Standards of Competent and Professional Performance; and violation of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and employees. The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001), and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006) require Ms. Davis to have concern for the students as her primary professional concern; to seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity; and to make reasonable efforts to protect students from harmful conditions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered pursuant to section 435.06, suspending Respondent, Patricia Davis, from employment for a period of one year, starting November 9, 2010. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2011.
The Issue (1) Whether facts and circumstances demonstrate the existence, on August 20, 2019, of an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students of Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc.-5422 d/b/a "Championship Academy" ("Championship") justifying the immediate termination of its charter by the Broward County School Board ("School Board") pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c); and (2) whether the School Board formulated one or more agency statements that constitute unadopted rules, in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), and applied one or more of those unadopted rules as the basis for its agency action immediately terminating Championship's charter.1 1 Championship's rule challenge petition, as filed, also challenged an adopted School Board rule under section 120.56(3). This challenge was abandoned at the beginning of the final hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Championship is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that holds the charter for numerous charter schools throughout Florida, including in Broward County, Florida. Championship was the holder of the charter for Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was immediately terminated by the School Board on August 20, 2019.4 Pursuant to Article IX, section 4 of the Florida Constitution, the School Board is the political subdivision that operates, controls, and supervises all district public schools in Broward County, Florida.5 3 CS for CS Senate Bill 7030 (2019) substantially amended section 1006.12, Florida Statutes, regarding safe-school officers. This legislation was published as chapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) and has been codified in numerous Florida Statutes, including section 1006.12. 4 For purposes of this Final Order, including the stipulated facts, all references to "Championship" are to the Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was terminated on August 20, 2019. 5 The School Board is an educational unit, as that term is defined in section 120.52(6), and, therefore is an "agency" for purposes of chapter 120. Pursuant to section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, the charter termination proceeding is conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and In Florida, charter schools are nonsectarian public schools that operate pursuant to a charter contract with a public sponsor. § 1002.33(1), Fla. Stat. In this case, the School Board is the sponsor for Championship. Stipulated Facts At a regularly scheduled meeting, the School Board approved a renewal Charter School Agreement (the "charter"), dated April 5, 2016, with Championship. The charter became effective on July 1, 2016, for a term of five years. At a regularly scheduled meeting on August 20, 2019, the School Board voted to immediately terminate Championship's6 charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). As the basis for its action, the School Board concluded that the particular facts and circumstances indicated that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students existed on that date, due to Championship's failure to comply with and implement the requirements of section 1006.12, by failing to arrange for the assignment of one or more safe-school officers for the protection and safety of students, school personnel, and property, without interruption, during all school hours of every school day, and for repeatedly allowing a licensed security guard other than a safe-school officer to possess a firearm on Championship's campus in violation of section 790.115(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The School Board's notice of termination of the charter was delivered to Championship on August 22, 2019. The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for the students at Championship was Wednesday, August 14, 2019. Students attended classes at Championship on Wednesday, August 14, through and including Friday, 120.57(1). Additionally, pursuant to section 1001.41(2), Florida Statutes, the School Board is required to adopt its policies pursuant to the rulemaking procedure in section 120.54. 6 In the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the parties interchangeably refer to "Championship" and the "Charter School." For consistency, the stipulated facts in this Final Order are modified to refer to "Championship." August 16, 2019, and on Monday, August 19, through Thursday, August 22, 2019. Pursuant to section 1022.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes, the School Board assumed operation of Championship after it immediately terminated Championship's charter. On August 14, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 15, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 14, 2019, Detra Adams observed a person sitting behind the front desk at the Charter School. Championship's principal, Todd Dupell, told her that that person was an armed guard. On August 15, 2019, starting at approximately 2:37 p.m., a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus. A police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus during all school hours on Friday, August 16, 2019; during all school hours on Monday, August 19, 2019; and during all school hours on Tuesday, August 20, 2019. On August 19, 2019, Broward County Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie, Leslie Brown, and School Board Deputy General Counsel Robert Vignola received a copy of an email dated August 16, 2019, from Davie Police Department Captain Christopher Chastain to Todd Dupell, stating, in part: We will meet with the Town Administrator Monday morning to finalize everything. In the interim[,] there will be an officer at your location on school days. We hope to have an approved agreement ready for signing by Monday afternoon which will provide you with what is being requested by the county. Runcie stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "I know, I think it was late on Thursday afternoon, and certainly on Friday when we checked, there was a full-time officer there from the City of Davie." Brian Katz, the School Board's Chief Safety, Security, and Emergency Preparedness Officer, stated the following regarding whether the Charter School was in compliance with section 1006.12, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "as of today [August 20, 2019], they are." School Board member Nora Rupert stated the following regarding a written communication she received from the Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: The Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, says there presently are Davie officers in the three Davie charter schools, and the executed agreement will be forwarded, specifically, Championship, excuse me, when completed today. We take care of our own, ["]we["] meaning their city. They've always been a very good, good partner with us. I asked if I could say this publicly, and she said yes. This is for the public record. I also forwarded it to the attorney, as well as the Superintendent the minute I received it, and just so my colleagues could have that information, I had to say it here. Vignola stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: If there's an officer there [at Championship] now and . . . if there is a representation from appropriate officials in the City [Town of Davie] that they see themselves as having a binding obligation to provide safe-school officer coverage with continuity, that goes to your threshold question of whether immediate termination is appropriate. The following exchange occurred between School Board member Laurie Rich Levinson and Vignola during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: Levinson: "So, Mr. Vignola, I know it's a difficult question, but legally, where are we? As of today, we are going to have an agreement with the Town of Davie that this school is covered, so as of today, we're not able to terminate a contract." Vignola: "If we get that representation from the city, I think that I would counsel voting against immediate termination." School Board member Donna Korn stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: "Do I believe that our decision will be overturned? Unfortunately, to the extent we have a very mixed message, I do." Vignola stated the following at the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: Right now, today, they have, as I've been—it's been reported to me, they have a safe[-]school officer on campus today that would be compliant. As for what they have down the road, the law is not very clear as to an obligation. There's nothing in here that says have a contract in place. At an emergency meeting held on August 27, 2019, the School Board voted against immediately terminating its charter school agreement with The National Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation, Inc. ("Ben Gamla Charter School"), pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c), concluding that the particular facts and circumstances did not indicate that an immediate and serious threat to the health, safety, or welfare of that charter school's students existed on August 27, 2019. The School Board was aware, at its August 27, 2019, meeting that the security guard at the Ben Gamla Charter School campus was not a certified guardian pursuant to section 1006.12. School Board member Dr. Rosalind Osgood stated the following during the August 27, 2019, meeting of the School Board regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: It was a problem because there were not enough law enforcement officers in the whole state even available to meet the demands of the legislature, so we had to be very creative in the way that we made decisions to keep our kids in the traditional public schools safe[,] with requiring that they have military or law enforcement background and training, which again, we keep hearing limited the pool, but it's the . . . safest way that we can address it. Runcie stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: "[s]o I think they're [Ben Gamla Charter School] working to try to get to a point where they have a sustainable plan, but if they currently have a plan, no matter how short-term it is, and they're able to have a safe[-]school officer on campus, they're technically in compliance." Chief of the Plantation Police Department, W. Howard Harrison, stated during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, that the Plantation Police Department did not provide any officers for the campus of Ben Gamla Charter School on August 14 through 16, and August 26, 2019. A Plantation Police Department Officer was provided to Ben Gamla Charter School for half a day on August 19, 2019, and an officer from the Broward County Sheriff's Office provided coverage for August 27, 2019. The School Board did not designate, assign, or provide any safe-school officers at Championship for the 2019-2020 school year. Championship timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearings with the School Board, requesting an administrative hearing on the School Board's immediate termination of its charter. The School Board referred Championship's request for hearing to DOAH on September 11, 2019. Findings of Fact Based on Evidence at Final Hearing Safe-School Officer Statute In response to the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that occurred on February 14, 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, a portion of which is codified at section 1006.12, the statute titled "Safe-school officers at each public school." Certain provisions of section 1006.12 have given rise to the matters in dispute in these consolidated proceedings. School Board Communications and Actions Regarding Charter School Compliance with Section 1006.12 On or about March 8, 2019, the Florida Department of Education ("DOE") contacted the School Board, requesting information regarding the status of compliance, by all public schools in the Broward County Public Schools District ("District"), including charter schools, with the statutory requirement in section 1006.12 for a safe-school officer to be present at each school. The request set a March 22, 2019, deadline for each school in the District, including charter schools, to provide that information to DOE. The School Board contacted all charter schools in the District, requesting that they provide the information requested by DOE by March 22, 2019. Championship did not provide the requested information by that date. The amendments to section 1006.12 enacted as part of SB 7030 became law on May 8, 2019. On May 15, 2019, Katz conducted an informational meeting with charter school personnel to inform them of the requirements of newly- amended section 1006.12, and to provide instructions to upload compliance documentation into the Charter.Tools application. Dupell attended the meeting. On June 28, 2019, Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran sent a letter (the "Corcoran Letter") to the representatives of charter schools regarding compliance with newly-amended section 1006.12. The letter provided information regarding the options for meeting the requirement to have at least one safe-school officer present on campus while school is in session. The Corcoran Letter particularly addressed the expanded school guardian option codified at section 1006.12(3), and the new school security guard option codified at section 1006.12(4). The letter stated, in pertinent part: [E]very public elementary, middle, and high school in Florida, including all Florida charter schools, must have a Safe-School Officer (SSO) physically present on each campus while school is in session. . . . All charter schools without current [safe-school officer] coverage have until August 1 to come into compliance for the 2019-2020 school year For those charter schools that choose to treat our requests for information as optional, our only option going forward will be to use the full extent of the law to ensure compliance. On July 9, 2019, Katz and Leslie Brown, the School Board's Chief Portfolio Officer, issued a memorandum directed to the charter schools in the District. The memorandum stated: "[t]he statute requires each charter school to implement one of the safe-school officer options." The memorandum listed the options and explained that the first three options, with some legislative revisions, had been available to charter schools in the 2018-2019 school year. The memorandum further stated: [t]he School Board has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes." Citing the Corcoran Letter, the memorandum stated, in boldface type: If one of the Safe[-]School Officer options is not confirmed by your location by August 1st,[2019,]such facts and circumstances will be considered by your charter school sponsor to present an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of your charter school's students. Please be advised that, under those circumstances, the school district will request the School Board of Broward County, Florida, to "use the full extent of the law[,]" as urged by Commissioner Corcoran and immediately terminate your charter agreement pursuant to [s]ection 1002.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes. July 9, 2019, memorandum, Exhibit JE-4 (emphasis added). From this memorandum, it is apparent that the School Board interpreted the phrase "use the full extent of the law," as referenced in the Corcoran Letter, to mean immediately terminating a noncompliant charter school's charter. In so stating, the School Board was not merely following guidance set forth in the Corcoran Letter—which did not mention immediate termination of a charter as a sanction for noncompliance with section 1006.12—but, instead, was articulating its own sanction, which it would impose for noncompliance with section 1006.12.7 The memorandum further stated: "[p]lease upload into Charter.Tools, under the benchmark entitled Senate Bill 7030, the attached form and pertinent documentation that confirms that your implemented Safe[-]School Officer option is in compliance with [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes, for the 2019-2020 school year. This documentation is due by August 1, 2019." On July 31, 2019, the School Board sent a follow-up email to the principals of the charter schools in the District, reminding them of the August 1, 2019, deadline. 7 To this point, in response to an email from Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie dated August 15, 2019, Corcoran counseled against immediate charter termination to sanction noncompliant charter schools, recommending instead that the District take immediate steps to provide safe-school officer coverage at a noncompliant charter school, followed by steps to ensure that the school maintained coverage and implemented a long term solution. The School Board conducted another meeting with charter school principals on August 1, 2019, at which Katz highlighted the four safe-school officer options available under section 1006.12, and reminded the charter school principals of the School Board's position that charter schools were solely responsible for establishing and assigning one or more safe-school officers for their campuses. Championship did not meet the August 1, 2019, deadline to upload the safe-school officer documentation into Charter.Tools. Katz testified at the final hearing that the School Board did not establish or assign any safe-school officers at any charter schools in the District, including Championship, in the 2019-2020 school year. Actions Taken by Championship Regarding Safe-School Officer Requirement in 2019-2020 School Year On Friday, August 2, 2019, Linda Williamson, office manager for Championship, emailed Lieutenant Patricia Ravine of the Davie Police Department regarding obtaining a school guardian while Championship's security guard was in training to become certified as a School Guardian. Ravine told her that the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BSO") was in the process of developing the guardian program, and that the Davie Police Department had a contract with the School Board for all 13 of its school resource officers to be assigned to the 12 traditional public schools in Davie. Ravine suggested that Championship contact a security agency, and she also suggested, as an alternative to a temporary guardian, that Championship secure the services of a Davie Police Department private duty detail officer. On or about Friday, August 9, 2019, Championship submitted a Private Duty Detail Application ("Application") to the Davie Police Department, requesting private duty detail officer coverage for Championship from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for each school day, beginning on August 14, 2019, and ending on September 28, 2019. Private duty detail coverage consists of voluntary coverage by off-duty police officers whose presence is not guaranteed by the police department. To that point, the Application states, in pertinent part: "[e]very reasonable effort will be made to fill the detail request, but there is no guarantee that it will be filled. Members of the Davie Police Department, who are authorized to work Private Duty Detail, do so voluntarily during their off duty hours." The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for District schools, including Championship, was August 14, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, and Championship did not have any other persons qualified under any of the safe-school officer options in section 1006.12 present on its campus that day. On August 14, 2019, Championship did have present on its campus an armed security guard, Steven Carbone, who Championship had hired to provide school safety services on its campus. Although Carbone had not yet completed the school guardian training program, he met the other safe-school officer requirements set forth in section 1006.23, including having completed a psychological evaluation which indicated that he was suitable for the position, and holding Class D and Class G licenses under chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Carbone was trained regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive devise recognition, and identification of hazardous materials. Detra Adams, Curriculum Supervisor of Secondary Literacy for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 14, 2019. She did not view a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12 on Championship's campus that day. However, she did observe a person at the front desk wearing a security uniform and bearing a firearm. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Adams met with Dupell, who told her that Championship had procured the service of an armed security guard (Carbone) who was present on campus that day. Dupell acknowledged that Championship had not submitted the required documentation to the District to have an armed security guard on campus. He told Adams that Carbone was registered for a school guardian training program8 and that once he completed the training, Championship would submit the certification documents to the District. Dupell also told Adams that Championship had arranged for a Davie private duty detail police officer to be present at the school on some, but not all, school days. On August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, but did send an on-duty police officer who arrived shortly before the end of the school day. Donte´ Fulton-Collins, Director of the Charter Schools Management Support Department for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, and did not observe a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on campus that day. However, she did observe an armed security guard on that date. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Katz, along with Damien Kelly of the DOE Safe Schools Office, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, to discuss with Dupell the need for Championship to secure the services of a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12. At that meeting, Dupell provided documentation to Katz showing that Championship had filed the Application with the Davie Police Department, 8 On July 31, 2019, Championship entered into an agreement with the BSO to provide Carbone training to serve as a safe-school officer pursuant to the Aaron Feis School Guardian option under section 1006.12(3). The training course was only offered every three months, so when Carbone was hired to fill the safe-school officer position at Championship, the soonest he could obtain training by BSO was early September 2019, after the 2019-2020 school year had begun. requesting to have private duty detail officer coverage until Carbone could complete the training to satisfy the requirements for certification as a school guardian under section 1006.12(3). Dupell also provided Katz a list of dates for which Davie Police Department had signed up to provide private duty detail coverage at Championship between August 14 and September 28, 2019. Katz observed that for many of the shifts on school days during that period, no officers had signed up to provide coverage at Championship. In sum, for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 because it did not have present on its campus an individual who met the statutory requirements to serve as a safe-school officer. Championship does not dispute that it was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on those days. For the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship did have an armed security guard, Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students. As discussed above, although Carbone had not yet been trained as a school guardian, he met the other requirements to be a school guardian. Pursuant to an electronic mail exchange between Championship and Ravine on the afternoon of August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship's campus, for the full school day, on all the days requested in the Application for which no private duty detail officer had volunteered. Thus, by the afternoon of August 15, 2019, Championship had secured guaranteed police officer coverage from the Davie Police Department—albeit not pursuant to a fully-executed contract. Pursuant to this informal arrangement, a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus for the entire school day on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. On Wednesday, August 22, 2019, Championship and the Town of Davie, Florida, executed a Safe School Officer Agreement ("SSO Agreement") for a term commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. Article 2 of the SSO Agreement states, in pertinent part, T[own] shall assign a certified police officer to serve as a [Safe School Officer ("SSO")] at the charter school for a period not to exceed the school year [(sic)] to allow C[harter] to otherwise become compliant with the [c]hapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) . . . . The certified police officer assigned to the school will be working in an overtime capacity. There is no guarantee that the same officer will work at the school on a daily basis. The parties agree that this does not include any after[-]hours activities, sports programs, aftercare, etc. Assignment of SSOs. The Town may change the law enforcement officer assigned to participate as a[n] SSO at any time during the Agreement. Unless precluded by emergency circumstances, the T[own] shall at all times maintain an SSO on duty during those regular school hours. "Regular school hours" shall be defined as the respective [p]articipating school's posted bell schedule. Wherever possible, the T[own] shall assign a replacement SSO during the time that the assigned SSO is absent when students are required to be in attendance during regular school hours. Pursuant to the SSO Agreement, the Town of Davie guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship for every school day during regular school hours, commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. This coverage was to be provided by private duty detail officers when available, and if no private duty detail officers were available, safe-school officer coverage would be provided by an on-duty police officer. Because the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019, and because no private duty detail officers had volunteered to provide safe-school officer coverage at Championship on August 14 and 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not provide coverage on those dates. However, as found above, pursuant to the informal arrangement for private duty detail coverage that Championship had made with the Davie Police Department on August 15, 2019, a Davie police officer was physically present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. Thereafter, the Davie Police Department provided safe-school officer services to Championship under the SSO Agreement for the rest of the 2019- 2020 school year, until all District schools were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other School Safety Measures Taken by Championship Cynthia Dotson, Chief Executive Officer of the management company who provides services to small charter schools, including Championship, testified regarding the measures that Championship has implemented on its campus to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students and staff. The Championship campus is located in a fenced facility within a small business park in a cul-de-sac. The school has one point of ingress and egress for the public, and additional means of ingress and egress for the provision of fire, life, and safety support services. Championship screens persons entering the campus through a software application used to determine whether that person has a criminal record. It also utilizes a video camera system to provide surveillance of the interior and exterior of the campus, an audio communication system consisting of an intercom system and walkie-talkies, and a software application through which faculty members can report suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities. Additionally, Championship has hired a retired SWAT team to train all of its employees to respond to active assailant situations on campus in order to mitigate any threat and prevent injury and loss of life. To this end, Championship conducts monthly code red drills in both the summer months and the school year. Before the 2017-2018 school year, Championship hired a school security guard, Yoan Herrera, to provide school safety services to its campus. Herrera became certified by the BSO on November 15, 2018, to serve as an Aaron Feis Guardian on Championship's campus.9 He provided those services to Championship until approximately mid-March 2019. After Herrera left his position, Championship retained the temporary services of the King Security Agency ("King") to provide school security services while it searched for a replacement school security employee. After an exhaustive search that yielded very few qualified applicants, Championship hired Carbone to fill the school security guard vacancy. Carbone had been an employee of King and had provided school security services to Championship during the last few months of the 2018-2019 school year. As noted above, Carbone's psychological evaluation indicated that he was suited for the position. Additionally, he had training regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive device recognition, and identification of hazardous materials, and he also held Class D and Class G licenses. After Championship hired Carbone, he was immediately enrolled in the Aaron Feis School Guardian certification program offered by the BSO. However, due to the high demand for such training and limited program 9 Notably, even though Herrera was present on Championship's campus while carrying a firearm for the entire 2017-2018 school year and a portion of the 2018-2019 school year, and for part of that time, provided school security services in a capacity other than as a safe- school officer pursuant to section 1006.12, no evidence was presented at the final hearing showing that the School Board considered Herrera's presence on Championship's campus as constituting a violation of section 790.115(2), warranting immediate termination of Championship's charter. offerings, Carbone was unable to begin the training before early September 2019. Thus, assuming he successfully completed the program, he would not have been certified as a school guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3) until October 2019. Ultimately, Carbone did not successfully complete the training program. Additionally, on August 19, 2019, Championship hired Andre Chambers to serve as a safe-school officer at its campus. At the time Chambers was hired, he already was certified as an Aaron Feis School Guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3). He began providing safe-school officer services on Championship's campus in September 2019, and did so until all District schools, including Championship, were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. School Board's Immediate Termination of Championship's Charter As a result of Championship's failure to have a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on its campus on August 14 and 15, 2019, School Board personnel prepared an agenda item recommending immediate termination of the Charter for consideration at the School Board's next regular meeting, scheduled for August 20, 2019. At the final hearing, Brown and Katz testified that the School Board determined that Championship's failure to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students, which commenced on August 14, 2019, and continued through August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. Brown acknowledged that the School Board was aware that as of August 16, 2019, Championship had a police officer from the Davie Police Department physically present on its campus. She testified that this did not change the School Board's position that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare to Championship's students existed. As she put it: [t]he services were piecemeal, there was nothing that we could depend on, nothing had been established and nothing had been assigned. . . . There was no evidence that [having a Davie police officer on campus] was going to be the case as each—each minute or hour or day that was going to continue. Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interpreted section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer in order to meet the statute's requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. To this point, Katz testified that having a Davie Police Department police officer present on campus would not, by itself, meet the safe-school officer requirement, because an executed contract "establishing" the presence of the officer also is required by the statute. He stated: "I believe both things are necessary, the agreement and presence. A fully[-]executed contract and presence [J]ust to be clear, a contract that states that there will be coverage, not a contract that says there may be coverage."10 Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the responsibility solely on the charter school to secure a safe-school officer for its campus. To this point, Katz testified that the School Board has "always believed that they [charter schools] were responsible for . . . assigning or establishing a safe school officer for every one of their schools." 10 In the stipulated facts set forth above, Katz stated, in response to a question from a School Board member at the August 20, 2019, meeting, that if Championship had a law enforcement officer present on its campus on that day, it was in compliance with section 1006.12. At the final hearing, Katz testified at the final hearing that this statement assumed the existence of a fully-executed contract on that date. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019. Brown testified that the School Board views Florida law as prohibiting the District from assigning a safe-school officer to a charter school. To that point, she testified that if a charter school wished to secure the services of a school resource officer under section 1006.12(1) to meet the safe-school officer requirement, the charter school would have to directly contract with the law enforcement agency to do so.11 Further to this point, Katz testified that the School Board did not have the authority to assign a law enforcement officer whose services are contracted by the District to provide safe-school officer coverage on a charter school's campus.12 Both Brown and Katz testified that the School Board met the requirement in section 1006.12 to "collaborate with charter school governing boards to facilitate charter school access to all safe-school officer options available" by providing information, presentations, and training to charter schools regarding the statute's safe-school officer requirements and available options for meeting those requirements. Katz acknowledged at the final hearing that Championship having an armed security guard who was not a safe-school officer present on its campus to provide school security services did not pose an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship. Fulton-Collins testified that she assisted in preparing the School Board agenda item recommending the immediate termination of Championship's charter because, as she put it: 11 Section 1006.12(1), establishing the school resource officer option, states: "A school district may establish school resource officer programs through a cooperative agreement with law enforcement agencies." § 1006.12(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Notably absent from this provision is language authorizing charter schools to do so. 12 Section 1002.33(12)(a) states: "A charter school shall select its own employees. A charter school may contract with its sponsor for the services of personnel employed by the sponsor." § 1002.33(12)(a)(emphasis added). This provision appears to authorize a school board to contract with a charter school to establish or assign a safe-school officer at the charter school, pursuant to a partnership between the school board and a law enforcement agency or security agency as provided in the first sentence of section 1006.12. all charter schools must be in compliance with any requirements that the Legislature has deemed to be necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the students. The Legislature specifically found in section 1006.12 . . . that the establishment or assignment of a safe school officer on a charter school campus is necessary for the protection of school personnel, property, students, and visitors. And by failing to do so, failing to establish and assign a safe school officer on the campus, Championship created an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of its students. Fulton-Collins testimony, T. Vol. I, p. 192. Fulton-Collins acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that charter schools are responsible for establishing and assigning their own safe-school officers.13 However, she maintained that charter schools are solely responsible for establishing and assigning safe-school officers for their own campus, and that the School Board's duty is "not impeding [them] on any opportunity that they have to secure a safe-school officer." Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie confirmed that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the sole responsibility on charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers. To this point, Runcie testified: " [j]ust as we [the District] go and secure [safe- school officers], by any means necessary, to have them on our campuses, [charter schools] are also required to go and use whatever means they can to secure them." Runcie also confirmed the School Board's position, articulated by Katz and Brown, that for charter schools to be in compliance with section 1006.12, a person meeting the requirements of one of the safe-school officer options 13 Notably, during the 2019 Legislative Session, the Legislature expressly rejected an amendment to SB 7030 that would have amended the first sentence of section 1006.12 to also require "charter schools, as applicable" to establish and assign one or more safe-school officers at its school facility. must be physically present on the school campus for the entire school day, and a fully-executed contract must exist, guaranteeing the presence of the safe-school officer on the campus each school day, for the full term of the contract.14 Runcie testified that the School Board interprets the terms "establish and assign" to require that both of these conditions be met for the charter school to be in compliance with section 1006.12. He acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that a fully-executed contract is required for compliance with the statute.15 To this point, he testified: [t]he statute, itself, may not specify a contract. It says what you are required to do. And the reason why it doesn't specify a contract is that there are several means to do it. There are some school districts, like Miami, I believe Palm Beach may be similar, but there's a handful of them where they actually have their own police force. So they're not going to have a contract in order to meet that[.] So the legislation is not going to be that specific because there's varying ability in how school districts and charter schools go about securing safe- school officers. So it wouldn't have that . . . degree of specificity. Runcie testimony T., Vol. II, pp. 44-45. Further to this point, Runcie testified: It [(the statute)] doesn't specifically require that, but the—so, again, the statute speaks to multiple 14 Runcie testified that in the School Board's view, section 1006.12 does not require an executed long term contract, such as a school-year-long contract, securing safe-school officer services; rather, the School Board interprets the statute as requiring a fully-executed contract that guarantees continuous presence of a safe-school officer on campus for the duration of the contract's term, whatever that term is. 15 See paragraph 243, below. To the extent a statute does not specify the precise means by which it is to be implemented, rulemaking may be necessary in order for an agency to implement the statute. See § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. (defining "rule" as a statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule). avenues, multiple ways of securing a safe-school officer. A couple of those don't require a contract. Again, if you have your own police force or you're using an armed guardian. So, for example, we actually have some schools that we have put in our detectives from our school investigative unit when we needed to. So we have 15, 20 police officers, if you will. So some districts, their whole entire system, they have their own police department. Or you can hire an individual, put him through the guardian program, have them become certified. Outside of doing those two things you would actually have to have a contract or some types of established agreement, an arrangement to be able to fulfill that. Runcie testimony, T. Vol. II, pp. 58-59. The School Board terminated Championship's charter on August 20, 2019, because Championship did not have a safe-school officer present on its campus for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, and because as of August 20, 2019, Championship did not have a fully-executed contract with the Town of Davie guaranteeing the presence of a police officer to serve as a safe-school officer on Championship's campus; thus, the School Board considered these circumstances to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship, warranting immediate termination of the charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Safety-Related Circumstances on Championship's Campus in the 2019- 2020 School Year Three parents of students who attended Championship in the 2019-2020 school year testified regarding the safety-related circumstances on Championship's campus at the beginning of the school year leading up to the School Board's termination of Championship's charter on August 20, 2019. Specifically, Anne-Valerie Daniel-Laveus, the mother of three students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a teacher at Championship during that school year, testified that she observed a school security guard present at the school every day. In her experience as a teacher at Championship and as a mother whose children were enrolled there, she perceived conditions at Championship as being safe. To that point, no other parents or students relayed to her any concerns they had regarding safety at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on August 14 through 20, 2019. She was not aware of any incidents, threats, or weapons-related incidents having taken place at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year. Sandra Acosta, the mother of a student enrolled at Championship, testified that she took her child to school daily during the 2019-2020 school year, that she always saw a security guard present on campus when she did so. She always felt that her child was safe at Championship, and that she was not aware of any incidents in which the safety of the students at Championship was threatened. Melissa Bustamante, the mother of two students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a member of Championship's governing board since 2011, also testified regarding conditions at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Specifically, when she took her children to school, she always observed a security guard at the front of the school, which is the only publicly-accessible entrance to the school facility. She was not aware of any bomb threats, weapons threats, or trespassing by unauthorized persons on Championship's campus during the 2019-2020 school year, nor was she aware of any parents of Championship students having expressed concerns regarding safety-related matters at the school during the 2019-2020 school year. As a member of Championship's governing board, she verified that the school had secured the presence of a Davie police officer on campus before, and for some time after, the charter was terminated, and also had secured a school guardian (Chambers) to serve as a safe-school officer for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year. No evidence was presented showing that there were any actual or imminent threats or dangers to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship on any school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Additionally, no evidence was presented showing that the presence of Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety and security services and who provided those services, presented a threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019. To the contrary, the witnesses who observed Carbone testified that he was at the front entrance to the school performing his school protection duties. None of them testified that they perceived him as a threat or saw him threatening or endangering the students, and all of them testified that his presence was one reason they perceived Championship's school campus as being safe. Additionally, as noted above, Katz conceded at the final hearing that Championship's having an armed security guard on campus to provide school security services on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not present an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students. Championship's Standing The School Board took action on August 20, 2019, to immediately terminate Championship's charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Although the School Board subsequently operated Championship for the 2019-2020 school year while these proceedings were pending, if the School Board were to prevail in Case No. 19-4818, Championship's charter would be permanently terminated and the charter school could no longer operate. Thus, the School Board's immediate termination of Championship's charter has caused Championship to suffer an immediate, direct injury that is within the scope of these proceedings, which are brought under sections 1002.33 and 1006.12. Additionally, as discussed below, the School Board applied unadopted rules to Championship in these proceedings to terminate its charter. Findings of Ultimate Fact Immediate Termination of Charter under Section 1002.33(8)(c) Championship's Noncompliance with Section 1006.12 did not Cause Immediate and Serious Danger to Its Students Pursuant to the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the School Board did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019, when it immediately terminated Championship's charter. The School Board contends that Championship's failure to have present on its campus a person who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019, coupled with its failure to have a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship by August 20, 2019, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting immediate termination of its charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). However, the School Board presented no evidence of any particular facts and circumstances showing that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019—whether due to Championship's failure to have a person on campus who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer plus a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship, or for any other reason. To that point, there was no evidence presented showing that there were any threats or actions constituting a threat—such as bomb threats, trespassing by unauthorized persons, armed persons presenting a danger or threat, or any other circumstances on Championship's campus that existed on August 20, 2019—or on any other school day in the 2019-2020 school year, for that matter. To the contrary, Championship presented the testimony of three witnesses stating that to their knowledge, there had been no threat or danger whatsoever to Championship's students at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days before and including August 20, 2019. Each of these witnesses was in a position to have personally known whether, or be informed if, there had been any actual, immediate threat or danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students. The very most that may be inferred from the evidence is that not having a person who was qualified as a safe-school officer on campus may have presented a potential threat to Championship's students on August 14 and 15, 2019. However, even such a potential threat—to the extent it may have existed—was substantially diminished by the presence of a trained, armed security guard who had been hired specifically to provide protection to the students, faculty, and staff on campus, and who had satisfied most of the requirements, including the psychological evaluation, to become certified as a school guardian. Further, starting on August 16, 2019, a Davie police officer was present and provided safe-school services on Championship's campus every day for the rest of the school year, including on August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. There is no dispute that these law enforcement police officers met the qualifications expressly stated in section 1006.12 to serve as safe-school officers. Therefore, as of August 16, 2019, the only remaining ground for the School's Board's conclusion that an immediate and serious danger existed on Championship's campus warranting immediate termination of its charter was that a contract securing the guaranteed presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus had not yet been fully executed. However, no evidence was presented showing that Championship's failure to have a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer constituted any danger—much less an immediate and serious danger—to its students. Accordingly, there was no factual or circumstantial basis for finding that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students existed on August 20, 2019, when its charter was terminated. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019, as a result of Championship not having a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019. Additionally, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019 (or on August 14 through 16, and 19, 2019), as the result of Championship not yet having secured a fully- executed contract guaranteeing the presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus. Presence of Armed Security Guard Did Not Constitute an Immediate and Serious Danger As previously discussed, no evidence was presented showing that Carbone presented any threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, or 20, 2019. The witnesses who observed him on those days testified that he performed his school protection duties, and he did not threaten or endanger Championship's students. Additionally, the evidence establishes that the school security and protection services that Carbone provided on Championship's campus on these days were school-sanctioned activities. To that point, Championship hired Carbone for the specific purpose of providing school security services to its students. As such, Carbone was given express permission by Championship's governing board to be on campus specifically to provide school security services to enable and support school-related activities. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the presence of the armed security guard on Championship's campus on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting the immediate termination of its charter under section 1002.33(8)(c). Unadopted Rules Applied to Championship to Terminate Charter Section 120.57(1)(e)1. states, in pertinent part: "[a]n agency or administrative law judge may not base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." This provision prohibits an ALJ or an agency from basing agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule. Because this statute is directed at, and specifically circumscribes, the authority of the ALJ, or the agency, as applicable, neither the ALJ nor the agency is authorized to base agency action on an unadopted rule, regardless of whether a party has alleged that a particular agency statement constitutes an unadopted rule. The evidence establishes that in immediately terminating Championship's charter, the School Board determined Championship's substantial interests based on two unadopted rules. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1002.33(8)(c) The evidence shows that the School Board has determined that the failure of a charter school (in this case, Championship) to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who meets the requirements of section 1006.12, to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students, warranting immediate termination of the school's charter. In so determining, the School Board has interpreted section 1002.33(8)(c)—specifically, the first sentence of that statute16—to define a charter school's failure to comply with section 1006.12 as per se constituting an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the school's students. This interpretation ascribes a meaning to the first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) that is not readily apparent from the literal reading of the statute. Indeed, the first sentence of that section specifically speaks to the "particular facts and circumstances" showing that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists. Thus, the statute's plain language requires that the particular facts and circumstances of each particular case be considered to determine whether those particular facts and circumstances constitute an immediate and serious danger that exists at the time the charter is immediately terminated. Nowhere does the statute's plain language speak to, or authorize, a school board to formulate a categorical determination that a defined set of facts and circumstances—here, noncompliance with section 1006.12—per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the charter school's students. It is indisputable that the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. This interpretation requires a charter school to comply with section 1006.12—including all of the interpretive gloss the School Board has placed on that statute by imposing the requirement that a fully-executed safe-school officer contract be in place to be in compliance—or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such noncompliance. 16 The first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) states: "[a] charter may be terminated immediately if the sponsor sets forth in writing the particular facts and circumstances indicating that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists." § 1002.33(8)(c), Fla. Stat. The evidence also establishes that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to determine that a charter school's noncompliance with section 1006.12 per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship student's was in existence on August 20, 2019, such that its charter must be terminated. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1006.12 The evidence also establishes that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate safe-school officer entity, guaranteeing that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract.17 Nowhere in the plain language of section 1006.12 is there an express requirement for a charter school to have a fully-executed contract for safe- school officer services in order to be in compliance with the statute. Thus, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 imposes a requirement that is not apparent from the literal reading of the statute. 17 Runcie, Katz, and Brown each testified that a fully-executed contract is necessary for a charter school to meet the statutory requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. This interpretation of section 1006.12 requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. Specifically, it requires a charter school to either have a fully-executed contract for safe-school officers in place by the time school is in session, or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such alleged noncompliance. The evidence also shows that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1006.12 to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate entity that guarantees that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract, is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on August 20, 2019, such that an immediate and serious danger to its students was in existence on that date, warranting immediate termination of its charter. Alleged Unadopted Rules Challenged under Section 120.56(4) Championship alleges that in immediately terminating its charter, the School Board has formulated and applied two agency statements which constitute unadopted rules. As articulated in the Rule Challenge Petition, these statements are: "[T]he School Board's unadopted policy that it is not legally required to provide safe-school officers to charter public schools within its borders"; and "[T]he School Board's policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." Each of these alleged unadopted rules is separately addressed. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board is not Legally Required to Provide Safe-School Officers to Charter Schools in the District The School Board takes the position that it is not required by section 1006.12 to establish or assign safe-school officers to charter schools in the District, and that the responsibility for securing a safe-school officer for a charter school rests solely with the charter school itself. To this point, the School Board contends that the only circumstance under which it ever would be required to assign a safe-school officer to a charter school is if it denied the charter school access to a safe-school officer—which the School Board claims means actively preventing a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, and then declares it has not done so.18 As more fully discussed below, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 ascribes a meaning to the statute that is not readily apparent from a reading of the statute's plain language. Further, the School Board's interpretation requires compliance and has the force and effect of law because it directs charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers and imposes the penalty of charter termination for failure to do so. . The School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 is applied to every charter school in the District, and, thus, is a statement of general applicability. Therefore, the School Board's statement that it is not required to establish and assign safe-school officers to charter schools except when it has affirmatively prevented a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, is an unadopted rule. 18 The July 9, 2019, memorandum from Brown and Katz to charter school principals states, in pertinent part: "The School Board of Broward County has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12." The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship such that it did not assign a safe-school officer to its campus for the 2019-2020 school year. This led to the School Board determining Championship noncompliant with section 1006.12 and immediately terminating its charter on that basis. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board has a Policy of Failing to Collaborate to Facilitate Charter School Access to Safe-School Officers Championship also alleges that "the School Board has a policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." By casting the alleged agency statement in these terms, Championship effectively asserts that by not establishing and assigning safe- school officers to charter schools, the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools in direct contravention of the second sentence in section 1006.12. The evidence does not show that the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools—which would be tantamount to the School Board having a policy of purposefully violating the statute. Rather, as more fully discussed below, the evidence shows that the School Board interprets the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" to mean that it is only required to communicate with charter schools and inform them regarding the safe-school officer requirements of section 1006.12, and to require them to provide documentation showing compliance.19 Championship disputes the correctness of this interpretation, and contends that instead, this phrase means that the School Board must 19 Championship has not challenged the School Board's interpretation of the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" as an unadopted rule in this proceeding. establish and assign a safe-school officer to each charter school if the charter school so chooses.20 Based on the evidence, and for the reasons more fully discussed below, it is determined that the School Board's alleged policy of "failing to collaborate" to facilitate charter school access to safe-school officers is not an unadopted rule. The School Board did not present evidence showing that to the extent the alleged agency statements constituted rules, rulemaking was not feasible or practicable, as provided in section 120.54(1)(a)1. and 2.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should terminate the Respondent's employment as a school bus driver for the reasons set forth in correspondence dated December 14, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. McGriff was employed as a school bus driver by the School Board. She was hired for this position in 2003, and is on a continuing contract. In the four years since she began working as a bus driver for the School Board she has had no disciplinary action taken against her. As a bus driver, Ms. McGriff is classified as an educational support employee of the School Board's Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2006).2 Ms. McGriff is a member of the Communication Workers of America for Professional Support Employees ("CWA"), and the School Board and the CWA have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("Bargaining Agreement") that is effective from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2008. Article 13C.2. of the Bargaining Agreement provides in pertinent part: Discipline and Termination of Professional Support Staff on Annual or Continuous Employment Status Suspension and dismissal of professional support staff personnel shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures contained below except that the Superintendent may suspend members of the professional support staff in an emergency. With School Board approval, an employee may be suspended without pay, discharged and/or returned to annual status, for reasons including but not limited to the following: * * * 9. Endangering the health, safety or welfare of any student or employee of the District. At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. McGriff was assigned as the driver of school bus number 69, and she regularly drove students attending Vero Beach High School to and from school. Students C.C., P.K., and E. were among the students who regularly rode on Ms. McGriff's school bus. On October 27, 2006, Ms. McGriff prepared a bus referral to the assistant principal for student C.C., in which she stated that he had used inappropriate language while riding school bus number 69. Frank Harmer, one of the assistant principals in charge of discipline at Vero Beach High School, received the referral and met with student C.C. on October 31, 2006, to discuss his conduct on the school bus on October 27, 2006. Mr. Harmer told C.C. to stop using inappropriate language on the bus. During this conversation, C.C. told Mr. Harmer that he had been previously harassed by students on the bus. Mr. Harmer urged C.C. to report any future harassing behavior by students to the school bus driver. In preparing for the meeting with C.C., Mr. Harmer consulted the School Board's computer system and learned that C.C. is a child with an emotional handicap and that he receives exceptional student education services from the School Board. On October 31, 2006, after speaking with student C.C., Mr. Harmer spoke with Ms. McGriff about the October 27, 2006, referral and about his conversation with C.C. During this conversation, Mr. Harmer told Ms. McGriff that C.C. was a student with an emotional handicap and that she should ensure that the other students did not harass him in the future. Ms. McGriff indicated to Mr. Harmer that she would prevent any future harassment. On the afternoon of November 3, 2006, at approximately 1:30 p.m., Ms. McGriff was waiting on school bus number 69 for the end of classes and the arrival of the students who would ride the bus home that afternoon. The conversation and ensuing events that took place on school bus number 69 were recorded on a surveillance video that was installed in the bus in accordance with School Board policy to record the activities of the bus driver and students. Student P.K. came onto the school bus before any of the other students, and P.K. initiated a conversation with Ms. McGriff about student C.C. During this conversation, which took place at approximately 1:31 p.m., Ms. McGriff referred to C.C. as a "dumb ass," and she complained to P.K. that C.C. got away with "murder." Ms. McGriff also told P.K. that she did not believe that C.C. was emotionally handicapped and that she wanted him off of her bus. In this conversation, student P.K. told Ms. McGriff that student C.C. had written P.K. a note telling P.K. that he wanted to fight him. P.K. indicated that he might try to pick a fight with C.C. on the bus that day and told Ms. McGriff to hold a clipboard in front of the video camera so the fight couldn't be seen. Ms. McGriff told P.K. that she would hold a clipboard up and would just continue driving if P.K. and C.C. got into a fight. Student P.K. had with him a stack of signs containing derogatory statements about student C.C. that he had prepared and wanted to post on the bus. Ms. McGriff laughed and encouraged P.K. to hang the signs on the windows of the bus, which he did. When P.K. asked if Ms. McGriff had any tape, she told him that she did not but that she would give tape to him if she had any. Ms. McGriff also told P.K. that she would try to drive without laughing but that it would be difficult. At approximately 1:35 p.m., student E. came onto the bus with a sign she had prepared that contained a derogatory remark about student C.C. P.K. and E. finished hanging the signs, gave each other a "high five," and Ms. McGriff laughed. The other students began entering the school bus at approximately 1:38 p.m. When student C.C. boarded the bus, he saw the signs and tore down two of them. Student P.K. re-hung one sign and gave the other to C.C. C.C. sat in his seat with his head down. P.K. took pictures of C.C. with his camera phone, and Ms. McGriff chuckled. Ms. McGriff pulled the bus away from Vero Beach High School at approximately 1:43 p.m. and began dropping off students at their bus stops. When student C.C. rose to exit the bus at his stop, student P.K. called out to him, "Bye Charles." C.C. turned, walked back to P.K., and struck P.K. several times, very quickly. C.C. then quickly left the bus. Ms. McGriff called and reported the fight to her supervisor. She also thanked P.K. and told him: "I needed that." Both students C.C. and P.K. received punishment in the form of out-of-school suspensions as a result of the altercation on the bus. Ms. McGriff admitted to having said things she should not have said and to using poor judgment with regard to the November 3, 2006, incident. Ms. McGriff endangered the safety and welfare of student C.C. on November 3, 2006, by allowing student P.K. to harass and humiliate C.C. on school bus number 69; by encouraging P.K. to harass and humiliate C.C. by laughing at P.K.'s plans to hang derogatory signs and to start a fight with C.C.; by making derogatory remarks to P.K. about C.C. herself; and by appearing to approve of P.K.'s plan to start a fight with C.C. by promising to cover the video camera when the fight started.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a final order finding that Andrea McGriff endangered the safety and welfare of student C.C. and terminating her employment as a school bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Broward County School Board (School Board) has an unwritten policy excluding all charter schools, including the City's charter schools, from consideration in the distribution of funds under Section 1011.71(2), Florida Statutes1 (Challenged Statement) and, if so, whether that unwritten policy constitutes a "rule," within the meaning of Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the City of Pembroke Pines (City).
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent from his employment as a bus driver.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a bus driver for approximately six years. The terms and conditions of Respondent's employment are controlled by the Official Agreement Between The Seminole County School Bus Drivers' Association, Inc., and The School Board Of Seminole County Sanford, Florida (the "collective bargaining agreement" or "CBA"). Under the collective bargaining agreement, Respondent can not be disciplined, including reprimand, suspension, or termination, except for just cause. Mr. Ricky Dale Saunders is one of several area managers employed by Petitioner. In 1995, Mr. Saunders was Respondent's immediate supervisor. Mr. Saunders scheduled a meeting with Respondent for February 1, 1995. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss complaints by parents concerning Respondent's treatment of students on his school bus. Respondent attended the meeting with two union representatives. All of those in attendance were seated around a conference table. Before Mr. Saunders could discuss the parental complaints, Respondent complained that Mr. John Nault, another bus driver, had moved Respondent's bus in the school compound the day before. Mr. Saunders stated that he had authorized Mr. Nault to move Respondent's bus. Respondent accused Mr. Saunders of lying and became angry. Respondent stood up, leaned forward, and told Mr. Saunders that he would ". . . kick his mother-fucking ass." In March 1995, Petitioner suspended Respondent for 5-days without pay. Petitioner initially proposed a 10-day suspension, but agreed to a 5-day suspension after Respondent's union representatives protested that Respondent had no prior discipline that warranted a 10-day suspension. Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Lake Brantley High School and issued a directive to Respondent. The directive stated that Respondent's conduct on February 1, 1995, was unacceptable and that Petitioner would seek to terminate Respondent if Respondent ever engaged in such conduct again. In the 18 months between March 1995, and September 1996, Respondent had satisfactory evaluations. He encountered no problems on the job. Respondent had a number of problems with students on his bus during the 1996-1997 school year. During the first two weeks of school, Respondent met with Mr. Thomas Murphy, Assistant Principal of Lake Brantley High School, to request assistance in resolving the discipline problems on Respondent's bus. Mr. Murphy assigned Mr. Randolph Harvey, the school security officer, to assist Respondent in preparing a seating chart for Respondent's bus. Mr. Harvey and Respondent went to the bus and began the seating chart. Mr. Harvey and Respondent obtained the names of approximately 10 students. The names of the remaining students were not obtained because the students had to go to class. Mr. Harvey stated that he would continue to assist Respondent each day until the seating chart was complete. However, Mr. Harvey never returned to complete the seating chart. Respondent continued to encounter problems on his bus and continued to seek the assistance of Mr. Harvey. Mr. Harvey did not assist Respondent in completing the seating chart. Mr. Harvey periodically took disruptive students off the bus and spoke to them about their behavior. He then released them to go to class. Mr. Harvey never provided Respondent with the names of the disruptive students or assisted Respondent in obtaining their names. On September 17, 1996, during the ordinary course of his job duties, Respondent transported students in his school bus to Lake Brantley High School. At about 7:00 a.m., a disturbance occurred among three students. Respondent drove the bus a short distance to a place where he could stop the bus safely. Respondent stopped the disturbance and, by radio, asked for assistance. The dispatcher told Respondent that someone would meet Respondent at the bus ramp. When Respondent arrived in his bus at the bus ramp, Mr. Harvey met Respondent at the ramp. Mr. Harvey talked with the disruptive students and ushered them off the bus but did not provide any of their names to Respondent. The disruptive students were taken to Mr. Murphy's office. Mr. Murphy discussed the incident with the students out of the presence of Respondent. Mr. Murphy determined that no fight occurred on the bus and sent the students to class. On the afternoon of September 17, several students on Respondent's bus became unruly. They were upset that some students were taken to Mr. Murphy's office. They used inappropriate language and made inappropriate statements. On the morning of September 18, 1996, a disturbance occurred on Respondent's bus for the third time in 72 hours. Respondent, by radio, requested assistance from Ms. Josephine DeLude, an area manager for Petitioner and Respondent's supervisor. Respondent reported that three students were rude, called him the "F" word, and were out of their seats and screaming. He asked Ms. DeLude for assistance in getting the names of the disruptive students. Ms. DeLude met Respondent as he drove his bus into the bus ramp area. At the direction of Ms. DeLude, Respondent drove the bus to the front of the school. Respondent got out of his bus and waited at the front of the school while Ms. DeLude went to find someone to assist Respondent in getting the names of the disruptive students. On her way, Ms. DeLude met Mr. Harvey coming out of the school. Ms. DeLude asked Mr. Harvey for his help in obtaining the names of the students. Mr. Harvey said, "Oh no, not him again. I've been on that bus every day since school started. He doesn't know how to handle those students." 1/ Mr. Harvey then turned back into the school for the assistance of Mr. Murphy. Ms. DeLude instructed Respondent to release all of the students from the bus except the three disruptive students. By the time the other students were off the bus, Mr. Harvey returned with Mr. Murphy. Mr. Harvey said to Mr. Murphy, "He's always having problems, he does . . . he has an attitude." Ms. DeLude turned to Mr. Harvey and asked, "If he's always having problems, why hasn't one student been removed off the bus?" Ms. DeLude was standing between Respondent and Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy said, "We've had problems with him, the kids complain, he has an attitude, he has an attitude towards the kids. . . . We have had trouble since day one with this bus. The driver has an attitude towards the kids." Mr. Murphy then requested Respondent to provide the names of the disruptive students. Respondent became angry. He yelled at Mr. Murphy, calling him an "idiot", "stupid", and an "asshole." Mr. Murphy said, "See, this is the attitude I'm talking about." Respondent became out of control. He stepped around Ms. DeLude and stood within a few inches of Mr. Murphy's face. Respondent became very red in the face. He pointed his finger in Mr. Murphy's face, and repeatedly yelled that Mr. Murphy was an "idiot" and "stupid." Mr. Murphy told Respondent to get his finger out of his face, and Respondent ". . . stood back a ways." Ms. DeLude stepped between Respondent and Mr. Murphy to separate the two. Respondent yelled that he was going to "kick" Mr. Murphy's "ass." Mr. Murphy said, "I'll be happy to meet with you somewhere to see who can kick whose ass." Mr. Murphy spoke to Respondent in a normal conversational tone and did not yell at Respondent. Mr. Murphy did not provoke Respondent prior to his quoted statement in the preceding paragraph. Ms. DeLude pushed Respondent toward his school bus. Respondent continued to scream over Ms. DeLude's shoulder that Mr. Murphy was an "idiot." Mr. Murphy directed Respondent not to return to Lake Brantley High School. Mr. Murphy went inside the school. By letter dated September 23, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intent to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order terminating Respondent from his employment as a bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
