The Issue The issues presented, as framed by the Fifth District’s December 16, 2020, Order are: (1) whether the School Board is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(b), Florida Statutes; and (2) the amount of attorney’s fees to which the School Board is entitled.
Findings Of Fact The Underlying Matter (DOAH Case No. 19-6424) The underlying matter concerned whether Legacy’s school charter for the Legacy Academy Charter School should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the School Board’s November 20, 2019, 90-Day Notice of Proposed Termination of Charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(b). A detailed recounting of the underlying matter can be found in The School Board of Brevard County v. Legacy Academy Charter, Inc., DOAH Case No. 19-6424 (DOAH Aug. 18, 2020), which concluded that the School Board met its burden, by clear and convincing evidence, that it may terminate the Amended Charter. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs for Underlying Matter (DOAH Case No. 20-3911F) On August 28, 2020, the School Board filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Sanctions, which was assigned DOAH Case No. 20-3911F. The undersigned conducted a final hearing in DOAH Case No. 20- 3911F on November 6, 2020. The School Board’s expert on attorneys’ fees at that hearing, Nicholas A. Shannin, Esquire, testified that the hourly rate of $200 for partners and associates at the School Board’s Orlando-based law firm of Garganese, Weiss, D’Agresta & Salzman, P.A. (GWDS), was “incredibly reasonable.” The undersigned held that the $200 hourly rate GWDS charged the School Board for its attorneys was reasonable, and ultimately ordered Legacy, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(b), to pay the School Board a total of $312,147.80, broken down as follows: (a) $271,162.00 in attorneys’ fees; and (b) $40,985.80 in costs. See The School Bd. of Brevard Cty. v. Legacy Academy Charter, Inc., DOAH Case No 20-3911F (DOAH Dec. 4, 2020). Attorney’s Fees for Appeal (Case No. 5D20-1762) The School Board’s Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees details the attorney’s fees that the School Board seeks in the appeal, and includes the detailed billing records of GWDS. This affidavit avers that the hourly rate actually billed by counsel was $200 for attorney Erin O’Leary, Esquire, who is Board Certified in Appellate Practice by The Florida Bar, and who handled the appeal. The affidavit further avers that Ms. O’Leary’s total number of hours billed in the appeal was 42.5 hours. Although GWDS attorney Debra Babb-Nutcher, Esquire, participated as counsel in the appeal, including supervising Ms. O’Leary and assisting in case strategy, preparation of documents, and communications with the School Board and opposing counsel, the School Board only seeks to recover the total amount of attorney’s fees charged by Ms. O’Leary. In DOAH Case No. 20-3911F, the undersigned found that the $200 hourly rate GWDS charged the School Board of its attorneys was reasonable, and the undersigned finds that a $200 hourly rate charged by Ms. O’Leary for representing the School Board on appeal is reasonable. The hours expended in this matter are reasonable given the time and labor required, the unique arguments raised by Legacy in attempting to stay the closure of its school, the lack of legal precedent, the multiple factual claims that required rebuttal, the short time frame in which to respond making other work impossible, the significant effort required to defend against the stay, as well as the ultimate success achieved in defeating Legacy’s attempted stay. The School Board has demonstrated that the attorney’s fees sought are reasonable based upon the reasonable rate charged and the reasonable hours expended in the appeal. Legacy has filed nothing to dispute the School Board’s request for appellate attorney’s fees. The Lodestar figure (i.e., the fees charged and hours expended) by Ms. O’Leary in this appeal is $8,500.00 for the work performed between August 19, 2020, through December 3, 2020. The undersigned finds that this Lodestar figure is reasonable in light of the factors enumerated in the Rules of Professional Conduct, found in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, as well as Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990). The undersigned finds that the total fee amount of $8,500.00 for the appeal of the underlying matter, Case No. 5D20-1762, shall be recoverable by the School Board, as prescribed in section 1002.33(8)(b).2
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, who swung a belt at or near a student while disciplining the student for unacceptable behavior on a school bus, gave Petitioner——her employer, the district school board——just cause to dismiss Respondent from her position as a bus driver.
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County School Board ("School Board" or "District"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all relevant times and as of the final hearing, the District employed Respondent Rosa Harrell ("Harrell") as a bus driver, a position she has held since 1998. To date, her disciplinary record as a District employee is clear. The events in dispute occurred on the afternoon of April 27, 2016, as Harrell drove students home from Christa McAuliffe Middle School. During the run, Harrell noticed that a student was eating on the bus, which is specifically described as "unacceptable behavior" on page 31 of the District's School Bus Drivers and Bus Attendants Handbook (the "Handbook"), as is drinking any beverage on the bus. State law mandates that a "school bus driver shall require order and good behavior by all students being transported on school buses." § 1006.10(1), Fla. Stat. To this end, drivers are invested with "the authority and responsibility to control students during the time students are on the school bus . . . ." § 1012.45(2), Fla. Stat. The Handbook likewise requires that drivers "maintain order and appropriate student behavior while on the school bus at all times." Handbook, at 28.1/ Faced with unacceptable student behavior, which drivers have a duty to subdue, Harrell demanded that the student or students bring her their "crackers" and "soda too," immediately. At the time Harrell gave this order, the bus was stopped, probably at a red light. The student(s) did not promptly comply, and Harrell repeated the command, urging them, multiple times, to "come on!" The student(s) still failed to obey, and after about a half-minute, Harrell stepped on the gas pedal, causing the bus to accelerate——presumably because the light had turned green. Finally, a student came forward and handed Harrell some food, which she tossed out the driver's open window. The student then returned to his seat. Harrell, driving, again ordered the student who had been seen drinking to "bring [the soda] here." Eventually a boy came forward and handed Harrell a soda can, which she threw out the window. This boy tattled on another student, M.M., who had been eating and drinking on the bus, too. There is no dispute that M.M., a sixth-grader at the time, engaged in this unacceptable behavior. The informant suggested that Harrell slam on the brakes and deal with M.M. right away, but Harrell indicated that she would take care of M.M. at the next stop. True to her word, after coming to a complete stop at the next light, Harrell engaged the parking brake, unstrapped her seat belt, and headed to the rear of the bus to confront M.M. As she walked back, one of the students removed his cloth belt, as others shouted, "Take it!" Harrell said to M.M., "You drinking on the bus with your big ol' self." She took the belt when it was offered to her. The District argues that Harrell meant to embarrass M.M. by drawing attention to his size, and M.M. testified that the driver's remark about his "big ol' self" had made him feel uncomfortable. The undersigned rejects the argument, finding instead that Harrell in fact used the slangy adjective "big ol'" not to tease the student about his weight,2/ but to intensify the reference to M.M.'s "self." She was not calling him fat; she was calling him self-important. The approximate meaning of her statement, in other words, was: You think you're such a big shot, drinking on the bus. The undersigned is not convinced that this comment caused M.M. the discomfort he currently claims to have experienced.3/ When Harrell reached M.M., who was sitting by himself on the bench seat, she took his hand, raised his arm, and swung the belt in M.M.'s direction, striking the side of the seat five times. The parties sharply dispute whether Harrell intended to hit M.M. with the belt, and also whether she did so, either on purpose or by accident. Having considered all of the evidence, including the videos, the undersigned finds that, most likely, Harrell did not intend to strike M.M. The event took place in an atmosphere of boisterous laughter, suggesting to the undersigned that the students did not regard Harrell as a genuine threat to M.M. The student himself did not react as though he were in fear of being struck, as he continued to hold up and view his cellphone throughout the incident. Finally, had Harrell intended to hit M.M. with the belt, she almost certainly would have landed solid blows, for he was a sitting duck at close range. Such blows likely would be plain to see on the available videos. But the videos in evidence do not unambiguously show the belt striking the student, giving additional grounds for doubting that Harrell intended to hit M.M. The best description the undersigned can give for Harrell's conduct during the "whupping" of M.M. is that it was one part pantomime, one part burlesque, and one part horseplay, a kind of show whose purpose was to discipline M.M., to be sure, but with parodic violence, not with real violence, discharging her duty to maintain acceptable student behavior while winking, metaphorically, at the students. Harrell did not act, the undersigned believes, with malice or cruelty or the intent to cause M.M. harm. She intended to hit the seat in close enough proximity to M.M. that it would look like she was "whupping" the student. Just because Harrell did not intend to hit M.M. with the belt, however, does not mean that she missed him when she swung in his direction. M.M. testified that Harrell caught him on the leg. The video evidence is inconclusive but does not clearly contradict M.M.'s testimony. Ultimately, based on the totality of the evidence, including the videos, the undersigned cannot find without hesitation that Harrell struck M.M. with the belt. While evidence of such contact is less than clear and convincing, a preponderance of the evidence persuades the undersigned that the belt, more likely than not, clipped M.M. on one of its passes. Fortunately for all concerned, M.M. was not injured. Although Harrell's intentions were good, or at least not bad, her judgment in this instance was very poor. M.M.'s hands were not clean, of course, because he had engaged in unacceptable student conduct, but a driver should not swing a belt at a student——even without the intent to impose actual corporal punishment——just for eating on the bus. Harrell's actions created an indefensible risk of accidental harm that outweighed all reasonable disciplinary justifications. Thus, even without clear and convincing proof that Harrell hit a student, the District has convinced the undersigned to determine, without hesitation, that Harrell engaged in misconduct affecting the health, safety, or welfare of M.M., in contravention of a written District policy. Had Harrell's actions clearly constituted a real and immediate danger to the District, the District would have had a factual basis not to administer progressive discipline, which is otherwise generally a requirement under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Her actions, however, immediately affected, not the District as a whole, but only one person, M.M., and even he was not placed in real and immediate danger. To explain, while Harrell unreasonably exposed M.M. to a risk of accidental harm, which is just cause for disciplinary action, she did not intend to hurt him: harm was foreseeable, but not imminent. If Harrell had intended to cause injury (which she did not), then harm would have been, not only foreseeable, but nearly inevitable. In that hypothetical case, her conduct would have constituted an immediate danger to M.M. In the event, it did not. Nor did Harrell's actions constitute a clearly flagrant and purposeful violation of any District policies or rules, which ultimate fact, were it true, would have supplied an alternative basis for skipping progressive discipline. A veteran driver with a previously spotless disciplinary record, Harrell suffered a momentary lapse of judgment and, in a misguided effort to discipline a student for engaging in unacceptable behavior, committed a disciplinable offense herself. Her conduct was ill-advised but not obviously and willfully contumacious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order finding Harrell guilty of misconduct in office and imposing the following penalties therefor: (a) verbal reprimand; (b) written reprimand; and (c) 30-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Volusia County School Board, has good cause to non-renew Respondent?s charter for the Volusia Elementary Charter School as set forth in Petitioner?s Notice of Action to Not Renew the Charter for the Volusia Elementary Charter School Inc.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 2008, the School Board and Boston Avenue entered into the School Board of Volusia County, Florida Charter for the Academies of Excellence, Inc. (the “Charter”). The Charter, which was a contract between the parties, was effective from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2012. Pursuant to the Charter, Boston Avenue operates and maintains a pre-kindergarten through fifth grade charter school in DeLand, Florida. The school, which is a Florida public school, opened at the beginning of the Volusia County School District?s (“District”) 2008-2009 school year. The Charter provides that Boston Avenue is a unit of the District, is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the School Board, is accountable to the School Board for performance to the extent provided by law, and is subject to the laws of Florida and the rules of the State Board of Education. Florida public schools are subject to “a statewide program of educational assessment that provides information for the improvement of the operation and management of the public schools . . . .” School assessment is largely the result of student achievement assessment, including Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (“FCAT”) scores, and measures of effective school management. § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The Commissioner of Education is required to issue annual reports that describe student achievement in the state, each school district, and each school. The annual report assigns a grade to each school based on the results of the student achievement assessment scores, student learning gains, and improvement of the lowest 25th percentile of students in the school in reading and mathematics. Section 1008.34(1) establishes the grades and their meaning as follows: “A” - schools making excellent progress. “B” - schools making above average progress. “C” - schools making satisfactory progress. “D” - schools making less than satisfactory progress. “F” - schools failing to make adequate progress. Schools having an enrollment that is less than the minimum sample size do not receive a school grade. During its first year of operation in the 2008-2009 school year, Boston Avenue enrolled fewer than 100 students, which was less than the minimum sample size. It was therefore too small to receive a school grade. 7. For the 2009-2010 school year, Boston Avenue received a grade of “F.” For the 2010-2011 school year, Boston Avenue received a grade of “D.” For the 2011-2012 school year, Boston Avenue received a grade of “F.” Section XI.C.(1) of the Charter provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]his Contract may be renewed provided that a program review demonstrates that the criteria in section 1002.33(7)(a), Florida Statutes, have been successfully accomplished and that none of the grounds for non-renewal established by section 1002.33(8)(a), Florida Statutes, has been documented.” Dr. Parker took the position as the Board?s Coordinator of Accountability and Evaluation in January 2011. When she came to the job, the charter school program review process used a generic template that was applied to every charter school in the district, regardless of whether the areas of review listed on the template were applicable to a specific school?s charter. Dr. Parker modified the template to make it unique to each charter school, using the criteria of each charter to guide the language and structure of the template. Despite the change in the template, which is nothing more than a method of recording results, the charter review process remained essentially unchanged. In October 2011, the District conducted a program review of Boston Avenue to determine if the Charter should be renewed. On December 13, 2011, the Office of Program Accountability and Evaluation submitted its Boston Avenue Charter School Charter Review (“Review”) to the Superintendant of Schools. The Review covered the following topic areas: Curriculum and School Improvement Services, including the 2011 Annual Accountability Report; Facilities Services, Financial Services, including Finance, Budget and Insurance, and Food Services; Human Resources; Technology Services, including Student Accounting Services; Safety and Security; and Transportation Services. Each topic area had contract subtopics that were generally tied to specific Charter requirements and applicable statutory standards. The Review identified a number of areas in which Boston Avenue was deficient. Of the 80 individual contract subtopics, the Review identified 46 that were met, 19 that were partially met, 10 that were not met, and five that were not applicable. On March 22, 2012, Respondent submitted a Charter Review Response and Supplemental Appendix as its response to the December 13, 2012 Review. The evidence suggests that staff did not review or use the Charter Review Response and Supplemental Appendix in its deliberative process leading up to the decision to recommend non-renewal to the School Board. In March 2012, the School Board?s office of Curriculum and School Improvement Services and office of Student Transportation Services prepared supplemental reports to update the status of those subtopic areas that were previously determined to not meet the areas of review, and prepared revised charts that outlined their current status. It was suggested that the additional information set forth in the revised charts should not be considered in this proceeding, as it was generated after the normal review process was concluded. Given the de novo review afforded under the Administrative Procedures Act, the additional information and supplemental reports are pertinent to the consideration of whether the Charter should be renewed, and are considered herein. By its terms, the Charter expired on June 30, 2012. The vote to not renew the Charter was taken on March 30, 2012. A draft version of the Notice was provided as part of the agenda of the meeting. The meeting was attended by, among others, counsel for Boston Avenue and Boston Avenue Principal Nichole Gaw. After a short presentation by its staff and counsel, the School Board voted 5-0 to approve the school superintendant?s recommendation that the Boston Avenue Charter not be renewed. Counsel for Respondent understood the effect of the vote, and indicated to Petitioner that “[w]e will make a decision [whether to request a hearing] within the 14-day time.” The Notice was signed and executed on Friday, March 30, 2012. Petitioner made reasonable efforts to provide the signed Notice to Respondent on March 30, 2012, which efforts included an attempt to hand-deliver the Notice before 5:00 p.m., on that date to the Boston Avenue school building and to the law office of Respondent?s counsel. Both buildings were locked. In addition, efforts to electronically send the Notice to Petitioner were made over the weekend. Although reasonable efforts to effect delivery were made, the evidence is insufficient to prove that Respondent received actual written notice of Petitioner?s decision to not renew the Charter until an envelope containing the Notice was hand-delivered to an authorized agent of Respondent on Monday, April 2, 2012. Monday, April 2, 2012, was 89 days prior to the June 30, 2012, expiration of the Charter. Grounds for Non-Renewal 1. Failure to Meet the Requirements for Student Performance Stated in the Charter The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student performance established in the Charter. The Charter included the following measures of student performance: FCAT Testing - Academic Progress Section III.B.(2) of the Charter provides that: Student academic progress will be measured by a growth model as evidenced by standardized tests. Student academic progress will be measured by FCAT under the following standards. The student will have improved his or her FCAT Achievement level one year to the next; or The student will have maintained his or her achievement level as a 3, 4 or 5 from one year to the next; or The student will have remained within FCAT Achievement levels 1 or 2, but will have demonstrated more than one year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale, applying the Department of Education?s measurement of growth.1/ Reading The evidence demonstrated that in 2011, Boston Avenue students performed in FCAT Reading as follows: Fourth Grade FCAT Reading 11.11 percent of fourth-grade students improved their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next, and an additional 8.33 percent maintained a level five -- the highest level achievable. 80.56 percent of fourth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next. 59% of fourth-grade students maintained their FCAT reading achievement level as a 3, 4, or 5 from one year to the next. 41% of fourth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT reading achievement level as a 3, 4, or 5 from one year to the next. 42% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 58% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. Fifth Grade FCAT Reading 4.76% of fifth-grade students improved their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next, and an additional 14.29% maintained a level five - the highest level achievable. 80.95% of fifth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next. 90% of fifth-grade students maintained their FCAT reading achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 10% of fifth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT reading achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 29% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 71% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. Math The evidence demonstrated that in 2011, Boston Avenue students performed in FCAT Math as follows: Fourth Grade FCAT Math 8.33% of fourth-grade students improved their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next, and an additional 5.56% maintained a level five -- the highest level achievable. 86.11% of fourth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next. 40% of fourth-grade students maintained their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 60% of fourth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 44% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 56% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. Fifth Grade FCAT Math 4.76% of fifth-grade students improved their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next. 95.24% of fifth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next. 50% of fifth-grade students maintained their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 50% of fifth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 60% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 40% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. FCAT Testing - Academic Progress Conclusion A substantial, and often overwhelming, number of students failed to meet the criteria for academic progress measured by FCAT as established in section III.B.(2) of the Charter. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student academic progress established in section III.B.(2) of the Charter. FCAT Testing - Learning Gains In addition to the foregoing, section XIII.A. of the Charter provides, in pertinent part, that: The School shall be subject to the same accountability requirements as other public schools, including reports of student achievement information that links baseline student data to the School?s performance projections identified in the charter. The charter school shall identify reasons for any difference between projected and actual student performance. The “projections identified in this charter” shall be as follows: (1) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the students taking the FCAT will earn a learning gain on the reading portion of the FCAT; (2) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the students taking the FCAT will earn a learning gain on the math portion of the FCAT; (3) The average score for the students taking the science portion of the FCAT will meet or exceed the District average; and (4) The average score for the students taking the FCAT Writes will meet or exceed the District average. 54% of Boston Avenue students made learning gains on the reading portion of the FCAT in 2011. 44% of Boston Avenue students made learning gains on the math portion of the FCAT in 2011. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student learning gains established in section XIII.A. of the Charter. Other Student Assessment Tests Section III.B.(4) of the Charter provides that: In addition to the State required achievement tests, the School will use a standardized test for assessing students in core subject areas (reading, math, and science) in the Fall in order to get baseline data. The students will then be assessed in the Spring to determine the amount of yearly academic gain. Section III.B.(4) of the Charter governs the administration of the standardized assessment tests, rather than the results of the testing. The Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (“FAIR”) is an assessment test for reading proficiency that is provided by the state of Florida. All schools in the District administer the FAIR test three times a year. Boston Avenue met section III.B.(4) for reading by administering the FAIR in grades one through five. The Differentiated Accountability Assessment (“DA Assessment”) is an assessment test for math and science proficiency that was developed by District specialists, and has been used for a number of years. All schools in the District administer the DA test twice per year, in the fall and in the middle of the year. Boston Avenue met section III.B.(4) for math by administering the DA Assessment in grades three through five. Boston Avenue met section III.B.(4) for science by administering the DA Assessment for science in the fifth grade. In contrast to section III.B.(4) of the Charter, section III.B.(6) is directed to the results of the testing, and provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he academic progress of students and the School will be evaluated and compared to the rate of progress of the students in the Volusia County School District not enrolled in the School.” Thus, an analysis of the results of the FAIR testing for reading, and the DA Assessment testing for math and science, and their measurement of academic progress, is appropriate for determining whether Respondent met the Charter standards to warrant renewal. Standardized Test for Reading - FAIR The District has established that a student is “proficient” in reading if he or she correctly answers 80% of the questions on the FAIR for their grade level. A demonstration of proficiency in FAIR correlates to a high probability that a student can score at a level three or higher on the FCAT reading achievement test. The FAIR testing for first and second grade is predictive, since there is no corresponding FCAT test, but allows the school and the District to identify targeted areas of need before the students get to third grade where FCAT scores may require a repeat of grade. The Board created four categories of measuring student achievement based on performance on the FAIR testing performed during the year. A student was determined to have “decreased proficiency” if he or she went from proficient to below proficient in reading during the course of the year. A student was determined to have “maintained proficiency” if he or she scored above the 80% correct answer level during the course of the year. A student was determined to have “maintained below proficiency” if he or she scored below 80% correct answer level during the course of the year, but was not falling further behind. Finally, a student was determined to have “improved proficiency” if he or she scored went from below the 80% correct answer level to at or above the 80% correct answer level during the course of the year. First Grade FAIR Reading In first grade, 18% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 51% maintained proficiency, 23% of students maintained below proficiency, and 8% of students decreased in proficiency. With 69% of students reading at a level of proficiency by the end of the year, and with only 8% decreasing in proficiency, Dr. Parker indicated that “first grade isn?t necessarily a huge area of concern.” Second Grade FAIR Reading In second grade, 3% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 9% of students maintained proficiency, 77% of students maintained below proficiency, and 11% of students decreased in proficiency. Thus, 88% of Boston Avenue second grade students were reading below proficiency. Third Grade FAIR Reading In third grade, 11% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 5% maintained proficiency, 78% of students maintained below proficiency, and 5% of students decreased in proficiency. With a total of 83% of students reading below the level of proficiency, and with the FCAT test being administered at the end of the year, Dr. Parker characterized the FAIR results as “alarming.” Fourth Grade FAIR Reading In fourth grade, 3% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 41% of students maintained proficiency, and 56% of students maintained below proficiency. No fourth- grade students decreased in proficiency as assessed by FAIR. Fifth Grade FAIR Reading In fifth grade, 16% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 28% percent maintained proficiency, and 56% of students maintained below proficiency. No fifth-grade students decreased in proficiency as assessed by FAIR. Standardized Test for Math - DA Assessment The DA Assessment test uses the same proficiency standards and categories that were developed for the FAIR. As with the FAIR test for reading, the DA Assessment is designed to be predictive of how students will perform on the FCAT. Third Grade DA Math In third grade, 46% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency in math, and 54% of students maintained below proficiency. No third-grade students decreased in proficiency in math as assessed by the DA Assessment. Fourth Grade DA Math In fourth grade, 41% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency in math, and 59% of students maintained below proficiency. No fourth-grade students decreased in proficiency in math as assessed by the DA Assessment. Fifth Grade DA Math In fifth grade, 42% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency in math, and 54% of students maintained below proficiency. One fifth-grade student (4%, as based on a fifth-grade enrollment of 25 students) decreased in proficiency in math as assessed by the DA Assessment. Standardized Test for Science - DA Assessment In fifth grade, 4% of students maintained proficiency in science, 30% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency, and 65% of students maintained below proficiency. No fifth-grade students decreased in proficiency in science as assessed by the DA Assessment. Failure to Maintain an Acceptable Level of Student Achievement in the State?s Education Accountability System and Other Standardized Testing Paragraphs 1 and 2.a. of the Notice make the school grades earned by Boston Avenue, and the results of the standardized student assessment tests, basis for the non-renewal of the Charter. The FAIR and DA Assessment test results demonstrate that, while some students demonstrated proficiency, the majority of students at Boston Avenue who were administered the non-FCAT standardized assessment testing either maintained below the level of proficiency or decreased in proficiency. Boston Avenue?s receipt of a school grade of “F” in the 2009-2010 school year, “D” in the 2010-2011 school year, and “F” in the 2011-2012 school year, combined with the results of the standardized student assessment tests, demonstrated a lack of student improvement over the course of the past three years. For the 2010-2011 school year, Boston Avenue was one of only two of the 46 elementary schools in the District to receive a grade of “D.” There were no “F” schools for that year. The total scoring based on the results of the assessment testing for that year placed Boson Avenue last among the 46 elementary schools in Volusia County by a substantial margin. For the 2011-2012 school year, Boston Avenue was one of only two of the 52 elementary schools in the District to receive a grade of “F.” The total scoring based on the results of the assessment testing for that year placed Boson Avenue last among the 52 elementary schools in Volusia County by an even wider margin than the previous year. Section 1002.33(7)(a)12., which governs the standards for issuance of a school charter, provides that the charter may be cancelled during its term “if insufficient progress has been made in attaining the student achievement objectives of the charter and if it is not likely that such objectives can be achieved before expiration of the charter.” Section 1002.33(7)(b)1., provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] charter may be renewed provided that a program review demonstrates that the criteria in paragraph (a) have been successfully accomplished and that none of the grounds for nonrenewal established by paragraph (8)(a) has been documented.” The grade of “F” for the most current year -- meaning that students at the school are failing to make adequate progress -- is strong evidence that the standards for renewal of the Charter have not been met. Thus, in the course of renewing a charter, it was not an error for the School Board to give consideration to the student achievement objectives, even those of a general and non-numeric nature. The evidence in this case, taken as a whole, demonstrates that Boston Avenue failed to meet levels of academic progress that approached even the lowest performing District-operated elementary schools in Volusia County. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student academic progress established in section III.B.(6) of the Charter, thus constituting a reasonable and valid basis for the non-renewal of the Charter. Comparison with Learning Gains of Similar District Schools Section III.B.(5) of the Charter provides that: To the greatest extent possible, a comparison of learning gains as defined by the State under the Florida A+ Accountability Plan will then be compared with the learning gains of similar district schools with comparable populations using demographic information obtained at www.myflorida.com. Learning gains will be examined as determined by the State based on the percentage of students in the lowest 25% of the School showing improvement of more than one year within level 1 or 2. The state minimum acceptable standard for performance in reading and mathematics by students in the lower quartile is 50% of these students will make a learning gain. The comparator elementary schools were determined by the percentage of students who were receiving free or reduced lunch and the percentage of students classified as a minority at each school. Those criteria are found to be adequate to represent schools with comparable demographic characteristics. Applying those criteria, 14 schools were determined to have “comparable populations” to Boston Avenue. In the 14 elementary schools having comparable populations, an average of 13.3% of students of lowest quartile within FCAT level one or two made learning gains in 2011. At Boston Avenue, 10.7% of students in the lowest quartile within FCAT level one or two made learning gains in 2011. Thus, neither Boston Avenue nor the average of the comparator schools came close to meeting the “state minimum acceptable standard” that 50% of the lower quartile of students within level one or two make more than one year of improvement. Although section III.B.(5) of the Charter set forth the state standard, it is not couched in language that would lend it to being applied as a Charter performance criterion. The fact that FCAT level one and two students at Boston Avenue and the comparative District schools were bunched closely in their levels of improvement, along with the incongruity of applying a standard of performance to Boston Avenue that is not being met by District schools, suggests that the 50% threshold is to be applied as an aspirational goal, rather than a standard for renewal. Thus, Boston Avenue?s failure to meet the “state minimum acceptable standard” set forth in section III.B.(5) of the Charter should not form a basis for non-renewal of the Charter. 3. Failure to Use State Approved Materials in Math Section III.A.(3) of the Charter provides that Boston Avenue?s “math curriculum will utilize a math series by Pearson/Scotts Foresman, or another math series approved by the State.” Paragraph 2.b. of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[Boston Avenue] is using the Saxon math series, which has not been approved by the State. This fact was pointed out to the administration at [Boston Avenue], but they indicated that they did not intend to make any change.” Boston Avenue has used and continues to use the Saxon math series. The Saxon math series is not a math series by Pearson/Scotts Foresman. The State of Florida issues an annual list of approved publishers and materials. The Saxon math series is not on the state-approved list. Mr. Viecelli and Mr. Jackson testified as to their belief in the effectiveness of the Saxon math series, and the reasons for its purchase and use at Boston Avenue. Dr. Parker and others testified as to the Saxon math series incompatibility with the District?s math curriculum map. Regardless of the arguments that can be made for or against the Saxon math series, the Charter is specific as to the math series to be used at Boston Avenue. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to use an approved math series in violation of Section III.A.(3) of the Charter. 4. Failure of the Student Transportation Service to Comply with State Regulations Student transportation services relevant to this proceeding are set forth in Section V.E. of the Charter. That section provides, in pertinent part, that: The transportation will be consistent with the requirements of section 1006.21 through 1006.27, Florida Statutes, as well as Florida State Board of Education Administrative Rules of Transportation section 6A-3.0001 [sic] through 6A-3.037, as may be amended from time to time. * * * All bus operators who have not obtained proper certification from the Sponsor shall not be allowed to transport any of the School's students. The School must also provide the Sponsor with documentation of the thirty (30) day bus inspection required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 3.0171. The Sponsor reserves the right to inspect the School's buses at any time, with reasonable advance notice (usually 24 hours) so as not to disrupt the School's operation, unless exigent circumstances exist. Failure to comply with these provisions shall constitute "good cause" and the basis for termination of this charter contract. Paragraph 2.c. of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that: The student transportation service operated by BACS has persistently failed to comply with state regulations. Each year, the District conducts evaluations of the charter schools in the district to monitor compliance with the charter and the law. Each of the last three evaluations of BACS has noted serious violations in their student transportation service. Boston Avenue has provided transportation for its students since the 2009-2010 school year. It maintains a fleet of five buses, three of which operate on Boston Avenue?s three bus routes, and two of which were used as back-ups when needed. The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner provided reasonable advance notice of its inspections as set forth in the Charter. As a result of its October 2011 charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue did not have medical emergency plans on its buses for five students who qualified as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. A "504 Plan" describes the special conditions or non- medical care that a qualifying student may need while on the bus. Thus, the contract provision was determined to be “not met.” By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that Boston Avenue did not transport any qualifying students. Therefore, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failure to maintain medical emergency plans is not a sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. As a result of its October 2011, charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue?s Bus Stop Safety Check forms were not correctly or completely filled out. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that Boston Avenue?s Bus Stop Safety Check forms were inspected with no errors noted. Therefore, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failure to maintain correct Bus Stop Safety Check forms is not a sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. As a result of its October 2011, charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue failed to meet contract provisions regarding its bus drivers, including requirements for current DHSMV driving history checks, verification of weekly DHSMV updates for one of its drivers, and timely completion of new Category IV driver clearance forms. In addition, the School Board?s School Bus Operator Qualifications Evaluation Worksheet indicated that two of Boston Avenue?s bus operators did not have at least 40 hours of pre-service training, that three of the operators had deficiencies in their otherwise current medical examination certificates, and that the results of the operators? dexterity tests were not noted on their medical examination certificates, resulting in a performance level of 50%. The Performance Determination Worksheet instructed Boston Avenue to submit “a Corrective Action Plan” to remedy the deficiencies. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that “[a]ll operator records are in order and all are qualified to operate a school bus. The rating for the operators licensure/Qualifications review is 100% where a minimum of 95% is expected.” Accordingly, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failures set forth in this paragraph are not sufficient basis for non- renewal of the Charter. As a result of its October 2011, charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue?s bus No. 9601 did not have a required seating chart onboard, and that bus No. 0356 did not have a required orange “No Students Left Onboard” sign in the back window. Mr. Viecelli indicated that the operator had taken the seating chart from the bus to update it on the day of the inspection, and had not yet returned it. He further indicated that the chart was always on the bus when in use. At the time the “no students” sign deficiency was noted, Bus 0356 was the spare, and was not being used to transport students. When Bus 0356 was taken out of service, the manual, including the emergency packet and all of the instructions and signs used to maintain compliance with state and charter requirements, was moved by the driver to the in-service bus. Boston Avenue has since created complete manuals for each of its five buses. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non- renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that “[s]chool buses were checked for a Route sheet, Student Listing, Seating Chart and Crash Management Packet. Each bus had the required documents.” Accordingly, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failures set forth in this paragraph are not sufficient bases for non-renewal of the Charter. The School Board alleged that, in 2009, Boston Avenue did not use its designated bus loop, and that buses stopped on the roadway behind the school without extending the bus “stop arms” while unloading students. The evidence demonstrates that this alleged deficiency was resolved long before the March 2012 vote on non-renewal, and that the contract provision was “met” as of the December 2011, Charter Review report. The alleged failures set forth in this paragraph are not sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. The December 2011, Charter Review report indicated that the Charter provisions regarding School Bus Inspection Records were “partially met.” However, the report indicated that “[t]he rating for this review is 96.6% where a minimum of 95% is expected. The report indicated no significant or unresolved deficiencies. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failure set forth in this paragraph is not sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. The School Board conducts “spot check inspections” of Boston Avenue?s buses to monitor compliance operations and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. As a result of deficiencies found during a spot-check inspection on March 15, 2012, the District requested that Boston Avenue bring its buses to the District facility for full inspection. The inspection revealed 26 total deficiencies; 15 of those deficiencies were repaired on the spot. Of the remaining deficiencies, three were the result of fluid leaks of one kind or another. Each of the leaks was minor, and did not cause the fluid levels in the respective reservoirs to drop below normal, making them difficult to locate. Boston Avenue had previously contracted with a mechanic who was to have repaired the leaks, but was not successful. Boston Avenue changed mechanics, and the problems have been resolved. The evidence demonstrates that all of the operational deficiencies related to Boston Avenue?s transportation services noted in the October 2011, review were met before the School Board?s vote on the renewal of the Charter. The evidence demonstrates that Boston Avenue made substantial efforts to correct the fleet deficiencies, most of which were resolved before the School Board?s vote on the renewal of the Charter. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the deficiencies in Boston Avenue?s provision of transportation services were so persistent or pervasive as to constitute a basis for non-renewal under the terms of the Charter or the standards for non-renewal established in section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes. 5. Failure of the Governing Board to Exercise Continuing Oversight Over the Operations of Boston Avenue Paragraph 2.d. of the Notice provides that: The governing Board for BACS has failed to exercise continuing oversight over the operations of the charter school. Section 1002.33(9)(i), Fla. Stat., requires that the “governing board of the charter school exercise continuing oversight over charter school operations.” Several instances establish that the governing board for BACS failed to meet its obligations under that section of the statute. The Charter contains no specific standards pertaining to the requisite degree of oversight necessary to establish compliance with section 1002.33(9)(i). Paragraphs VI.A.10. and of the Charter require that Boston Avenue provide information to the School Board, including internal financial control policies and procedures and copies of internal audits and financial audits prepared by Boston Avenue or on its behalf. Boston Avenue complied with those requirements. Failure to Properly Monitor Expenditures by the Management Company Paragraph 2.d., bullet point one, of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he governing body has failed to properly monitor expenditures by its management company, School Management Solutions, Inc.” School Management Solutions, Inc. ("SMS") is Boston Avenue's school management company. SMS is a contractor that provides payroll, finance, purchasing, human resources, and other services to Boston Avenue. The Financial Services section of the December 2011, Review indicated that two of the 13 financial factors were “partially met,” with the remainder being met or not applicable. As it pertains to the failure to properly monitor expenditures, the Notice cited the audit report, and noted the purchase of “large dollar purchases by SMS prior to Boston Avenue Board approval.” The evidence indicated the expenditure to be for a school bus purchased for $6,500, which exceeded the limit of $5,000 for expenditures by SMS without Board approval. The Boston Avenue Board subsequently approved the expenditure. The audit also noted an SMS employee salary that was billed to Boston Avenue in addition to the SMS management fee. The SMS employee was the food services director, who worked at the school but whose salary was not included in the management fee. The review report indicated that Boston Avenue responded to the School Board?s Summary of Findings, and stated that: The policy has been reviewed and reiterated with the school staff and management company. The Board has been advised to appoint a treasurer or liaison person to more thoroughly review the financial statements and monitor the budget. There was no suggestion that Boston Avenue?s response to the review report finding was determined to be inadequate, or that it would not resolve the issue. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Boston Avenue?s alleged failure to properly monitor expenditures by SMS was sufficient to constitute a basis for non-renewal under the terms of the Charter or the standards for non-renewal established in section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes. Conflict of Interest Resulting from the Management Company Appointing and Recommending Members of the Boston Avenue Board of Directors. Paragraph 2.d., bullet point two, of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]the governing board for BACS improperly permitted an official from [SMS] to appoint and recommend members of the Board of Directors, which represents a conflict of interest.” The report of the independent auditors made the statement that “the management company (School Management Solutions, Inc.) has expressed the authority to appoint and recommend members of the [Boston Avenue] Board of Directors, which represents a conflict of interest.” (emphasis added). The report did not provide any detail as to how that expression was made, or by whom. There was no other evidence to support the auditor?s statement, nor was there any evidence that SMS actually appointed or recommended members of the Boston Avenue Board of Directors. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, a conflict of interest as alleged. Failure to Conduct Employment History Checks. Paragraph 2.d., bullet point three, of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[SMS] has not been conducting the employment history checks required by statute before hiring an individual.” The Notice specifically alleged, as the basis for non-renewal: . . . that the required employment history check had not been conducted in the majority of the files reviewed. In a recent site visit, it was found that while a review of the files showed that they now contain a standard reference form, a review of those forms revealed that the majority of the references listed were personal references as indicated on their application, not previous employers as required by the statute. Instead, there was a standard statement - “all references gave positive reviews of the employee and recommend the company hire the employee.” (emphasis added). The Notice did not allege other deficiencies in the employment screening process. Thus, deficiencies related to fingerprint records, criminal background checks, drug screening and the like were not pled as basis for the non-renewal of the Charter, and are not considered herein. Section 1002.33(12)(g)4., provides that: [b]efore employing instructional personnel or school administrators in any position that requires direct contact with students, a charter school shall conduct employment history checks of each of the personnel?s or administrators? previous employers . . . . If unable to contact a previous employer, the charter school must document efforts to contact the employer. Section 1002.33(12)(g)5. provides that “[t]he sponsor of a charter school that knowingly fails to comply with this paragraph shall terminate the charter under subsection(8).” During the October 2011, site visit, the School Board representatives noted that the employee references were not in employee files. Ms. Paige-Pender testified that “there were not the required two phone references, a minimum of two phone references to the last two employers for each employee on file, which is required by Florida Statute.”2/ Mr. Jackson attributed the deficiency to a change in the law, which he understood to previously allow either personal or professional references, but which he believed to have been changed after the opening of Boston Avenue. The Boston Avenue Charter was entered on June 24, 2008, and became effective on July 1, 2008. Section 1002.33(12)(g)4. was enacted in substantially its present form as chapter 2008-108, §14, Laws of Florida, and became effective on July 1, 2008. Thus, the suggestion that employment history checks were not required at the time the Charter was granted and the school was opened is unsupported and not accepted. Mr. Jackson testified that upon being advised of the employment history check deficiency, Boston Avenue and/or SMS contacted each employee?s professional references. Since there is no standard state form for documenting employment checks, SMS documented those checks on a form developed by SMS. Ms. Paige- Pender indicated that her review of the employment history forms demonstrated that many of the references were personal references, and that many employee files did not include information from past employers or documentation of efforts to contact the past employers. While the appearance of the form itself does violate the Charter or state law, Ms. Paige-Pender?s testimony that the forms did not contain the information required was credible, and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent or its agent failed to conduct employment history checks before hiring personnel or administrators, as alleged, and failed to make its employment history records current after notice of the deficiency. 6. Failure to be in Good Corporate Standing Section X.A. of the Charter provides that Respondent “is a not for profit corporation formed and organized under the applicable laws of the state of Florida, and for the duration of this charter shall take all actions necessary to maintain that status in good standing.” Paragraph 2.e. of the Notice alleged that Boston Avenue failed to maintain its corporate standing under the laws of the state of Florida. At the time of the October 2011, review, Respondent had been administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations for failure to file its annual report and fees. On March 22, 2012, the corporate fees were paid, and Respondent was reinstated prior to the March 30, 2012, meeting of the Board at which the proposed non-renewal was considered and approved. Section 607.1422(3), provides that “[w]hen the reinstatement [of an administratively dissolved corporation] is effective, it relates back to and takes effect as of the effective date of the administrative dissolution and the corporation resumes carrying on its business as if the administrative dissolution had never occurred.” Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent?s corporate standing was a valid basis for the non-renewal of the Charter. 7. Violation of Law in the Operation of Boston Avenue Paragraph 3 of the Notice alleged that Respondent, or its agent, SMS, violated Florida law by failing to conduct employment history checks and by failing to maintain Boston Avenue in good-standing as a not-for-profit organization. Paragraph 3 of the Notice is a reiteration of the allegations contained in paragraph 2.d., bullet point three, and paragraph 2.e. of the Notice, and the findings as to this allegation are those set forth for those paragraphs above. School Board Actions Impairing Performance Respondent has argued that a history of “bad blood” existed between the Board and Boston Avenue that tainted the relationship, and potentially resulted in the artificial lowering of Boston Avenue?s school grades. The evidence indicates that the Board and the District followed established procedures with regard to its actions, which included providing notice prior to conducting transportation inspections, and placing FCAT monitors into all classrooms of school that had received a grade of “F” for the preceding year. The evidence that the monitors acted inappropriately during the testing was not convincing, and in any event was not sufficient to establish that the presence of the monitors was so disruptive as to result in a decline in student performance in their FCAT testing. Limitation on the Grounds for Non-Renewal Respondent?s argument that only items related to student safety may form the basis for non-renewal is not persuasive. The purpose of public schools, including charter schools, is to ensure the academic progress and achievement of their students. It was not outside of the scope of the School Board?s authority to base its decision as to whether to renew the charter on the extent to which the goals for student performance and achievement established by the Charter were met. Ultimate Findings of Fact The standards for academic performance set forth in the Charter were sufficient to allow the School Board to make a reasoned assessment as to whether criteria in the Charter regarding student performance and achievement were met during the period of operation. The evidence in this case demonstrates that Boston Avenue has failed, in virtually every measurable area, to keep pace with the educational standards of schools operated by the District. Respondent?s failure to meet the standards for academic performance and achievement as set forth herein forms a reasonable basis for non-renewal of the Charter. Except for Boston Avenue?s failure to conduct timely and complete employment history checks, the basis for non- renewal identified as “other good cause shown,” either were not proven or would not, standing alone, constitute sufficient grounds for non-renewal. As to the employment history checks, the School Board proved that violation of the charter and Florida statute, in combination with the other areas of non- compliance with the Charter, forms a reasonable basis for non- renewal of the Charter. Based on the evidence and testimony as a whole, the School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Boston Avenue failed to meet the criteria for renewal of its Charter, and that its proposed action to deny the renewal of the Charter was not in error.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Volusia County School Board, enter a final order declining to renew the charter school agreement existing between it and Volusia Elementary Charter School, Inc., d/b/a Boston Avenue Charter School. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 14th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collin Hall, has been employed with the Lee County School District since August 13, 2001. He is currently assigned as a Bus Operator in Petitioner’s Transportation Department. Respondent is a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (“SPALC”) and has been a member during all times relevant to this matter. Respondent was assigned as an unassigned regular (UAR) bus operator during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school year. A UAR is available each day to be assigned to a bus when the regular driver is out sick or if the bus route is challenging. The District considers a UAR bus operator as its most professional bus operator. The allegations against Respondent are set forth in the Petition for Termination of Employment filed with DOAH (the Petition). In relevant part, the Petition charges Respondent with the following: failing to control students on the bus Respondent was operating; failing to protect students on the bus if an emergency should develop due to the conduct of the students; failing to ensure that each passenger on the bus was wearing a safety belt; failing to maintain order and discipline, require all passengers remain seated and keep the aisles clear, and immediately report to the designated official student misconduct occurring on the bus in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.017; grabbing a student in violation of Board Policy 5.26; failing to adhere to the highest ethical standards and to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional and contributes to a positive learning environment for students in violation of Board Policies 5.02 and 5.29; and failing to call a dispatcher for assistance if a discipline problem is not resolved in a few minutes as outlined in the Lee County School District’s Handbook for bus operators. Respondent attended various trainings during his tenure with the District, including training entitled, “Wolfgang Student Management,” “All Safe in their Seats,” “Dealing with Difficult Students/Seatbelts,” “Bully on Bus,” “ESE Behavior” and “First Line of Defense.” All of these classes provided training in student management or student discipline on a school bus. In addition to receiving yearly and periodic training, Respondent was provided a manual entitled “School Bus Driver’s Manual, Critical Incident Procedures” published by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and distributed by the District to all bus operators. Page 14 of the manual outlines the procedures to be used for disruptive students. The Bus Driver’s Manual further provides in its Introduction that: The procedures outlined in this document are guidelines (emphasis added) and should be reviewed and tailored by each school district to conform to local policies – always (emphasis theirs) adhere to the district emergency procedures. Although these guidelines reflect the best practices of several Florida school district transportation departments, no one can foresee the details of every emergency. Many emergencies require the driver’s best judgment, keeping in mind the priorities of life safety (sic), protection of property and the environment. In keeping with the FDOE’s directive to tailor the guidelines to conform to the District’s local policies, the District established a policy for the “Preservation of Order on Special Needs Bus.” That policy is outlined in Robert Morgan’s August 24, 2008, Memorandum to Professional Standards. It requires the school bus operator “and/or attendant” to preserve order and good behavior on the part of all pupils being transported. It also provides that: shall an emergency develop due to conduct of the pupils on the bus, the bus driver and/or attendant shall take steps reasonably necessary to protect the pupils on the bus. They are not obligated to place themselves in physical danger; however, they are obligated to immediately report pupil misconduct to a Transportation Supervisor. (emphasis supplied) On May 21, 2008, Respondent was assigned to Bus 999, along with bus attendant Kelia Wallace. Bus 999 transported students that attend Royal Palm Exceptional Center. Royal Palm Exceptional Center is a school that educates students with special needs, including those that may have emotional issues that result in disruptive behavior. All Royal Palm students have Individual Education Plans that require special transportation. Bus 999 was equipped with an audio and video recording system, as are all Exceptional Student Education (ESE) busses in Lee County. The audio and video are recorded to a hard drive which can be viewed at a later time. Robert Morgan, Director of Transportation South, was alerted of an issue on Bus 999 on the evening of May 21, 2008. Morgan was informed that Bus 999 made an unscheduled stop at the San Carlos Park Fire Station during its afternoon route earlier that day. As a result, on the morning of May 22, 2008, Morgan viewed the video recording from Bus 999 from the previous afternoon. Following his review of the footage, Morgan directed a member of his staff to copy the relevant portions of the raw footage to a compact disc. The information on the disc was then forwarded to the District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity for review and further investigation. There was some testimony from Respondent doubting the accuracy of the video and inferring that the video had been altered in some way. However, the record is devoid of any evidence to contradict the audio and video evidence submitted on compact disc by the District. In addition, there was credible eye witness testimony relative to the incident. After Respondent picked up the students at their school and was following the route to deliver them home, Student C.M. was acting inappropriately in the back of the bus. From his driver’s seat, Respondent commanded C.M. to sit down, which was ignored. Respondent pulled over, stopped the bus and proceeded to the back of the bus to deal with C.M. Respondent grabbed C.M., lifted him off the floor of the bus, carried him several rows forward, and put him into another seat on the bus. C.M. was not kicking, punching or threatening any other student when Respondent took this action. C.M. continued to carry on a taunting dialogue with students, including J.O., who was in the back of the bus. Respondent then proceeded on the route. After several minutes Respondent noticed some paper sitting in the middle of the aisle. While the bus was moving, Respondent ordered J.O. to come forward in the aisle to retrieve the piece of paper he had thrown toward the front of the bus. As a result, J.O. walked by C.M. who was still taunting J.O. and other students. The two students then become involved in a physical altercation. Respondent said nothing and continued to drive the bus. The two students continued to fight for approximately 40 seconds before Respondent stopped the bus and walked toward the back of the bus to get a closer look. The fight continued for an entire minute before Respondent took any action to intervene or break up the fight. Instead, Respondent instructed his bus attendant to write up a disciplinary referral (students fighting), but stood nearby and watched the students fight. Respondent said nothing to the students. Respondent then turned his back on the fight, threw up his hands in disgust and returned to the driver’s seat to resume driving the bus. Respondent did not contact dispatch or law enforcement regarding the fight. Approximately 30 seconds later, student C.M. yelled an expletive at student J.S. J.S. came forward, confronted C.M., and battered him to the point where C.M. ended up on the floor of the bus, where J.S. punched and kicked him numerous times. Respondent said nothing. The incident continued for another 20 seconds before J.S. backed off. Respondent again walked down the aisle toward the students. While lying on the floor between the seats, C.M. complained that he was injured. Respondent waited several seconds prior to attempting to assess C.M.’s injuries. Respondent then stated to C.M., “Let me see your nose.” Respondent observed that C.M. suffered a bloody nose as a result of the altercation. Respondent did not provide any immediate medical attention or care to C.M. Respondent returned to the driver’s seat and began to drive. Respondent drove the bus to the San Carlos Park Fire Department station where C.M. received first aide from an Emergency Medical Technician. C.M.’s father was also notified and responded to the scene. Respondent attempted to defend his conduct by indicating that he would have been injured or he could have injured one of the students if he attempted to break up the altercations. This testimony is not credible. Respondent admitted that bus operators are prohibited from picking up students and that he should have used verbal prompts during the other incidents to urge the students to stop fighting. Respondent testified that prior to the events depicted on video, C.M. had responded to an earlier verbal prompt by the bus attendant to return to his seat. Respondent’s testimony is inconsistent and not entirely credible in this regard. In a further effort to mitigate Respondent’s conduct, Respondent’s counsel attempted to portray the students on the bus as completely uncontrollable and the District or school as unsupportive of the bus operators hired to transport these students. However, credible evidence showed that disruptive students were regularly suspended from the bus and from school. C.M. had proven to be a discipline problem on the bus. C.M. historically was confrontational and argumentative with the other students. Notwithstanding C.M.’s prior history of misconduct and violence on the bus, the District suspended C.M. from the bus for one day. Whether Respondent failed to take adequate corrective measures to ensure that C.M. did not repeat such actions prior to allowing him to continue riding the bus is irrelevant to this proceeding. However, Respondent was aware that at least one of the students on the bus had been previously disciplined for inappropriate conduct. Respondent had experience transporting Royal Palm students and had transported Royal Palm students previously during the 2007-2008 school year. In addition, Respondent stated that he had attended all of the training the District provided regarding the discipline and handling of disruptive students on a school bus. It is clear from the record that Respondent had been trained to deal with such students. Respondent mentioned the word “judgment” repeatedly throughout his testimony. Although judgment plays a role in the control of student behavior, the FDOE School Bus Driver’s Manual spells out the protocol for dealing with disruptive students. The first three things a bus operator is to do is to tell students to stop fighting, pull off the road to a safe place and call dispatch and have them contact parents. Judgment is not a part of any of the above instructions, and Respondent failed to follow two out of three requirements. He neither told the students to stop fighting nor called dispatch to inform them of the fights. The bus operator is then to go to the area of the fight, assess the situation, identify the students involved and attempt to gain control. If the operator cannot gain control the FDOE manual states that the operator should radio for help, remove other students from the area of the fight, intervene if the situation is life-threatening, or if not, to monitor and wait for assistance and use reasonable force to prevent injury to himself and the students. Respondent never attempted to gain control of the situation and then, when it did get out of control, he never radioed for help, removed other students from the area of the fight or used reasonable force to prevent injury to the students. Morgan testified that Respondent’s alleged violation of the policy for safety belts was “not the issue,” and the District was not seeking to discipline Respondent for anything related to the non-use of safety belts. Consequently, the District effectively withdrew this charge at hearing. Also, the District did not introduce as evidence the School District of Lee County Transportation Services Operator’s, Assistant’s and Monitor’s Handbook. The charge that Respondent did not follow the procedure as outlined in the Handbook therefore fails for lack of evidence. Respondent failed to comply with the District’s policy for preserving order on a special needs bus. He did not exercise his best judgment. His testimony as to why he did not physically intervene in the fights between C.M. and J.O. and J.S. for fear that he would injure himself or the students is not credible. Although he directed Ms. Wallace to write disciplinary referrals for the students that were fighting, this was inadequate. He did, however, obtain emergency medical care for C.M., and notified the dispatch center of the Transportation Department of the fight and the fact that he was required to divert his route of travel to the fire station for medical care. Immediately, upon his return to the bus compound, Respondent completed and filed with his supervisor an Incident Report detailing the events on the bus that afternoon. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent violated the policies recited in the Petition as a., b., c., d., e., and f. Since Respondent commenced working for the District, he received one probationary and seven annual performance assessments. With the exception of his 2007-2008 performance assessment, Respondent always scored at an “Effective level of performance observed,” except one score of “Inconsistently practiced” in his 2003-2004 assessment for the area targeted of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Respondent’s supervisor consistently recommended him for reemployment, including the 2008-2009 school year. In his 2007-2008 annual performance assessment, Respondent received a score of “Effective level of performance observed” in 29 out of a total of 32 areas targeted for assessment. Respondent received two scores of “Inconsistently practiced” for the areas of “Reports to work as expected unless an absence has been authorized” and “Reports to work on time as determined by route schedules,” and one score of “Unacceptable level of performance observed” for the area of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Although the District’s performance assessment form provides that Criteria marked “I” or “U” require additional documentation, there was no evidence of any such documentation. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was disciplined on two occasions. Respondent was involved in a physical altercation with another employee in February of 2008 and as a result he was suspended for three days without pay. In addition, Respondent was suspended for an additional three days without pay for causing a disruption on another bus operator’s route. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order finding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Respondent and dismissing Respondent from his position as a bus operator with the School District of Lee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be decided are: (i) whether Respondent's interpretation of section 1006.12, Florida Statutes——namely, that charter school operators such as Petitioner, rather than school boards and superintendents, are obligated to assign "safe-school officers" to police charter school facilities—— constitutes an unadopted rule; (ii) whether Respondent's form, which solicits information from charter schools regarding their safe-school officers, constitutes an unadopted rule; and (iii) whether Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for the assignment of safe-school officers to its charter schools constitutes inequitable treatment of charter schools as public schools.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Renaissance Charter School, Inc. ("RCS"), is a nonprofit Florida corporation that operates six charter schools located within the Palm Beach County School District (the "District"). The District is a constitutionally created political subdivision of the state whose geographic jurisdiction ("district region") is Palm Beach County.1/ As used herein, the term "district administration" will refer generally and collectively to the district school officers, officials, and employees through whom the District acts. Respondent The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Board"), is the collegial body established under the Florida Constitution to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the District.2/ Its members are elected to office by the voters of the District. The Board is the "sponsor" of RCS's charter schools. As a sponsor, the Board is empowered to exercise a form of regulatory jurisdiction over all charter schools within the District. The Board's sponsorship authority includes the power to deny the renewal of, or terminate, a charter agreement.3/ Although owned and operated by private interests, charter schools are public schools. As such, charter schools receive a portion of the public funds appropriated to educational purposes. These funds follow students, so that a particular charter school's share of available funds is based upon its student enrollment. Funding sources include, among other things, "categorical program funds" appropriated by the Florida Legislature to specific purposes, of which charter schools are entitled to a proportionate share. Financial resources flow to charter schools through their sponsors, which are required to make timely payments to the charter schools within their respective district regions. In an immediate response to the infamous mass shooting that took place at a high school in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act (the "Safety Act"), which was signed into law and took effect less than one month after the outrage, on March 9, 2018. Among other features, the Safety Act imposes new obligations regarding the stationing of "safe-school officers" ("SSOs") at all public school facilities. SSOs must be certified law enforcement officers except that, in circumstances not shown to exist in this case, regular employees who qualify for appointment as "school guardians" may also serve as SSOs. There is no dispute in this case that, under the Safety Act, one or more SSOs must be assigned to each charter school facility in the District, including RCS's six schools. The question is, whose duty is it to assign SSOs to charter schools? The Board's answer, clearly expressed in word and deed, is this: It's not our job; rather, the obligation falls to each charter school to arrange police protection for its own campus, as though each charter school were a school district unto itself. Indeed, failing that, the charter school will be in violation of the Safety Act. Accordingly, the Board has not assigned SSOs to the charter schools in the District.4/ Nor, apart from paying charter schools their respective proportionate shares of a categorical appropriation for school safety called the Safe Schools Allocation, which preexisted the Safety Act, has the Board provided any funds to cover the cost of police protection. By letter dated March 14, 2018, RCS's security director sent a letter to the District requesting that the Board provide a full-time SSO to each of RCS's charter schools in the district region. The District denied this request via a reply letter dated March 28, 2018, which stated that RCS would need to look to "the governing board of the six Renaissance Charter Schools operating in" Palm Beach County "for assistance [in] implementing the Safety Act or for providing the" SSOs. On April 4, 2018, the Board adopted a resolution declaring its opposition to the deployment of district employees as school guardians, thereby manifesting an intention to rely exclusively on school police or other certified law enforcement officers for the protection of students and school personnel. By this resolution, the Board exercised its discretion, under the Safety Act, to opt the District out of participation in the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program ("Guardian Program"). In August 2018, RCS submitted a request for mediation services to the Florida Department of Education ("DOE") pursuant to section 1002.33(7)(b). Specifically, RCS wanted DOE to mediate the ongoing dispute between RCS and the Board over the responsibility for assigning police officers to charter schools in accordance with the Safety Act. The Board refused to mediate. Thus, by letter dated August 27, 2018, the commissioner notified the parties of her decision that the dispute "cannot be settled through mediation" and "may be appealed to an administrative law judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings." Thereafter, RCS sent a letter dated September 12, 2018, to the School District Chief of Police asking to enter into negotiations with the School District Police Department for the provision of police officers to its facilities through a cooperative agreement. As of the final hearing, some four months later, RCS had received no response from the district administration. On or about October 3, 2018, district administrative staff prepared a survey using Google Forms that was sent by email to each charter school in the District with the subject line, "TIME-SENSITIVE REQUEST Re: Safe-School Officers." The email contained a link to an online form, titled "Charter School Safe-School Officers FY19" (the "Form"). Recipients were instructed to "complete this form by noon on Thursday, October 4, 2018." The survey consisted of six queries. Three were dual choice, yes/no questions that would be answered by selecting the appropriate radio button. Three others required the recipient to type in a short answer. The five questions that "required" an answer were marked with an asterisk. The form solicited the following information: Provide your school name.* [Your answer] Do you have a safe-school officer on your campus?* [Yes/No] Is the safe-school officer on your campus Monday – Friday during all school hours?* [Yes/No] If not, please identify the safe-school officer's schedule. [Your answer] Is the safe-school officer armed?* [Yes/No] Provide the name of the agency that employs the safe-school officer.* [Your answer] The Board maintains that completion of the survey was "optional" and that no charter school has suffered, or will suffer, any adverse consequences for failing to provide a timely response. The Board has not adopted the Form as a rule pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in the Administrative Procedure Act. More broadly, the Board has not adopted any rules implementing the Safety Act, nor has it codified the statement, which it has clearly embraced, that charter schools in the district region are required by law independently to arrange, on their own authority, police protection for their own campuses.
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(a)2., 3., and 4., and (c), Florida Statutes (2019), Petitioner has proved violations of law and other good cause to immediately terminate a charter school agreement with Respondent dated February 27, 2018, due to the immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and/or welfare of the students of Lincoln Memorial Academy, Inc. ("LMA" or "Respondent").
Findings Of Fact LMA converted to a charter school from Lincoln Memorial Middle School by receiving a majority vote of the parents and a majority vote of the teachers by an election pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.0787 (Ballot Process for Teacher and Parent Voting for Charter School Conversion Status). On August 22, 2017, the School Board approved Lincoln Memorial Middle School's application for conversion charter school status, which allowed Lincoln Memorial Middle School to become LMA. In February 2018, the School Board and LMA entered into a charter school contract memorializing the agreed-upon terms between the School Board and LMA with the School Board acting as LMA's sponsor. Then Governing Board Chair Edward Viltz and Governing Board Secretary Cornelle Maxfield signed the Contract on LMA's behalf. LMA officially began its operations on July 1, 2018, with the 2018-2019 school year being LMA's first year as a conversion charter school. As a conversion charter school, LMA technically remained a public school within the School District, but LMA's day-to-day operations ran independently from the School District. LMA had its own Governing Board completely separate from the School Board. Pursuant to the Contract (discussed in more detail below) and applicable statutes, LMA's Governing Board was dominantly and/or solely responsible for LMA's operations—-not the School District or School Board. In fact, according to LMA Founder and CEO Eddie Cantrel Hundley, this level of autonomy afforded to charter schools was one of the benefits of converting. Further, although LMA could have opted into several of the School District's services, including, but not limited to, the School District's food services program and transportation, LMA chose to independently render such services. The Contract under which LMA operated is a model state contract that Florida school districts and charter schools must use per Florida law. It sets forth LMA's obligations with respect to various topics, including, but not limited to, governance, hiring and screening of employees, financial management, federal funding, and other matters of compliance, in addition to circumstances upon which either party may choose not to renew or terminate the contract. Pursuant to the Contract, LMA's governance was regarded to be in accordance with its by-laws. Therefore, the general direction and management of LMA's affairs was required to be vested in the Governing Board. All meetings and communications involving members of the Governing Board were to be held in compliance with Florida's Sunshine Law. The Governing Board and principal were charged with specific duties and responsibilities: The Governing Board's primary role will be to set policy, provide financial oversight, annually adopt and maintain an operating budget, exercise continuing oversight over the school's operations, and communicate the vision of the school to community members. It shall be the Governing Board's duty to keep a complete record of all its actions and corporate affairs and supervise all officers and agents of the school and to see that their duties are properly formed. The Governing Board will serve as the sole responsible fiscal agent for setting the policies guiding finance and operation. School policies are decided by the Governing Board, and the principal ensures that those policies are implemented. The Governing Board shall exercise continuing oversight over school operations and will be held accountable to its students, parents/guardians, and the community at large, through a continuous cycle of planning, evaluation, and reporting as set forth in section 1002.33. The Governing Board will be responsible for the over-all policy decision making of the school, including the annual approval of the budget. The Governing Board shall perform the duties set forth in section 1002.345, including monitoring any financial corrective action plan or financial recovery plan. Additionally, the Contract stated that LMA would be a public employer and would participate in the FRS, that upon nomination and "prior to appointment to the Governing Board," a member must undergo a background screening in accordance with section 1002.33(12)(g), and that LMA must allow reasonable access to its facilities and records to duly authorized School District representatives. Regarding the employment of teachers and other staff, LMA was responsible for selecting its own personnel. However, in selecting its own personnel, LMA was required to employ only teachers certified pursuant to chapter 1012. LMA was to (1) refrain from employing any individual to provide instructional services or to serve as a teacher's aide whose certification or licensure as an educator is suspended or revoked by the State of Florida or any other state; and (2) refrain from knowingly employing an individual who has resigned from a school or school district in lieu of disciplinary action with respect to child welfare or safety or who has been dismissed for just cause by any school or school district with respect to child welfare or safety or who is under current suspension from any school or school district. Further, the Contract states that the school shall implement policies and procedures for background screening of all prospective employees, volunteers, and mentors and the school shall require all employees and members of the Governing Board to be fingerprinted. The results of all background investigations and fingerprinting "will be reported in writing to the Superintendent and/or his/her designee[;] . . . [n]o school employee or member of the Governing Board may be on campus with students until his/her fingerprints are processed and cleared"; and "the School shall ensure that it complies with all fingerprinting and background check requirements." Regarding financial management, the Governing Board shall be responsible for the operation and fiscal management of LMA, and the school must submit a monthly financial statement to the Sponsor (the School District) no later than the last day of the month being reported. LMA agreed to provide the School District, upon request, proof of sufficient funds or a letter of credit to assure prompt payment of operating expenses associated with the school, including, but not limited to, teacher and other staff salaries and benefits. Regarding federal funding, the School Board agreed to reimburse LMA on a monthly basis "for all invoices submitted by the School for federal funds." Regarding the renewal or termination of the Contract, the Contract's terms closely mimic terms of the applicable statute, section 1002.33. Specifically, the School Board may choose not to renew or terminate the charter for reasons set forth in section 1002.33(8) including, but not limited to, failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management, violation of law, and other good cause shown. The Contract further provides that the School shall have 30 days from written notice of default to cure, "absent any circumstances permitting immediate termination." There is no requirement that the Sponsor issue written notice to the school before it immediately terminates a charter for reasons that pose a serious and immediate danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the students. LMA's Fiscal Mismanagement was an Immediate and Serious Danger to the Students' Health, Safety, and Welfare Pursuant to the Contract and applicable statute, LMA was responsible for submitting monthly financial reports. On or about May 15, 2019, School District Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Heather Jenkins learned that LMA's January, February, and March 2019 financials showed a negative fund balance—meaning that LMA's expenditures exceeded their revenues. When the School District received LMA's monthly fund balance for April 2019, it again showed a negative fund balance. By this time, LMA's net deficit totaled $235,438.00. LMA's negative fund balance triggered LMA and the School District's statutory obligation to report LMA's financial situation to the Florida Department of Education, pursuant to section 1002.345(b). Pursuant to statute, if the School District and LMA were unable to reach a consensus on a corrective action plan within 30 days, intervention would be necessary by the Florida Commissioner of Education. § 1002.345(1)(d), Fla. Stat. LMA and the School District had until June 28, 2019, to reach a consensus on a corrective action plan. As the School District began receiving monthly financials showing LMA's negative fund balance, the School District also began receiving notices from various sources reporting that LMA was delinquent on certain payments, including, but not limited to, the Florida Department of Management Services regarding LMA's failure to make payments on behalf of its employees to the FRS; LMA employees reporting LMA's failure to make payroll; and LMA's failure to pay Best and Brightest bonuses to teachers, who had been awarded those bonuses by the State. The School District made repeated attempts to reach a consensus on a corrective action plan with LMA by having numerous meetings with LMA's CFO Cornelle Maxfield and providing feedback on LMA's proposed corrective action plan. Each time, Ms. Jenkins identified numerous issues with LMA's proposed corrective action plan, including, but not limited to LMA's failure to segregate federal funds because such funds cannot be used to balance the budget. Each time, Ms. Jenkins also requested the documentation and information necessary to develop a corrective action plan, including requests for a detailed budget, support for revenue increases estimated by LMA, documentation supporting LMA's cash flow analysis and documentation evidencing payment of payroll taxes, workers' compensation, FRS, all utilities, and Best and Brightest bonus payments. Each time, LMA failed to provide the requested documentation or correct the issues identified. The School District also continued to remind LMA that the next School Board meeting was scheduled for July 23, 2019, and that the School District hoped to have a recommendation for LMA's solvency at that time. Even so, LMA repeatedly failed or refused to respond to these requests. As a result, LMA and the School District were unable to reach a consensus on a corrective action plan. LMA's financial mismanagement and the danger this mismanagement posed to the students' health, safety, and/or welfare rendered it unable to adequately provide the most basic services for its students, including food and water. The testimony and evidence presented by the School Board on this issue remains undisputed that LMA could not pay the invoices and debts identified below, as they came due. Further, LMA offered no evidence to rebut the severity of LMA's financial mismanagement and its inability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students. Given LMA's inability to protect student health, safety, and welfare, the School Board had substantial bases to immediately terminate the Contract pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Within two days of the issuance of the initial Notice of Immediate Termination, the School Board requested the assistance of Carr, Riggs, & Ingram, LLC ("CRI"), to complete a forensic audit of LMA's documents, data, and other information. Although the School Board already possessed significant information at the time of termination showing that LMA's financial mismanagement posed an immediate and serious danger to student health, safety, and/or welfare, LMA's refusal to cooperate and produce financial records resulted in the School Board not knowing the full extent of LMA's debt. CRI's task was to fully review the revenues and expenses of LMA to determine whether all funds due to LMA had been received and properly spent by the charter school. CRI completed its Forensic Investigation Report ("CRI Report"), dated August 23, 2019. However, although LMA attempted to justify why documents had not been provided to CRI, as will be discussed at length later in this Final Order, at the time of the hearing, the School Board still could not fathom the true extent of LMA's debt, since LMA had not produced the required financial records despite numerous requests from the School Board and Orders from the undersigned. Therefore, CRI explained that the CRI Report was based on findings as of August 23, 2019, because they still lacked information to paint a complete picture of LMA's finances. As of August 23, 2019, LMA's outstanding liabilities totaled $1,539,476.29. This amount includes $780,127.43 in unpaid invoices/liabilities, $499,636.23 in debt funding, and $259,712.63 in payroll owed. As of August 3, 2019, LMA's operating account had a negative balance of $526.97. Of the $780,127.43 owed in unpaid invoices and liabilities, LMA owed $373,852.01 to the IRS. A review of available employee payroll records showed that taxes were deducted from employee gross pay, but were not always remitted to the IRS. When asked about these payments at deposition, both Ms. Maxfield and Mr. Hundley chose to assert their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer the questions. Mr. Hundley did not attempt to offer testimony at hearing regarding the unpaid payroll taxes. Ms. Maxfield was not called by LMA to testify at hearing. The CRI Report also revealed that LMA owes $81,917.45 to the FRS. Beginning as early as March 2019, the Florida Department of Management notified both LMA and the School Board of LMA's failure to pay statutory dues pursuant to section 121.78, Florida Statutes, which requires that contributions made to FRS shall be paid by the employer, including the employee contributions, to the Division of Retirement by electronic funds transfer no later than the fifth working day of the month immediately following the month during which the payroll period ended. The statute further provides that employers, who fail to timely provide contributions and accompanying payroll data, shall be assessed a delinquent fee and/or be required to reimburse each member's account for market losses resulting from late contributions. § 121.78(3)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. Despite LMA's failure to remit FRS payments, FRS contributions were deducted from employee gross pay throughout the 2018-2019 school year. When asked about these payments at deposition, both Ms. Maxfield and Mr. Hundley chose to assert their Fifth Amendment rights. As of August 23, 2019, LMA owed $76,118.88 to Humana for employee's health insurance coverage. Although payments to Humana remained unpaid at the time of the hearing, LMA did deduct contributions for Humana insurance coverage from employee gross pay throughout the 2018-2019 school year. When asked about these payments at deposition, both Ms. Maxfield and Mr. Hundley chose to assert their Fifth Amendment rights. At the time of hearing, LMA also owed a total of $74,306.76 to various technology service vendors that LMA relied upon for the provision of internet, voice services, and support for equipment used by students. For example, LMA owed $43,542.00 to Indian River Networks for various services, including, but not limited to, webhosting; network management site support; helpdesk services for faculty, staff, and board members; technology support services for student computers; monthly site visits; and onsite emergency services. LMA owed Spectrum Business a total of $539.90 for internet and voice services. When asked about Indian River Networks at deposition, Ms. Maxfield chose to assert her Fifth Amendment right. With respect to educational services for its students, LMA owes $35,895.00 to Children's Therapy Solutions, Inc. Child Therapy Solutions, Inc., provided speech language pathology services to LMA students. Because LMA was not eligible for any direct funding pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") for the 2018-2019 school year, LMA's Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") funding came through its monthly Florida Education Finance Program ("FEFP") payments from the School District. As evidenced by the unpaid invoices from Children's Therapy Solutions, Inc., LMA did not properly allocate these funds. In addition to the foregoing vendors, LMA failed to pay teacher recruitment and retention awards earned in the form of Best and Brightest bonuses. On or about March 26, 2019, LMA received $19,531.74 from the State of Florida pursuant to the Best and Brightest program. LMA possessed a list of the employees, who were entitled to receive these funds. In fact, on May 30, 2019, Ms. Jenkins e-mailed Ms. Maxfield, notifying her that two Best and Brightest recipients contacted the School District because they had not received their Best and Brightest checks. When asked about these payments at deposition, both Ms. Maxfield and Mr. Hundley chose to assert their Fifth Amendment rights. LMA failed to properly pay its employees. It owes approximately $259,712.63 in unpaid salaries. When asked about these payments at deposition, Ms. Maxfield and Mr. Hundley chose to assert their Fifth Amendment rights. When asked at that same deposition whether she continued to be paid when LMA was unable to pay their other employees, Ms. Maxfield chose to assert her Fifth Amendment right. Payroll records show that LMA paid Ms. Maxfield through July 15, 2019. Payroll records show that Mr. Hundley received a salary of $175,000.00, while Ms. Maxfield received a salary of $92,500.00 for the 2018-2019 school year. In addition to their base salaries, Mr. Hundley was paid an additional $32,150.00 and Ms. Maxfield was paid an additional $31,300.00 prior to LMA's opening on July 1, 2018, ostensibly for work performed in advance of the school year. LMA also paid Mr. Hundley an additional $2,450 per month and Ms. Maxfield an additional $1,150 per month for expenses during the 2018-2019 school year and 2019 summer. Neither of these additional monthly payments, allegedly for "expenses," required documentation of how the additional compensation was spent. This equates to $29,400.00 annually in addition to Mr. Hundley's $175,000.00, and $13,800.00 annually in addition to Ms. Maxfield's $92,500.00. Mr. Hundley's salary was nearly double what he previously received as principal of Lincoln Memorial Middle School, where he earned $105,560.00. When asked at their depositions about these salaries and expenses and the purposes of the additional compensation labeled "expenses," Mr. Hundley and Ms. Maxfield asserted their Fifth Amendment rights. To obtain additional funding to continue operations, LMA was issued promissory notes by third parties and employees and sold receivables prior to and throughout the 2018-2019 school year to raise additional capital. As of August 23, 2019, LMA owed approximately $499,636.26 to numerous promissory note holders in addition to the $780,127.43 owed in unpaid invoices and liabilities. With respect to its sales of receivables, LMA entered into purchase agreements with several holders, including Charter School Capital, Pearl Capital Funding, CFG Merchant Solutions, and ROC Funding Group. By entering into these agreements, LMA authorized some of these holders to make daily deductions from LMA's bank account. For example, bank statements show that there was a daily debit of $1,479.00 by CFG Merchant Solutions, a daily debit of $725.00 by ROC Funding Group, and a daily debit of $1,499.00 by Pearl Capital Funding. This equates to $18,515.00 each Monday through Friday workweek. Further, on July 15, 2019, Mr. Hundley signed an ACH Debit form, additionally allowing Pearl Capital to debit $7,495.00 from LMA's operating checking account. When asked about these promissory notes and loans at their depositions, Ms. Maxfield and Mr. Hundley chose to assert their Fifth Amendment rights. These facts went unrebutted by LMA at hearing. LMA also allowed its insurance for student athletes to lapse while LMA students were on campus participating in student athletics. Although outrage was expressed by Mr. Hundley that such an accusation was made, no credible evidence was offered into the record to rebut this fact. Instead, at his deposition, Mr. Hundley asserted his Fifth Amendment right, when asked whether Ms. Maxfield kept him apprised of outstanding invoices related to student health, safety, and welfare. As a school within the School District, LMA was required to offer insurance to its student athletes. Maintenance of insurance for student athletes ensures that the student athletes are able to pay any necessary medical bills and, therefore, furthers the health, safety, and welfare of LMA's student athletes. As such, this failure to maintain coverage alone constitutes a danger to student health, safety, and/or welfare. The School Board disbursed all funds owed to LMA, which amounted to a total of $4,095,973.08 in federal, state, and local funding. Funding disbursed by the School Board to LMA included $150,256.00 for Title I, $133,067.16 for the 21st Century program, and $19,531.74 for Best and Brightest bonuses. When asked at her deposition whether the School Board paid all FEFP payments to LMA in a timely manner, rather than responding to such a direct and verifiable question as that, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether LMA timely received Title I funds, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether LMA timely received all allocations from the School Board, she asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether the School Board ever withheld funds from LMA to which LMA was entitled, she asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked if LMA timely received all 21st Century program funding owed, she asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether LMA timely received all federal, state, and local funding distributed through the School Board, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. Ms. Maxfield, as LMA's highly compensated CFO, was in the best position to know what the state of the finances were of LMA, yet refused throughout the hearing process to provide documentation or testimony to clarify the issues raised by the School Board in its Notice of Immediate Termination. After the close of the hearing, the School Board received for the first time a copy of an agreement signed on July 1, 2019, by Mr. Hundley on behalf of Total Life Prep, LLC ("TLP"), and Ms. Dawson on behalf of LMA. In the agreement, LMA agrees to pay TLP an annual fee of $275,000.00 in year one, the greater of $500 per student or $280,000.00 in year two, $285,000.000 in year three, $290,000.000 in year four, and $295,000.00 in year five to pay for TLP products. Mr. Hundley is TLP's registered agent. Although this document was clearly responsive to discovery requests, it was never produced to the School Board by LMA. The School Board filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Evidence Supporting Petitioner's Proposed Order on September 18, 2019 (a subsequent amended and second amended motion were filed on September 19, 2019, but changed only the paragraph concerning conferring with opposing counsel), including an affidavit from School Board General Counsel Mitchell Teitelbaum, as to when and how he received the document. The School Board was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Hundley, Ms. Maxfield, and Ms. Dawson about this agreement, because it was not produced in discovery. Based upon these facts, and the fact that LMA either concealed or refused to produce such a substantive piece of evidence, the undersigned hereby accepts the document and grants the School Board's motion to include the additional evidence in the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 52 in Binder 3-3. Although LMA, based upon the verified $4 million in state, federal, and local funds it actually received, should have been able to meet its employees' payroll, insurance, and FRS benefits, as well as pay for its students' food deliveries and the water utility bill, LMA decided to enter into an agreement that would require it to pay TLP (and/or Mr. Hundley) approximately $1,425,000.00 over a five-year period. Since the document was not produced, no explanation was given by LMA as to why it sought this additional funding or whether TLP was a company-owned or controlled by Mr. Hundley or any employees of LMA. This contract is indicative of a pattern of behavior by LMA leaders, who continuously made decisions that presented a serious and immediate danger to the health, safety, and/or welfare of LMA students for self-gain. Further, it appears that this agreement was entered into in an attempt to circumvent section 1012.795, by paying Mr. Hundley as TLP rather than as CEO of LMA. Regardless of the fact that LMA could not pay its employees' payroll, insurance, or FRS benefits and could not pay for its students' food deliveries or the water utility bill, the charter school decided to enter into an agreement that would require it to pay TLP (and/or Mr. Hundley) approximately $1,425,000.00 over a five-year period. Regardless of how this agreement is characterized, Mr. Hundley and the Governing Board acted in direct violation of the EPC Order revoking Mr. Hundley's certification as an educator, and were dismissive of the Commissioner of Education's clear warnings to LMA, the EPC's Final Order, the ALJ, and, most recently, the School Board throughout the discovery period. This put the School Board at a distinct disadvantage in preparation for and presenting its case at hearing. Ultimately, by the limited testimony they chose to offer at hearing, LMA has not disputed the fact that it has a debt of at least $1,539,476.29. By invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, Ms. Maxfield, the CFO of LMA, and Mr. Hundley, the CEO of LMA, have not denied their knowledge of the shortfall in funds for the first-year operations of LMA. LMA's actions in seeking outside funding, issuing promissory notes, and withholding payments to teachers and staff, speak far louder than two individuals' refusal under the Fifth Amendment to answer any pertinent questions about LMA's financial picture. LMA has not offered any evidence challenging the fact that its financial mismanagement was a consequence of poor decision-making and inadequate oversight by LMA's Governing Board, CEO and Principal Hundley, and CFO Maxfield. A lengthy discussion will follow below concerning LMA's contention that all their woes were the result of the School Board not directly intervening in the day-to-day operations of LMA, an independent charter school. However, regardless of such a claim by LMA, the poor decision-making by the leaders of LMA directly interfered with LMA's ability to ensure student health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the School Board had substantial basis to immediately terminate LMA's charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). LMA's Failure to Adequately Comply with Nutritional and Recordkeeping Requirements and Inability to Pay Invoices for Food Services was a Danger to Student Health, Welfare and/or Safety The Contract requires LMA to provide food services to its students consistent with applicable law and to comply with federal requirements for free and reduced meal service. If the charter school chooses to participate in the NFSP, the Contract additionally requires that the charter school follow all applicable federal rules and regulations. Records of all property acquired with federal funds must be maintained. Although the Contract expressly states that the school is entitled to receive all funds provided by the federal and state government for its food service program, it also expressly states that the School Board "shall provide no administrative support for the School's food service program." LMA chose to independently run its food services program. LMA also chose to participate in the NFSP and had its own agreement with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Florida Department of Agriculture") regarding implementation of the NFSP. Because LMA had its own agreement with the Florida Department of Agriculture, it would have been inappropriate for the School Board to become involved unless LMA specifically requested the School Board's involvement. By participating in the NFSP, LMA was able to serve 100 percent of its students a free breakfast, lunch, and snack on a daily basis. The NFSP provides federal funding in the form of reimbursement to schools for the purpose of providing free and/or reduced priced lunches for students. As a reimbursement program, funding is issued based on the content of the meals served. To be reimbursable, the meals must comply with certain nutritional standards. Such standards include the meal pattern requirements issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. For example, according to the meal pattern, a reimbursable lunch must include two full components and a fruit or vegetable. Additionally, during the 2018-2019 school year, all grains served had to be whole grain. If a meal does not meet these requirements, it is not reimbursable. Unlike other sources of federal, state, and local funding that is disbursed by the School Board, the Florida Department of Agriculture directly issued reimbursement to LMA. During the 2018-2019 school year, LMA received $390,277.46 in NFSP reimbursements. Of the $390,277.46, approximately $173,381.93 was spent on food-related expenses. Of the food related expenses, $162,828.90 was paid to U.S. Foods, Inc., and Borden Dairy, while $10,553.03 was spent at local grocery stores, such as Sam's Club, Publix, and Aldi. Of the total $390,277.46 received, CRI was able to account for $268,339.71 spent on food services expenses, leaving $121,937.75 in excess reimbursement. When asked at deposition whether he knew where NFSP funds were deposited, Mr. Hundley asserted his Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether he had any knowledge regarding how NFSP funds were utilized, Mr. Hundley asserted his Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether he had knowledge regarding how LMA spent the excess reimbursement from NFSP, Mr. Hundley asserted his Fifth Amendment right. LMA received another $40,402.01 in NFSP funding for May 2019 and $17,250.43 for June 2019. As of August 3, 2019, LMA's operating account was $526.97 in the negative. LMA currently owes U.S. Foods, Inc., $18,900.59 and Borden Dairy $3,704.59. How LMA spent this excess $121,937.75 remains unknown. To receive this reimbursement, LMA was required to send the number of reimbursable meals served to the Florida Department of Agriculture on a monthly basis. All reimbursable meals must be accounted for. One way to account for and substantiate the reimbursable meals served is through the maintenance of food production records. Production records detail what is served on a particular day and serve as backup documentation showing that the school followed the U.S. Department of Agriculture's meal pattern with respect to meals claimed for reimbursement. The Florida Department of Agriculture conducts an administrative review of records belonging to schools participating in the NFSP every three years. When such a review is done, the Florida Department of Agriculture generally reviews the production records to substantiate the meals claimed for reimbursement and to ensure that the meals claimed followed the meal patterns. Copies of any child nutritional labels or other nutritional information for products served may also be required. In light of these administrative reviews, participating schools are required to maintain these records for a period of five years. If a school's claims for reimbursement cannot be substantiated, the Florida Department of Agriculture may request repayments of the funds previously distributed. The Florida Department of Agriculture may also suspend or terminate its services pursuant to the NFSP. Despite numerous requests by the School Board, LMA has not produced any food production records. And following its termination of LMA's charter, the School Board (with the assistance of CRI) was only able to recover one week's worth of LMA's production records for the 2018-2019 school year. Director of Food and Nutrition for the School District, Regina Thoma, explained that LMA's Cafeteria Manager, Angela Enrisma, told her that she no longer had access to the production records or the software that held the production records. Ms. Enrisma also told Ms. Thoma that CFO Maxfield took the paper production records. Ms. Enrisma similarly testified during her deposition that she kept the production records in a box in her office, and that Ms. Enrisma gave Ms. Maxfield the box of productions on the last day of school. Ms. Enrisma additionally testified that she did not make electronic copies of the production records and that she did not know where the production records were presently located. Despite the fact that LMA's qualified representative Christopher Norwood advised the undersigned that he would ask Ms. Maxfield to produce the box of production records, neither Ms. Maxfield nor anyone else at LMA has produced those records. The location of LMA's production records remains unknown, as is whether these records remain accessible digitally, or even exist. LMA has also failed to rebut the fact that, in the absence of such records, LMA would be liable for penalties for failing to preserve these records, including, but not limited to, repaying funds already received totaling $390,277.46 and suspension or termination of the NFSP program. During the hearing, the School Board requested that the undersigned apply an adverse inference with respect to LMA's failure to comply with the law if LMA failed to produce the requested production records. In response, the undersigned stated that "either these records exist, or they have been destroyed or misplaced or lost. And if they're destroyed, misplaced, or lost, then the inference will be that no such records exist." The undersigned further advised that "there have to be records . . . [a]nd if there aren't records, the inference I make is that the records have been destroyed or hidden." In the conclusions of law to follow, a ruling on the use of adverse or negative inferences will be made concerning both this issue and the invoking of the Fifth Amendment by the CEO and CFO of LMA on all questions relating to the fact and location of LMA funds that remain unaccounted for. The location of these records--aside from the one week CRI (not LMA) was able to find--remains unknown. As will be discussed below, the defense from LMA that the School Board took over the school and had access to all records that existed on the day control was assumed, does not absolve LMA from protecting records either electronically or with back-up copies. Concerning the food service program at LMA, the undersigned must infer that the production records do not exist, were hidden, destroyed and/or were lost and that, consequently, LMA failed to comply with applicable law, rules, and regulations pursuant to the NFSP. As noted previously, LMA served 100 percent of its students a free breakfast, lunch, and snack on a daily basis using funds received from the NFSP. Many students were dependent upon these meals as their only daily nourishment. To the extent that students relied upon the provision of free meals given pursuant to the NFSP, discontinuation of this service would clearly pose a danger to the students' health, safety, and/or welfare. Given LMA's failure to comply with NFSP's requirements, the School Board had substantial basis to immediately terminate the Contract pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Moreover, school was scheduled to start within just a few weeks of the July 23, 2019, School Board meeting. As proof of another lack of attention to detail, LMA has not produced any records showing that it properly screened student meals for allergens. For example, the School District uses software that notifies cafeteria employees when a student has an allergy. Once the software notifies the cafeteria employee of a student's allergy, the employee checks the student's tray to make sure the student does not have any products containing the allergen. Such precautions are implemented because food allergies can be life threatening. LMA refused or failed to produce any records showing that it implemented a similar process or otherwise screened for allergens when serving student meals. LMA also did not offer any rebuttal evidence during the course of discovery or during the hearing showing that LMA screened for allergens. As already noted, the undersigned acknowledged during the hearing that in the absence of records or rational explanation, LMA would be unable to rebut issues raised by the School Board in its Notices of Immediate Termination. The undersigned further advised that, in the absence of requested records or rebuttal evidence, the undersigned would infer that these records did not exist or were hidden and/or destroyed. Accordingly, in the absence of any records or rebuttal evidence, the undersigned finds that LMA failed to properly screen student meals for allergens. Given the serious and potentially life-threatening nature of allergies, any failure to screen student meals for allergens clearly poses a danger to student health, safety, and/or welfare. In the case of a school that boldly claims it was formed to do better by its community, such lack of institutional control is disheartening at best. Accordingly, LMA had substantial basis to immediately terminate LMA's charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). LMA was not able to pay for its food deliveries. A case in point involves U.S. Foods, a mainline food distributor that provides food service, food, and related supplies to restaurants, schools, and other institutions. Schools, especially those that participate in the NFSP, use mainline distributors, such as U.S. Foods, Inc., because their products include child nutrition labels. Child nutrition labels contain information specifically used to assist in complying with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's meal patterns. Without child nutrition labels, it is much more difficult, although not impossible, to ensure that meals meet the meal pattern and are, therefore, reimbursable. Throughout the 2018-2019 school year, LMA had issues paying U.S. Foods, Inc., for its food deliveries. On May 8, 2019, U.S. Foods, Inc., stopped making deliveries to LMA altogether due to nonpayment. LMA currently owes U.S. Foods, Inc., $18,900.59. Borden Dairy was LMA's milk provider. Borden Dairy stopped delivering to LMA on May 24, 2019, due to nonpayment. LMA currently owes Borden Dairy $3,704.59. After U.S. Foods, Inc., and Borden Dairy stopped making these deliveries, Ms. Enrisma, began purchasing foods from local grocery stores, including, but not limited to, Sam's Club, Aldi, Winn Dixie, and Publix. Products purchased from Sam's Club, Aldi, Winn Dixie, and Publix do not have child nutrition labels. At least three receipts, one for purchases made at Sam's Club and two for purchases made at Winn Dixie, contained food items that do not meet the U.S. Department of Agriculture's meal patterns. If LMA served students any items that did not meet meal pattern requirements, such meals would not be reimbursable pursuant to the NFSP. Notably, LMA sought reimbursement for meals pursuant to the NFSP after U.S. Foods, Inc., stopped making deliveries to LMA. When asked at deposition whether he was aware that LMA purchased food from Publix and Aldi to be served to LMA students, Mr. Hundley asserted his Fifth Amendment right. Ms. Thoma visited LMA for the first time since the July 23, 2019, termination of LMA's charter on July 29, 2019. When she arrived, Ms. Enrisma expressed relief because school was starting in two weeks and she was not sure how they were going to feed the students. LMA failed to offer any rebuttal to the following: (1) LMA's financial mismanagement resulted in U.S. Foods, Inc., ceasing services due to nonpayment; (2) the discontinuation of these deliveries resulted in LMA's cafeteria manager purchasing products from local grocery stores that did not have child nutrition labels; (3) products purchased from these local grocery stores did not meet NFSP's meal patterns; (4) these products were not screened for allergens; and (5) despite all of this, the food was served to students. Further, LMA has failed to offer any evidence or rebut the fact that LMA's inability to provide free and nutritional meals to its students posed a serious and immediate danger to student health, safety, and/or welfare. For example, it remains undisputed that upon Ms. Thoma's arrival at the school, LMA's own cafeteria manager expressed that she was unsure how she was going to feed the students moving forward. It is also undisputed that LMA students depended upon LMA's provision of these meals. In light of the foregoing, the School Board had substantial basis to immediately terminate the Contract pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Perhaps the most inexplicable failure to pay issue in this case involved LMA's water utility bill. On or about July 22, 2019, LMA received a water shut-off notification from the City of Palmetto, Florida ("City"), due to an unpaid balance of $3,216.67. In the notice, the City indicated that LMA's payment was 45 days past due and that the payment must be made by 5:00 p.m. on July 29, 2019. The City further indicated that it would shut off LMA's water on July 30, 2019, if LMA failed to make this payment. On July 10, 2019, just twelve days earlier, LMA had received $281,229.85 in FEFP funds. By August 3, 2019, LMA's operating account had a negative balance of $526.97. Notably, this was not LMA's first water shut-off notice from the City. On or about June 17, 2019, LMA received a water shut-off notification due to an unpaid balance of $12,439.23. The notice advised that the City would turn off LMA's water if payment was not made. Mr. Hundley testified that he was aware that LMA received water shut-off notices in both June and July. Accordingly, it is undisputed that LMA received notices from the City threatening to turn off LMA's water due to nonpayment. Further, LMA began receiving notices from the City regarding their failure to pay the water bill as far back as April 2019. For example, the City records state that on April 1, 2019, Ms. Maxfield admitted to a City representative that LMA has not paid "in a while" and that she would make payment that day. However, she did not pay that day. The City representative called her three more times and left a voicemail. The following day, the City representative again attempted to contact Ms. Maxfield. Ms. Maxfield indicated that "state funds are slow coming in." When the City representative attempted to follow up later that day, the City representative was informed that Ms. Maxfield was gone for the day. On April 3, 2019, the City representative was unable to reach Ms. Maxfield, but did speak with Mr. Hundley. Mr. Hundley informed the City representative that, "Lincoln Memorial have exhausted their reserves and that is why they haven't paid for the last four months." The City representative subsequently made numerous attempts to create a payment plan, but Mr. Hundley and Ms. Maxfield--"the only ones that can help"--were consistently unavailable. It is undisputed that a school cannot operate without running water. It is also undisputed that LMA's failure to have running water would pose a serious and immediate danger to the students' health, safety, and welfare. Even Christine Dawson, chair of LMA's Governing Board, admitted that protecting student safety means ensuring students have adequate access to water. The failure of LMA to ensure the school was able to provide such a basic necessity as running water further demonstrates that the School Board had substantial basis to immediately terminate the Contract pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). LMA's Failure to Background Screen Employees was an Immediate and Serious Danger to the Health, Safety, and Welfare of Charter School Students The Contract sets forth the processes that LMA must follow with respect to background screening and fingerprinting its employees. As discussed previously, the Contract expressly states that the school shall implement policies and procedures for background screening of all prospective employees, volunteers, and mentors, and the school shall require all employees to be fingerprinted. The Contract further provides that the results of all background investigations and fingerprinting "will be reported in writing to the Superintendent and/or his/her designee"; that "[n]o school employee or member of the Governing Board may be on campus with students until his/her fingerprints are processed and cleared"; and that "the School shall ensure that it complies with all fingerprinting and background check requirements." "Cleared" means that any criminal history that shows up as a result of such background screening is reviewed. LMA was solely responsible for hiring and background screening its personnel. The School Board was not responsible for interviewing, hiring, selecting, or background screening LMA employees. The terms of the Contract mimic Florida statutory law requiring that instructional personnel, non-instructional personnel, and governing board members undergo a Level 2 background screening prior to hire, pursuant to section 1012.32(2). If the results of a background screening reveal that an individual has been arrested for and/or charged with certain offenses, the law forbids the school from employing the individual. Examples of such offenses include felony theft in excess of $3,000.00. See §§ 1012.315(1)(z) and 435.04(2)(cc), Fla. Stat. LMA contracted with DeAnna King and her company, King HR Services, LLC ("King"), to operate LMA's human resources ("HR") department. Pursuant to King's contract with LMA, the company was hired to provide "complete employee support," recruit employees, and implement policies and procedures for background screening of employees, volunteers, and mentors. The School Board was not a party to LMA's contract with King. Despite King's contractual duties to properly background screen and fingerprint employees prior to hire, LMA never shared the Contract with Ms. King. Despite this, Ms. King testified that she was familiar with Florida statutory law and legal requirements regarding employment of school employees, including sections 453.04 and 1012.32, Florida Statutes. Ms. King also testified that she understood that employees must undergo a Level 2 background screening before setting foot on campus, that she needed to submit fingerprints to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ("FDLE") to adequately complete a Level 2 background screening, and that an offer of employment at a school is conditional pending the results of a Level 2 background screening. Following the School Board's immediate termination of LMA's charter, the School District was required to validate that LMA had properly subjected LMA employees to a Level 2 background screening. During the validation process, the School District discovered that LMA did not have fingerprint results or clearance letters on file for 13 of LMA's employees. Pursuant to the Contract, clearance letters should have been on file for each of these individuals prior to their beginning employment with LMA. Among the individuals listed were CFO Maxfield and a "security official" named John Walker. LMA initially hired John Walker on July 30, 2018. Once properly screened by the School District, Mr. Walker's background results revealed that he was arrested for felony grand theft in the third degree in February 2016, and was re-arrested for violating his probation for grand theft on July 10, 2018, less than two weeks before LMA hired him. Based on these results, the School District would not have cleared him to work at LMA. In fact, absent any evidence of disposition, the statute forbids it. See §§ 435.04(2)(cc) and 1012.315(1)(z), Fla. Stat. Ms. King admitted that she never received the fingerprinting results for any LMA employees. Ms. King also admitted that she allowed the 13 employees identified by the School District to start working at LMA, but never reviewed their background screening results. When asked at deposition whether she understood the background screening process, Ms. Maxfield, who supervised Ms. King, asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether she was aware that LMA allowed employees to work that did not pass their background screening, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked to describe LMA's hiring process, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether Ms. Maxfield was responsible for overseeing the background clearance process, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. As evidenced by the foregoing, LMA has failed to offer any evidence rebutting the fact that LMA allowed individuals to start working at the school prior to reviewing their background screening results or receiving clearance letters from the School District; that Ms. King never reviewed the fingerprint results for any employees, including the 13 employees identified by the School District, before allowing them to work at LMA; that the School District would not have cleared at least one of these individuals, John Walker, to work at LMA; and that failure to subject individuals to a Level 2 background screening prior to employment poses an immediate and serious danger to student health, safety, and welfare. The very purpose of background screening is to protect students and ensure their safety. LMA's failure to adequately protect its students and ensure their safety further supports the fact that the School Board had substantial basis to immediately terminate the Contract pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Eddie Cantrel Hundley's Presence on Campus, with Permission of LMA's Governing Board, Constituted an Immediate and Serious Danger to the Student's Health, Safety, and Welfare Eddie Cantrel Hundley served as LMA's founder, principal, and CEO for the 2018-2019 school year. Mr. Hundley's employment agreement described his responsibilities as principal to include managing and overseeing all of the day-to-day operations of the school, which encompassed effective management of all functions, including, but not limited to: facilities, transportation, staff, faculty, food service, safety and security. With respect to his role as CEO, Mr. Hundley described his job responsibilities to include maintaining a "visible and accessible presence to the school's families and the local communities"; "supervising and directing the corporation's day- to-day activities and affairs"; and executing all decisions approved by the Governing Board. According to Mr. Hundley, he was "always" CEO. Although he appeared to be reluctant to admit this when testifying at hearing, as CEO, "the buck stopped" with Mr. Hundley. No others supervised Mr. Hundley, except for LMA's Governing Board. Also, no other individuals directly reported to the Governing Board, except Mr. Hundley. According to Mr. Hundley, as both CEO and principal, he was responsible for ensuring that the appropriate people were hired for the appropriate roles. LMA Governing Board Chair, Christine Dawson, testified that Mr. Hundley only acted as principal "when necessary" since the role of principal was not required. Ms. Dawson further explained that Mr. Hundley's role as principal was only necessary when "the district needed to require that a principal be at their meetings" or when the district, media, school, and board "recognized and noted" Mr. Hundley as principal. When asked about Mr. Hundley's duties as principal, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked about Mr. Hundley's duties as CEO, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether Mr. Hundley worked at the school each day when he was not CEO or principal, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether Mr. Hundley came to school each day, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. On March 8, 2019, ALJ Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock issued a Recommended Order to the EPC (DOAH Case No. 18-5733PL), recommending that Mr. Hundley's educator's certificate be revoked for a period of five years pursuant to section 1012.795(1), thereby denying him the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students. Judge Quimby-Pennock recommended revocation due to Mr. Hundley's decision to give a positive reference in his official capacity as principal to another school district in support of a former employee, who was under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship with a minor. With respect to her findings of fact, Judge Quimby- Pennock concluded that, at the time Mr. Hundley gave the reference, which included Mr. Hundley answering "no" to the question of whether he had any reason to believe that the individual should not work with children, Mr. Hundley was aware of three different investigations into the employee, all involving allegations of inappropriate conduct with a student. Ms. Dawson testified that in response to the Recommended Order, the Governing Board decided on April 24, 2019, to remove Mr. Hundley's title as principal. The Governing Board also allegedly decided that Mr. Hundley would only have "supervised access" to students moving forward, meaning that Mr. Hundley would "not be alone with students." However, no one exceeded Mr. Hundley's rank at the school, and no one was assigned to accompany or supervise Mr. Hundley's interactions with students. The Governing Board placed no real restrictions on Mr. Hundley. Although Mr. Hundley's title as principal was eliminated, he remained CEO. The Governing Board did not remove or change Mr. Hundley's duties or restrict Mr. Hundley's ability to walk around campus or speak with students. Mr. Hundley also continued to use his same office on campus. Mr. Hundley found no reason to move his office. On May 13, 2019, the EPC issued a Final Order adopting Judge Quimby-Pennock's Recommended Order, including the revocation of Mr. Hundley's educator's certificate for a period of five years pursuant to section 1012.795(1). Even though the Governing Board members received the EPC's Final Order, they did not take any additional action with respect to Mr. Hundley's role as CEO or with respect to Mr. Hundley's presence on campus with students. On or about May 30, 2019, Ms. Dawson received a letter from Chief Randy Kosec, Jr., of the Florida Department of Education's Office of Professional Practices Services. In that letter, Chief Kosec notified Ms. Dawson of the EPC's revocation of Mr. Hundley's educator's certificate and asked if Mr. Hundley was still employed by or working on behalf of LMA. In the event that the answer was yes, Chief Kosec asked Ms. Dawson to explain Mr. Hundley's duties and how those duties could be carried out without Mr. Hundley having direct contact with students. Ms. Dawson waited until nearly a month later to respond to Chief Kosec's May 30 letter. When Ms. Dawson did finally respond on June 25, 2019, she explained that the Governing Board decided at its last board meeting that Mr. Hundley would no longer serve as principal, but would continue to serve as CEO/Founder of LMA. According to Ms. Dawson, LMA's last board meeting was held on April 24, 2019. Ms. Dawson further explained that Mr. Hundley's "executive functions," included "senior level leadership and oversight, strategic planning, program selection, and development of partnerships and resources beneficial to LMA." Mr. Hundley did not limit his future activities to these designated areas of responsibility. Subsequent to April 24, 2019, and throughout the month of June, Mr. Hundley continued to go to LMA's campus approximately three-four days per week to perform his duties as CEO. Video surveillance introduced into evidence shows Mr. Hundley in the cafeteria, while students are present, on June 18, 2019, throwing a ball with students in the cafeteria on June 20, 2019, and speaking with students in the gym on June 24, 2019. When asked whether LMA paid Mr. Hundley in June for work performed at LMA, Mr. Hundley asserted his Fifth Amendment right. LMA students were present on LMA's campus in both June and July of 2019 to take classes for credit recovery and as a part of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program ("21st Century"). The 21st Century is a program that supports the creation of community learning centers to provide academic enrichment opportunities, "particularly students who attend high- poverty and low-performing schools." Programs must include remedial educational activities and academic enrichment learning programs, mathematics and science education activities, tutoring services, and recreational activities. The state awards eligible entities funds to carry out 21st Century programing. LMA was the recipient of such funds, and had over 100 students enrolled during the 2019 summer months. On or about July 2, 2019, Chief Kosec responded to Ms. Dawson's June 25 letter, stating that he understood that Mr. Hundley would be serving as CEO/Founder of LMA, but that Ms. Dawson's response failed to explain how Mr. Hundley could carry out his duties without direct contact with students "which would mean that he would not be on campus at times when students are present, especially the function of 'senior level leadership and oversight.'" Ms. Dawson never responded. On July 16, 2019, Florida Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran e-mailed Ms. Dawson and others, including, but not limited to, Governing Board members James Ward, C.J. Czaia, School District Superintendent Cynthia Saunders, and School Board General Counsel Mitchell Teitelbaum, to discuss his concerns regarding Mr. Hundley's ongoing presence on LMA's campus. In that letter, Commissioner Corcoran summarized the ruling of the EPC and the restrictions imposed upon Mr. Hundley as the result of the five-year revocation received by Mr. Hundley. The Commissioner stated that Mr. Hundley's actions giving rise to the revocation "had in fact jeopardized the healthy [sic], safety, and welfare of students. . . . As a result of the actions taken by the EPC, Mr. Hundley cannot legally perform the duties of a school administrator." If he cared as much about LMA and its students as he professes to, this language alone should have resulted in Mr. Hundley removing himself from any active administrative duties with LMA. When asked what action, if any, was taken in response to Commissioner Corcoran's July 16 correspondence, Ms. Dawson testified that "[t]he action taken happened on April 24th," when the Governing Board removed Mr. Hundley's title as principal and "addressed the direct contact with students, our interpretation of it, through our research and the law." The School Board argued that, notwithstanding the Governing Board's alleged interpretation of law, the plain meaning of the applicable statute is clear. An administrator whose educator's license is revoked cannot be employed in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for the duration of the revocation period, pursuant to section 1012.795. The Florida Department of Education has additionally interpreted this statute to mean that an individual cannot be employed in a position that would require him to be on campus while students are present. Despite the law's clear language and the Commissioner of Education's letter quoting the same, Mr. Hundley was back on campus the following day, July 17, 2019. In fact, video surveillance on this date shows Mr. Hundley speaking with students and hugging a student in the cafeteria. When asked at his deposition in what capacity he worked in July 2019, Mr. Hundley asserted his Fifth Amendment right. On July 16, 2019, Commissioner Corcoran also e-mailed Superintendent Cynthia Saunders and School Board Chair Dave Miner. Analogous to his July 16 correspondence to the LMA Governing Board, Commissioner Corcoran expressed extreme concern regarding Mr. Hundley's presence on campus. After receiving Commissioner Corcoran's detailed letter expressing his concerns with Mr. Hundley being on the LMA campus following the revocation of his certification, Superintendent Cynthia Saunders, School Board Member Reverend James Golden, and School Board General Counsel Mitchell Teitelbaum met with two of LMA's Governing Board members, individually, to ask that they remove Mr. Hundley from campus. The Governing Board did not cooperate. On July 22, 2019, Mr. Hundley sent an e-mail to LMA staff with the subject title, "moving forward." The e-mail included an attachment, which stated: After careful consideration and appreciation for the events of the past several years and with specific interest in obtaining the peaceful resolution of the issue of my leadership at LMA, I am stepping down from my position as Principal, effective immediately. . . . The revocation of my licensee [sic] was an action taken by an overreaching law judge that is being exploited by a biased school district and misinformed commissioner of education. Our own LMA Board disagreed with their erroneous findings in consideration of a state statute and kept their confidence in me as I remained in place in my role at LMA. . . . Rest assured, I will continue to provide the needed guidance and direction to the school leadership to ensure the progress of our mission of providing the best possible teaching and learning experience for all students . . . . Prior to that date, despite the testimony that the Governing Board had removed Mr. Hundley as principal of LMA on April 24, 2019, LMA staff was unaware of any changes with respect to Mr. Hundley's role as CEO or principal. Mr. Hundley's last day on campus was July 24, 2019, the same day that the School Board issued its Notice of Immediate Termination pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). It is undisputed that Mr. Hundley continued to come to campus until the School Board terminated the charter. It is undisputed that Mr. Hundley remained CEO even after issuance of the May 13, 2019, EPC Order, since even his e-mail of July 22, 2019, "stepping down" as principal after having been removed from the post by the Governing Board on April 24, 2019, did not include a statement that he was stepping down as CEO. It is undisputed that students were on campus for the 21st Century program and for credit recovery during the summer months. It is undisputed that Mr. Hundley continued to have direct contact with students while on campus. Finally, even if Mr. Hundley did nothing to harm any student while on campus after his certification was revoked by the EPC, it is undisputed that his presence on campus, by operation of law, posed a danger to the students' health, safety, and/or welfare, due to the revocation of his educator's certificate. This evidence remains unrebutted due primarily to his refusal to testify to the essential elements leading to the Notice of Immediate Termination. Respondent Failed to Rebut Any of the Foregoing Evidence and Failed to Otherwise Prove Any of the Allegations Asserted in its Defense On July 23, 2019, the School Board held its regularly scheduled School Board Workshop ("Workshop"). The Workshop had an agenda item for the discussion of the financial condition of LMA. During the Workshop, Mitchell Teitelbaum addressed the School Board regarding the immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of LMA students, including the concern related to Mr. Hundley's continued presence on campus despite the Final Order of the EPC revoking his educator's certificate pursuant to section 1012.795. Tammy Taylor, director of finance, and CFO Heather Jenkins addressed the dire financial condition of LMA. During the Workshop, Mr. Teitelbaum presented multiple documents to the School Board regarding LMA's continuous failure to cooperate with the School Board and refusal to provide essential information necessary to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of its students were being met. During the Workshop, 13 members of the public signed up for the public comment portion of the meeting, and approximately 12 community members spoke in support of LMA. At the end of the Workshop, School Board Member Scott Hopes requested that Chairman Dave Miner amend that evening's School Board meeting agenda to address whether the School Board should assume the responsibility of the continuing operation of LMA and immediately terminate its charter. Later that same day, July 23, 2019, the School Board hosted its regularly scheduled meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, School Board Member Hopes moved to amend the agenda to include the issue of LMA. School Board Member Golden seconded the motion. The amended agenda was adopted unanimously. During the public comment portion of the School Board meeting, 41 members of the public signed up to participate, including a teacher from LMA who spoke about her 2018-2019 employment contract and unpaid wages. Approximately 23 members of the public spoke in support of LMA. Notably, Ms. Maxfield spoke in support of LMA, and Mr. Hundley was in the audience. At the conclusion of the public comments, Chairman Miner opened the discussion on the LMA topic. The School Board discussed the immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of LMA students. School Board Member Hopes made the following motion: Approval of the Manatee County School Board to: Terminate the Charter of Lincoln Memorial Academy immediately in accordance with section 1002.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes, and section 1(d) of the Charter between the School Board of Manatee County and Lincoln Memorial Academy, Inc., d/b/a Lincoln Memorial Academy; Take over the operational control of Lincoln Memorial Academy Charter School and assume and continue the operation of the Charter School; Forthwith appoint an appropriate person to act as Interim Principal of the Charter School after requesting the School District administration to provide, if available, the names of appropriate candidates with their qualifications who are willing to serve as Principal; Direct the School District Administration to take steps to immediately secure all Lincoln Memorial Academy Charter School property; Take steps to prepare the Charter School to timely open for the 2019-2020 school year with appropriate staff, supplies and equipment; Authorize a forensic audit of the finances and property of the school. The School Board voted on the motion made by School Board Member Hopes, adopting the motion four to one, with James Golden, Scott Hopes, Gina Messenger, and Dave Miner approving the motion, and Charles Kennedy rejecting the motion. The day after the School Board meeting, on July 24, 2019, the School Board issued a written Notice of Immediate Termination. The School Board then issued an Amended Notice of Immediate Termination on August 5, 2019. As previously addressed, the Contract only allows LMA 30 days from written notice of a breach to cure "absent any circumstances permitting immediate termination." Under circumstances presenting grounds for immediate termination, such as a serious and immediate danger to the health, safety, and/or welfare of the students, the Contract does not require the Sponsor to issue written notice to the school before it immediately terminates a charter. However, even if Petitioner had an obligation to provide LMA notice and an opportunity to cure, as LMA argued at hearing, Petitioner adequately provided such notice. For example, following numerous meetings with Ms. Maxfield and unfulfilled requests for documentation and information, School District CFO Heather Jenkins notified Ms. Maxfield on May 29, 2019, that LMA was in a deteriorating financial condition pursuant to section 1002.345 and as a result, both LMA and the School District had a statutory obligation to reach a consensus on a corrective action plan by June 28, 2019. Ms. Jenkins followed up on both June 10, 2019, and June 21, 2019, with additional requests for information and documentation and proposed revisions to LMA's corrective action plan. LMA failed to adequately respond or otherwise address the issues identified by Ms. Jenkins. On or about July 8, 2019, Ms. Jenkins summarized her numerous attempts to work with LMA in a Notice of Non-Compliance addressed to LMA's Governing Board. This notice included a copy of each attempt by the School Board to work with LMA to reach a consensus on a corrective action plan, demonstrating that LMA knew long before receipt of this July 8, 2019, notice that it had a statutory obligation to develop a corrective action plan with the School Board. Regardless, however, and consistent with Petitioner's overall contention that additional notice was not required prior to immediate termination, section 1002.345(5) provides that "[t]his subsection does not affect a sponsor's authority to terminate or not renew a charter pursuant to s. 1002.33(8)." During this same time frame, the School District also issued LMA numerous notices of noncompliance and/or contractual breach regarding a variety of other related topics. For example, on April 1, 2019, Director of District Support Frank Pistella notified Ms. Maxfield that the School District had received a letter from the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, stating that LMA had not paid FRS contributions for two months. On June 25, 2019, Ms. Jenkins e-mailed Ms. Maxfield to notify her that the School District received an alert that LMA failed to make payroll despite the fact that LMA cashed its final 2019 Referendum Disbursement in the amount of $61,288.75 and its June FEFP disbursement in the amount of $261,009.97. Ms. Jenkins requested confirmation and documentation that LMA fully paid all employment contracts and confirmation that LMA fully paid FRS payments due to employees. Ms. Jenkins also sent this e-mail to Mr. Hundley, Ms. Dawson, and other members of the Governing Board. On or about July 3, 2019, Dr. Pistella notified LMA's Governing Board members of their failure to comply with sections 121.78 and 1002.33(9)(k)2. Specifically, section 1002.33(9)(k) requires the governing body of a charter school to annually report its progress to the Sponsor and the Commissioner of Education. Section 1002.33(9)(k) additionally requires the charter school to report its financial status, "which must include revenues and expenditures at a level of detail that allows for analysis of the charter school's ability to meet financial obligations and timely repayment of debt. In the July 3, 2019, letter, Dr. Pistella not only quoted the statutory language, but also listed every single time that the School District requested proof of LMA's FRS payments and included attachments evidencing the same. On or about July 16, 2019, Dr. Pistella sent the LMA Governing Board and Mr. Hundley a letter summarizing each and every time the School District attempted to notify LMA of statutory and contractual breach and/or requested unfulfilled requests for information between April 1, 2019, and July 12, 2019. This July 16, 2019, correspondence served as a cumulative notice and summary of all prior correspondence with LMA regarding these issues. This letter also included every prior notice cited therein as an attachment. The School Board again sent this correspondence, and all of its attachments, to LMA as an exhibit to the Notice of Immediate Termination sent to LMA on July 24, 2019. LMA received this correspondence and was notified of all prior attempts by the School Board to notify LMA of its statutory and contractual violations not once, not twice, but at least three times. LMA does not dispute that it received the foregoing notices. And more importantly, LMA has not offered any evidence rebutting the fact that the circumstances identified above as grounds for Petitioner's immediate termination of LMA, i.e., Mr. Hundley's ongoing presence on campus, LMA's financial mismanagement, LMA's inability to pay for food deliveries, LMA's inability to pay the water bill, and LMA's failure to properly background screen employees, posed an immediate and serious danger to LMA students. Regardless of whether notice was issued, substantial basis existed to terminate LMA's charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). As evidenced by the plain terms of section 1002.33(8)(c) and the Contract, opportunity to cure is not afforded under these circumstances. During the hearing and his deposition, Mr. Hundley did not dispute the fact that LMA is in significant debt, but suggested that Petitioner was to blame with respect to LMA's current financial state and current inability to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its students. For example, Mr. Hundley testified that LMA did not receive Title I funds when it should have and that LMA should have received "at least" $283,000.00 in Title I funds, with a per pupil allocation of at least $800. According to Mr. Hundley, this alleged delay of LMA's receipt of Title I funds and receipt of less Title I funds than initially projected, impacted LMA because "[w]hen you need to extend [sic] funds before you can get them back, if you don't have a sizeable reserve, that can become problematic if those funds are not being reimbursed on [sic] a timely manner and you're having to pay them out continuously.” Mr. Hundley's contentions that LMA's current financial state and current inability to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its students is a result of any act or omission by the School Board, are not supported by any evidence in the record. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that the School District paid LMA a total of $4,095,973.08 in federal, state, and local funding. Included in the $4,095,973.08 is the $3,096,731.26 in FEFP funding that LMA received between July 2018 and July 2019, with the last payment of $281,229.85 being issued on or about July 10, 2019. The $4,095,973.08 total also includes $150,256.00 in Title I funds. Title I is a federal program designed to mitigate the impact of poverty on students. The application for Title I funds is district-wide, meaning one application is submitted on behalf of the entire School District. Poverty rankings are based on a school's Community Eligibility Provision ("CEP") classification or free and reduced lunch applications. The amount of funds distributed to each school depends upon two factors: (1) the number of enrolled students and (2) the school's poverty level pursuant to a "rank and serve" system. "Rank and serve" means that the School District cannot give a school with a lower poverty level more funds than a school with a higher poverty level. As such, it is not only the school's poverty that matters, but also the school's poverty level in relation to the poverty of other schools. Accordingly, the amount of Title I funds issued may fluctuate from year to year. While FEFP funds, and other state and local funding, can be used to run a school's core program, federal funding, such as Title I funds can only be used "to supplement, not supplant." As such, Title I funds can be used for supplemental materials, supplemental positions, parent involvement, and after-school programs. Whether a school is properly using Title I funds for supplementing, rather than supplanting, depends upon whether the school can operate without relying on the Title I funds. The school must be able to run its program even in the absence of Title I funds. As a result of the charter school conversion, LMA was considered a new school; it was no longer Lincoln Memorial Middle School. As a new school, the Department of Education assigned LMA a master school ID number. Because LMA was a new school, it had to establish its eligibility as a Title I school, despite any prior history as Lincoln Memorial Middle School. As a new school, the allocation set forth in LMA's application was based upon projections for the 2018-2019 school year. Accordingly, the School District assigned LMA a "K Code," signifying that LMA was projected to be a Title I school, but that LMA's eligibility could not be proven until their receipt of Survey 2 data in October 2018. Once received, the Survey 2 data would then replace the initial projections with actual numbers. Title I applications are generally approved between September and December. In the meantime, LMA was permitted to submit requests for reimbursement to the School District based upon the projected allocation. The School District worked with LMA on an individual basis to assist in planning, purchasing, and reimbursement with respect to Title I funds. In correspondence and meetings with LMA, the School District repeatedly reminded LMA that its initial application for Title I funds was based on projections and that LMA's projections would be updated with the October 2018 Survey 2 data. In September 2018, the Department of Education notified the School District and LMA that LMA must revise its application by removing the 1.6 multiplier generally assigned to CEP schools because it was a new school. The School District admitted its error in previously informing LMA that the multiplier would apply. With the multiplier removed, LMA's per pupil allocation changed from a projection of $283,000.00 to $117,000.00. Despite the $117,000.00 allocation, the School District used other funds to increase LMA's total allocation to $150,256.00, the most the School District could give pursuant to the rank and serve system. Although Mr. Hundley disagreed with the amount of Title I funds LMA was entitled to receive, he did not disagree with the fact that Title I funds can only supplement, not supplant. When asked how Title I funds can be used during his deposition, Mr. Hundley answered: "It can be used to supplement. It cannot be used to supplant. It can be used for certain materials." When asked a similar question during the hearing, Mr. Hundley again admitted that LMA could not rely on Title I funds for core costs and expenses, yet his testimony consisted in part of the statement that "I was absolutely relying on Title I funds to run my school." As evidenced by the foregoing testimony, Mr. Hundley admits that LMA could not use Title I funds for core costs and expenses while also admitting that he was relying on Title I funds to do just that. Yet, Mr. Hundley, who has 20 years of experience working in Title I schools and is "the most senior Title I principal in Manatee County," continues to suggest that LMA's receipt of $150,256.00 versus the $283,000.00 initially projected in Title I funds caused LMA's financial woes and related failure to ensure student health, safety, and welfare. While the difference between $283,000.00 and $150,256.00 is a significant amount ($132,744.00), it is less than 10 percent of the LMA shortfall discovered by CRI of more than $1.5 million. This suggestion that the reduced amount of Title I funds caused the downfall of LMA is both completely unreasonable and completely unsupported by any evidence or facts. Neither Mr. Hundley nor anyone else at LMA has explained, or even attempted to explain, how LMA could prevent the serious and immediate danger posed to the health, safety, and welfare of its students by being unable to meet its financial obligations for its utilities, food, insurance, and salaries of its teachers by such a large amount. LMA's CFO, Ms. Maxfield, the individual charged with overseeing LMA's budget and financials, also failed to provide any evidence in support of Mr. Hundley's suggestion that LMA's current financial situation is a result of any failure by the School District to properly disburse funds to LMA. Rather, when asked a series of financial questions on her deposition, Ms. Maxfield, in every instance, asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether LMA timely received Title I funds, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether LMA timely received all allocations from the School District, she asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether the School District ever withheld funds from LMA to which LMA was entitled, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When asked whether LMA timely received all federal, state, and local funding distributed through Manatee County, Ms. Maxfield asserted her Fifth Amendment right. When Mr. Hundley further contends that the School District's alleged rezoning of LMA impacted LMA's funding, such contention also misses the mark. During the hearing, Mr. Hundley testified that "zoning changes, as well as other actions" negatively impacted LMA's enrollment, and that this enrollment, in turn, impacted LMA's financial viability. However, when asked whether it was Mr. Hundley's testimony that he could zone children to LMA as a school of choice, he answered, "no." When asked whether Mr. Hundley understood that students who desire to go to LMA would affirmatively have to choose to go there as a school of choice, Mr. Hundley answered, "[a]s a charter school, yes, they can choose to go to LMA." As admitted by Mr. Hundley, enrollment by students at LMA is based on the affirmative choice of students and parents, not upon zoning. Mr. Hundley's contention regarding zoning restrictions is without merit. As evidenced by the foregoing, LMA has received all funds to which it is entitled. LMA's financial deterioration and the debilitating effects of that deterioration on LMA's ability to ensure student health, safety, and welfare are the result of poor decision making, large payments to its administrators, and misuse of funds by LMA leadership, not the result of any failure by the School District or any other entity to disburse funds. These facts remain unrebutted. LMA Attempted to Paint a Wholly Different Picture of the Events Leading to the Notice of Immediate Termination of the Charter School With its CEO/principal, Mr. Hundley, and its CFO, Ms. Maxfield, invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self- incrimination hundreds of times in their depositions, LMA was left with an impaired case in trying to give its defense to the immediate termination of the charter. By invoking the Fifth Amendment on any matters regarding LMA's expenditures, payment of payroll taxes, FRS contributions, unpaid invoices to food and educational vendors, payment of earned Best and Brightest awards by hard-working teachers, and even payment of the water utility bill, LMA focused only on its position of the reason LMA was created. LMA attempted repeatedly to place blame for any issues raised in the Notice of Immediate Termination on the School District, accepting no responsibility whatsoever. The hearing room was filled throughout the proceedings with concerned LMA parents, teachers, and staff, none of whom were identified by name or called to testify on any issues, let alone those relevant to whether LMA should lose its charter. Ostensibly, the respectful and close-listening audience was there to support the fact that the charter school was created by a groundswell of concerned parents and community members, who wanted a better education for their children and neighbors than they believed was previously being offered at Lincoln Memorial Middle School. The undersigned has no reason to doubt their sincerity and desire to want the best possible education for the students, but LMA did not take advantage of this resource to support its case. None of the parents, teachers or staff, with the exception of LMA's head custodian, Mr. Saul Johnson, its HR vendor through its leader Ms. King, and Mr. Hundley testified. With the limitations on their knowledge of the essential facts leading to the immediate termination (Mr. Johnson and Ms. King) and the limitation of what Mr. Hundley would testify about once he repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right, the picture of a high-functioning charter school painted by LMA was incomplete, at best. The substance of Mr. Johnson's testimony was that the School District, prior to the creation of LMA, allowed persons having "no contact with students" restrictions to be in buildings where students could be found during the school day. This testimony was offered, presumably, to support the fact that Mr. Hundley should be allowed on campus during the 21st Century program, regardless of the fact his certification as an educator had been revoked by the EPC. The testimony offered by Mr. Johnson, while earnest and factual to the best of his knowledge, is not relevant to the issues in this matter. Mr. Hundley's contact appeared, via video and photographs admitted into evidence, to be direct and substantial when he entered LMA while the summer program was underway. Mr. Johnson's testimony that a staff member may have been on some part of campus where students could be present was based wholly on hearsay and without knowledge of the restrictions, if any, imposed on that specific individual. Even if true and accurate, the staff member discussed by Mr. Johnson was neither in a supervisory role, nor in a role that required direct contact with students. The gentleman described was a custodian. The testimony is discredited as inadmissible hearsay. Further, testimony offered by Mr. Hundley, although limited by his asserting his Fifth Amendment right, conflicted with that given by LMA's Governing Board chair, Ms. Christine Dawson. Ms. Dawson and Mr. Hundley contradicted each other and themselves when attempting to answer simple questions, such as when the Governing Board removed Mr. Hundley's title as principal. Specifically, Ms. Dawson testified that Mr. Hundley's job title changed following a Governing Board meeting on April 24, 2019, while Mr. Hundley testified that his job title changed in mid-June. As found previously, Mr. Hundley notified the staff at LMA that he was "stepping down" as principal on July 16, 2019. To further compound the lack of consistent testimony regarding when Mr. Hundley's responsibilities as principal ceased, Ms. Maxfield simply asserted her Fifth Amendment right when asked about the subject at deposition. Even when Mr. Hundley "formally" renounced his title as principal, he notified the LMA staff that he would "continue to provide the needed guidance and direction to the school leadership." When asked at her deposition about Mr. Hundley's responsibilities as CEO as opposed to principal, Ms. Maxfield again asserted her Fifth Amendment right. The facts presented by Mr. Hundley, Ms. Dawson, and the reasonable inferences drawn from Ms. Maxfield's asserting the Fifth Amendment when asked about Mr. Hundley's duties compel the undersigned to conclude that Mr. Hundley acted dishonestly towards LMA's staff, the very parents he testified stood behind him as the individual to bring Lincoln Memorial Middle School to a place of prominence in the educational system of Manatee County as LMA, School District personnel, and in these proceedings. One fact rings true here regarding Mr. Hundley: the undersigned believes that the parents, staff, and community served by LMA put their faith in him to lead them to better educational opportunities for their children and neighbors. His actions in more than doubling his salary and expense account when compared with his previous experience in Manatee County, in hiring Ms. Maxfield at a high salary and with an expense account, in hiring an HR vendor with whom he has a personal relationship, and in not taking any responsibility for the whereabouts of more than a $1.5 million shortfall out of an annual allocation of slightly more than $4 million, as significantly proven by the CRI Report, leave the undersigned with only one conclusion. Namely, while Mr. Hundley's motives in helping found LMA may have started as pure, they quickly became about the riches he could accumulate at the expense of the education, health, safety, and welfare of LMA's students and their families, as well as the staff, who bought into the college preparatory program he promised to provide them. At the center of LMA's case at hearing lies the pointing of fingers at the School District. Repeatedly throughout LMA's presentation of its case, their Qualified Representative, Mr. Norwood, asked School District personnel how many times they had visited LMA during the first year of its operations; why had they not visited more frequently, especially those who testified they had never visited the campus since that was not part of their job duties; and, above all, why the School District did not intervene and attempt to take over or counsel LMA's staff on the School District's concerns. Moreover, Mr. Norwood asked witnesses for the School District why they did not send more "Notice Letters of Breach of Contract," every time a real or perceived shortcoming on the part of LMA was made known to the School District. The response was invariably from the School District witnesses was that they repeatedly attempted to have serious questions answered concerning payroll taxes, FRS contributions, payment of allocated funds for Best and Brightest award winners, and why the water utility bills were constantly in arrears. LMA refused every request to respond to these issues, leading, ultimately, to the School District, after the vote by the School Board, to proceed with the most drastic measure (and the only one remaining) imaginable, issuing a Notice of Immediate Termination of LMA's charter. The testimony presented by both parties to this proceeding leads the undersigned to the conclusion that no tools were left for the School District in dealing with a charter school that failed to address their repeated efforts at gathering information. Another factor that has not gone unnoticed by the undersigned in the course of these expedited proceedings is that LMA's pattern of refusing to respond to requests for information made by the School District during discovery has continued into these proceedings. The undersigned can only imagine Petitioner's frustration with the constant refusal of LMA to provide the documents requested during discovery, with the common refrain of "you already have the documents because you (the School District) seized all of LMA's records, computers and laptops, leaving us (the former staff) with nothing to provide you." However, this cry by LMA fails to ring true. No HR company, CFO, school principal, or school CEO, in this 21st century digital age, can continuously be deemed credible when asserting that no backup, whether hard copy, DVD, thumb drives, or in the Cloud, exists. When forensic accountants and long-time public officials cannot find all of the necessary records to continue the operation of the school, just two days after being taken over by the School District, to answer the questions about payroll taxes, FRS contributions, Best and Brightest awards, food service menus and purchases, and utilities payments, someone is hiding the ball. No evidence was presented through testimony, and certainly not through documentation, that LMA provided the complete records of their activities in this first year of the charter school's operations. The presumption here must be that the complete records were destroyed, lost, or intentionally withheld from production by LMA to the School District. Even with limited records available, however, the School District has made a strong case for immediately terminating the charter. When the two principal leaders of LMA refused to answer most of the questions posed to them in deposition on the grounds their answers might tend to incriminate them, no conclusion can be reached by the undersigned other than that those records have been kept from the view of the School District intentionally and improperly. Therefore, following the issuance of this Final Order, the undersigned will reserve jurisdiction on the issue of sanctions for refusal or failure by LMA to provide all the documents in its or its vendors' possession. A hearing will be held solely on the issue of the appropriate sanctions to be imposed. The parties will be given the opportunity to state they intend to rely on the previous motions and responses filed regarding sanctions, or, in the case of LMA, to offer additional reasons for not complying with the reasonable discovery requests, even when given the opportunity to continue to do so after the hearing. LMA will also be permitted to provide any defenses and mitigating factors, as permitted by law, concerning their ability to pay any monetary sanctions that might be awarded by the undersigned. To summarize, the facts, corroborating evidence, and corroborating testimony offered by Petitioner in support of its decision to immediately terminate LMA's charter remain unrebutted and undisputed. Testimony by itself without any records is not sufficient. Moreover, the testimony provided by LMA is, largely, not credible. LMA has failed to produce any records or documentation corroborating or supporting the inconsistent, evasive, and ultimately non-credible testimony of its witnesses.
The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of the acts charged in the specific notice of charges dated September 11, 1990, and, if so, whether petitioner should discharge him from his job as a school bus driver or take other disciplinary action?
Findings Of Fact After orientation and instruction beginning with his employment as a school bus driver trainee in September of 1987, respondent "was given [his] first bus" (T.383) on December 9, 1987. Formerly a truck driver, he became a permanent or non-probationary school bus driver in March of 1988. 1987-1988 After respondent drove his first route, No. 131, for two days, a supervisor shifted him to route No. 94, telling him "what a troubled bus it was." T.386. The supervisor told him the middle school students had already had plenty of warnings and exhorted him, "'Quit warning them. Write them up.'" Id. The rest of the 1987-1988 school year, respondent drove route No. 94, which entailed two separate runs, one for kindergarteners and one for middle schoolers. On the middle school run, "90 percent of the children wouldn't mind at all." T.392. The first of March or the end of February of 1988 (T.64), respondent Henderson told Rosalyn Brown, at the time the only black student on the bus, "to sit [her] black ass down in the seat." T.269. On other occasions, he told students to "[s]hut the hell up," (T.270) and said, "I won't put up with this bullshit." Id. He used the word "[f]uck . . . sometimes." T.256. Petitioner's official school board policies, a copy of which respondent received at or about the time he began work, state: Drivers shall at all times set good examples for the students riding their buses. Do not do on your bus that which students are not permitted to do. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, No. 6.44.9. Hernando County School Bus Rules, Instructions for Pupils Riding Buses provides, "Pupils must not use any abusive or profane language to other pupils, the driver, or pedestrians." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, No. 10(b). On May 23, 1988, middle school girls were seated on the right hand side of the bus and boys on the left, as usual. As the bus, with respondent at the wheel, passed prisoners at work on a shoulder of the road, "the girls started leaning out the window hollering." (T.396) Mr. Henderson had hardly told them to close their windows when, while waiting for a traffic light to change, a "car pulled up beside [him, and the driver] complained that the boys w[ere] throwing paper out the windows at the back," (T.397) so he "informed the boys to close their windows," (id.) too. When, windows closed (except for respondent's), the bus began to resound with the sound of "stomping . . . feet" (T.397), Mr. Henderson pulled the bus over and parked by the side of the road. Unable to restore order, he drove the bus back to middle school. There respondent allowed the students to lower their windows, and the "duty teacher" urged them to behave. To respondent, the duty teacher said "if they didn't quiet down, take them on into Brooksville," (T.398) to the bus barn. Because the students were still unruly five minutes later, respondent drove them from the school to the transportation compound, where a mechanic boarded the bus to help maintain order, while respondent drove the children home. No violation of school board policy on Mr. Henderson's part was proven, in connection with the events of May 23, 1988. Limbs protruding and various missiles leaving through open windows justified his directing that the windows be closed. The radio in respondent's bus at the time was not in working order. Petitioner's official policies require that each "bus driver shall be responsible for being familiar with all state and local laws and regulations in regard to safety and see that these are properly carried out." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.4. At stop signs, respondent would "slow down, but he wouldn't come to a complete stop" (T.271) every time. When he failed to come to a complete stop, "the students would always yell at him about it." T.277. 1988-1989 Respondent resumed driving route No. 94 when school started in the fall of 1988. One day the first week back two fights broke out before the bus left middle school, and the new principal had to intervene. Later in the week, Joan Gear, petitioner's transportation coordinator told Mr. Henderson, "'Ray, we're going to prove a point to this principal. I want you to take another bus for a while.'" T.402 (Discipline problems persisted under respondent's successor on bus No. 94.) Mr. Henderson began the second week of the new school year driving route No. 108. After a week on route No. 108, he was transferred, without explanation, to route No. 73, one of the routes he had been on as a trainee and a less remunerative assignment than either No. 94 or No. 108. Only after the first Monday morning's run did he receive the No. 73 route report or route sheet, which listed twelve regularly scheduled stops. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B. The tenth morning stop was listed as "White House on Right," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B, on Ft. Dade Street. The white house meant stands north of Ft. Dade and slightly east of Little People's Day Care, which is on the south side of the street. Brandy Huntley, a niece of the day care center's proprietress, and two other middle schoolers were picked up mornings directly across the street from the white house, at the end of the day care center driveway. The first afternoon he drove, respondent stopped directly in front of the white house, and Brandy and the other middle schoolers disembarked there. But two afternoons that week (not in succession) he failed to stop in front of the white house (or across the street from Little People's Day Care.) Instead he stopped after turning left at the next intersection. Respondent's claim that a ditch made it necessary to stop in the middle of the road, if the bus stopped in front of the white house or across from the nursery afternoons, went unrebutted; but letting children out around the corner created other hazards. Nor was the spot respondent chose a "regularly scheduled stop" for any student. School board policy provides that "[a] driver shall not let any student off the bus at other than the student's regularly scheduled stop, unless permission has been given in writing by the child's parent." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.18. No such permission had been given here. Under school board policy, bus drivers may never let students off between regularly scheduled stops. After a discussion about where to stop on Ft. Dade Street in the afternoons and before his first week on route No. 73 was out, respondent took a leave of absence through November 22, 1988. Once the leave was over, petitioner's initial refusal to put him back to work resulted in respondent's filing an unfair labor practice charge. On January 18, 1989, he returned to work. For the remainder of the school year, he drove route No. 75, without incident. Two Minutes Time allotted for regular routes includes a half hour for cleaning and paper work, but drivers on field trips are paid based on the time actually required to do the job. On July 18, 1989, Mr. Henderson drove on a field trip. Ordinarily, a field trip driver completes and submits a form showing how long he has worked, only after making the trip and cleaning the bus. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11 and 13; T. 423. Rain made for an early end to the field trip. At five minutes after noon on the 18th, Mr. Henderson set out for the restroom in the transportation compound offices. He took with him a form on which he had written 12:30, his estimate of when he would finish cleaning the bus. Leaving the form on Miss Looper's desk, he returned to the bus and began cleaning. After he had cleaned the bus, he returned to the compound office, which he reached at 12:28. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11, 13, T. 423. When Ms. Gear asked him to substitute 12:28 for 12:30 on the form, he responded, "Joan, if you want the time changed, change it." (T.424) When she said, "I won't pay you if you don't change it," Id., he replied, "Don't pay me." Id. A month later, the unaltered form was processed and respondent was paid. Whether two minutes made any difference in his compensation for the field trip the evidence did not show. 1989-1990 When the next school year began, Mr. Henderson drove route No. 200. One October afternoon after students had boarded, Mr. Henderson prepared to pull away from the high school. Before moving forward, the bus rolled back a few inches into the bus driven by Jose Santiago. Without respondent's knowing, a tail light lens struck (without damaging) a mirror on Santiago's bus, leaving a hole in the lens two inches across. T. 287-291, 376, 429. Accidents of this kind are not uncommon. To prevent students' walking in front of buses, the drivers park them tightly one behind another before school lets out. T. 287-291, 342, 376, 377, 426, 530. By the time Mr. Santiago finished his route and reached the transportation compound, Mr. Henderson had already left. Mr. Santiago reported the accident to the office staff and to one of the mechanics, who brought the bus respondent had driven to the garage to replace the lens. But Mark Tallent told the mechanic to return the bus unrepaired to its regular parking place, setting a "trap" he had never set for any other driver. T. 24, 58, 59, 288, 378. Bus drivers are required to perform a "pre-trip inspection" of their buses, and make records of the inspections by completing forms. Petitioner requires that all exterior lights be checked. The next morning respondent indicated that everything was in working order on his pre-trip inspection form. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7; T. 39. Ken Schill, petitioner's safety officer, followed respondent's bus in another vehicle and pulled him over. Together they inspected the broken lens. Petitioner suspended Henderson for three days and required him to take eight hours of in-service training, on account of the inspection form's inaccuracy. T. 40-41, 95-96, 428-429. In January or February, Mr. Henderson's bus was following bus No. 149 on a dusty rock or gravel road. After bus No. 149 made a newly scheduled stop, Mr. Henderson braked suddenly and steered his bus to the left to avoid hitting bus No. 149. By the time he came to a stop, the buses overlapped. T. 454, 498, 502. On the afternoon of February 28, 1990, Mr. Henderson had driven the school bus to the crest of a hill on Weatherley Road, when state trooper Lee Frye, who was sitting in his car at the bottom of (the other side of) the hill "clocked Mr. Henderson speeding." T.151. He was exceeding the 35-mile-per hour speed limit by at least ten miles per hour, although he told the trooper the speedometer had not indicated this. T. 151, 157, 430-433; Respondent's Exhibit No. 7A. Trooper Frye did not give Mr. Henderson a citation, but he told the Board's transportation department that the bus was going 52 miles per hour. Although not consistently enforced, school Board Policy 6.44(23) states: "Any bus driver guilty of a traffic violation involving a school bus will be dismissed." After Mr. Tallent checked Henderson's speedometer, he recommended and the School Board approved a suspension of ten days plus fifteen hours' retraining on account of this incident. T. 44-45, 151-157, 430-436. One afternoon on Willow Street respondent veered to avoid a car and knocked over at least two empty, lidless, rubber trashcans standing approximately one foot from the right edge of the road. When, back at the compound, Mr. Henderson told Mark Tallent about the accident, Mr. Tallent said to forget about it. T. 437-444, 496. On another afternoon, Scott Robinson, a student who had just gotten off bus No. 200, was approximately 6 or 7 feet in front of the bus when he heard the engine revving. Although Scott did not see the bus move forward, he was frightened, and the bus in fact "jerked." T. 133-148. The next morning, Mr. Henderson inquired "You really didn't think I was going to hit you, did you?" T.134. Another time the bus lurched forward while Kathy Black "was still in front of the bus" (T.252) "and about hit her." Id. Tom Ferris complained that Henderson almost hit another bus. Cathy Smith, a parent of a student on route No. 200 filed a complaint on April 30, 1990, claiming that he failed to stop for her daughter at her regularly scheduled stop. On May 3, 1990, petitioner received a three-page list of 21 complaints against Mr. Henderson, accompanied by a petition with 20 names on it, both written by Kim Lowe, a student on route No. 200 whom respondent had frequently disciplined. On May 4, 1990, another parent, Mr. Burris, complained to Mr. Tallent that he had observed respondent speeding and driving recklessly. T. 46-51, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Earlier during the 1989-90 school year, petitioner's Department of Transportation had received still other complaints about Mr. Henderson. On May 3 or 4, 1990, without offering any explanation, Mr. Tallent told respondent he need no longer report for work. He did not tell Mr. Henderson of the complaints Ms. Smith and Messers. Burris and Ferris had made or give him an opportunity to refute their allegations prior to the filing of formal charges.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss respondent as a school bus driver. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 through 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the school year was 1987-1988. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the complaint included the words "god damn." With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17, the evidence showed things were being thrown out of the bus. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 46, 48, 49 and 50, it was not proven that other drivers reported every accident, however minor, or did so before leaving the scene, and respondent did report hitting the trashcans. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 64 refers to a complaint that was not proven at hearing. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 65 is not supported by citation to the record. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 69, the evidence did not show what she thought other than that she was "stunned looking." Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 through 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is a proposed conclusion of law. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, she testified she was the only black. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, a "duty teacher" boarded the bus and spoke to the children. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the morning stop was across the street from the white house. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, students calling out alerted him the buses had collided. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the policy has not been enforced consistently. COPIES FURNISHED: John T. Jaszczak, Esquire Hogg, Allen, North & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 S. Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1700 Dr. Daniel L. McIntyre, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 U.S. 41 North Brooksville, FL 34601
The Issue Whether Respondent, Hillsborough County School Board (School Board), erred in denying the Petitioner's request to consolidate its two charter contracts into one charter agreement.
Findings Of Fact Trinity School is a Florida corporation that owns and operates two charter schools in Hillsborough County, Florida. The two charter schools are known as Trinity Lower School for Children and Trinity Upper School. Trinity Lower School for Children provides education for 425 students in kindergarten through fitth grade. Trinity Upper School serves 225 students in sixth through eighth grades. The School Board is constitutionally and statutorily charged with the operation and supervision of all K through 12 public schools in Hillsborough County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.32(2) and 1003.02. The two Trinity charter schools are part of the public school system and are sponsored by the School Board. § 1002.33. Trinity School was formed by a group of educators and parents of children who had attended a private Roman Catholic School that was closing. In 1999, Trinity School submitted its application to form a K through eighth grade charter school. Its application was approved by the School Board, and Trinity began operation in 1999. Trinity School's population grew steadily from its inception and in 2003, Trinity School sought to purchase a building across the street from its campus. Ms. O'Dea, the founder, principal, chief executive, and educational officer for Trinity School, explained that Trinity School learned that it would be eligible for additional federal start-up money, if Trinity School divided its charter into two separate charters. By dividing the original charter and creating a new charter school for the middle school, Trinity School was able to obtain at least $450,000.00, in federal start-up funds which was used to help purchase a building across the street from the original school, grow the number of classes, as well as increase the number of programs and teachers. In 2003, Trinity School applied for a charter for the Trinity Upper School, which would serve sixth through eighth grades. The School Board approved the charter for the Upper School, and Trinity School was able to receive the federal start-up money. The Trinity Upper School began operating under its own charter in 2004. Although two separate charters, both Trinity Schools are operated by the same parent corporation, follow the same Bank Street School principles of educational development, and are located in the same location. Further, the record showed through the testimony of Ms. Difranco, Trinity School's director of finance, that the two charter schools "actually function as one school[,] [w]e share buildings; we share a media center; we share staff; we use one accounting system." On April 3, 2008, Trinity School wrote the School Board's representative to request a change in Trinity School's financial reporting to the school district. Trinity School's letter recognized that both schools operated "under the fiscal umbrella of The Tampa School Development Cooperation [sic], but the schools' finances are reported to the district separately." Trinity School advised the School Board representative that combining the schools' financial reports would benefit "both our accounting practices and the school district." On May 15, 2008, Ms. Hodgens, the School Board's supervisor of charter schools, wrote Ms. O'Dea: After consulting with the Department of Education regarding your request to combine Trinity School for Children and Trinity Upper School, the district has been advised that you are able to combine the two schools. I will present your request to the Hillsborough County School Board regarding the combination of the two schools during your schools' contract renewal process. On March 15, 2010, the School Board wrote Ms. O'Dea concerning the renewal of the charters. The School Board informed Ms. O'Dea that "Trinity School for Children/Trinity Upper is scheduled for Contract Renewal Review[,]" and requested that a list of materials be provided for the review. On June 28, 2010, Ms. Hodgens, referencing her earlier letter dated May 15, 2008, wrote Ms. O'Dea concerning Trinity School's request to combine the charters during the contract renewal period. Specifically, Ms. Hodgens wrote: After several conversations with district staff, there is no educational benefit for students by combining the two schools. Due to this fact, the Superintendent will not be making this recommendation to the School Board at the time of your contract renewal. Trinity School and the School Board brought their consolidation dispute before the Department of Education under section 1002.33(6)(h). On March 30, 2011, Dr. Eric Smith, the Florida Commissioner of Education, entered a Mediation Report of Impasse, stating that the parties had reached an impasse and that the matter could not be settled through mediation, pursuant to section 1002.33(6)(h). Ms. Difranco, who has been Trinity Schools' director of finance for the past two years, credibly testified that both schools functioned administratively as one school, but were required to file separate fiscal reports. Furthermore, she credibly testified that creating the two separate fiscal reports for each school, results in Trinity School's accountants and personnel having to perform additional duties of separating the relevant data by school. Ms. Difranco credibly testified that she had conducted a cost analysis comparing the costs of treating the two schools as separate charters with an estimated cost of operating under one charter. According to Ms. Difranco, the savings to Trinity School would be approximately $123,000.00, a year. The largest bulk of the savings would come from a reduction in the administrative fee Trinity School pays to the School Board to administer the charter schools. Ms. Difranco estimated that the administrative fee paid to the School Board would reduce by approximately $65,000.00, a year. The reason for the reduction in administrative fees received by the School Board is the legislature's enactment of section 1002.33(20)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). Section 1002.33(20)(a), in part, changed the formula used to calculate the administrative fee charged to charter schools by district school boards. This change in the formula for funding results in a reduction of the amount of money that the School Board will receive as administrative fees from Trinity School if the two charters are combined into one charter. The School Board, in making its decision about whether or not to grant the request to combine the two charters into one charter, considered the fact that it would receive less money from the administrative fees, if the two charters were combined. Both Trinity Schools have received from the State of Florida "A" ratings and are respected charter schools. Trinity Schools, however, have not been designated as "high-performing" charter schools by the Commissioner of Education, as defined by section 1002.331, Florida Statutes (2011). The reason that Trinity Schools’ two charters do not meet the statutory definition of "high-performing" charter school under section 1002.331 is due to past negative fund balances. The record, however, showed that Trinity Schools are on the verge of eliminating the financial difficulties. Specifically, the testimony showed that in 2009-2010 school year, Trinity Schools had a negative fund balance. However, the testimony showed through Ms. Difranco that for school years 2010-2011, and the current school year 2011-2012, that Trinity Schools have met the fiscal requirements.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (5)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a second-grade teacher at Boston Avenue Charter School (Boston Avenue) in the Volusia County School District. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate number 1170778, which covers the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages, reading, and exceptional student education, and is valid through June 30, 2016. During the 2011-2012 school year, Nichole Gaw was the principal at Boston Avenue. Racheal Welch Luebbert was also a teacher employed at Boston Avenue, but at the time of this incident worked as an intervention teacher and did not have her own classroom. Students at Boston Avenue normally wore uniforms. During the spring of 2012, the school was participating in a fundraiser called Blue Jeans for Babies, in order to benefit the March of Dimes. Money for the fundraiser was raised by students paying for the privilege of wearing clothes other than their uniforms on Wednesdays. Students contributed 50 cents to participate. Teachers were given manila envelopes to hold the collected money, but those envelopes were not always used. At the end of the day, the money collected by each class was given to Ms. Gaw. On April 25, 2012, there was a staff meeting scheduled. Before the staff meeting, Ms. Gaw was standing in front of the door of her office near the school reception area. While Ms. Gaw was standing at her door, Ms. Luebbert walked up to her and handed her a clear sandwich bag containing the money that had been collected in the classroom where she was working and given to her by the classroom teacher. Ms. Luebbert asked Ms. Gaw what Ms. Gaw wanted her to do with the money, and Ms. Gaw told her to put it in Ms. Gaw’s box. Because Ms. Gaw’s door was already locked, Ms. Luebbert handed Ms. Gaw the baggie and Ms. Gaw placed it in the mail holder on the outside of Ms. Gaw’s door. Immediately past Ms. Gaw’s door is an area with faculty mailboxes, a copier, and restrooms. Prior to the scheduled staff meeting, several people, including Respondent, passed through the area. Respondent walked past Ms. Gaw and spoke with Ms. Gaw briefly before entering the area where the mailboxes, copier, and restrooms were located. While Respondent was still in that area, Ms. Gaw and other personnel present left the area to attend the staff meeting. After the others had left, Respondent came from the mailbox area, past Ms. Gaw’s door into the reception area. She was carrying a paper or folder of some sort. As Respondent passed through the hall, she looked down the hallway. She paused, turned around, and appeared to be looking around as if to see if anyone else was present. Respondent walked over to Ms. Gaw’s door, took something out of the mail holder on the door with her right hand, and placed the object on top of the paperwork in her left hand. She then slid the object from the top of the paperwork to her left hand, and with her left hand placed it in her pocket. The object taken from Ms. Gaw’s door appears to be the sandwich bag containing the Blue Jeans for Babies collection. After the staff meeting, Ms. Gaw went to her office door to retrieve the sandwich bag, only to find that it was not there. Boston Avenue had video surveillance cameras that provided surveillance video for the general area near Ms. Gaw’s door. While part of the door itself is visible in the video footage, the mail holder on the door is not visible. Ms. Gaw retrieved the video footage for the office area and viewed it with management for Boston Avenue. Based upon her observation of the video footage, Ms. Gaw believed that Respondent took the sandwich bag containing the money. In accordance with management instructions, she called the police to report the theft, and on April 26, 2012, Officer Myriam Godwin of the Deland Police Department came to the school. Ms. Gaw spoke with Officer Godwin, told her that a teacher had stolen some money, and advised her that there was video surveillance footage of the incident. Officer Godwin viewed the video, which in her view appeared to show the theft of the money in the sandwich bag. She then spoke to Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry was summoned from her classroom to speak to Officer Godwin. Officer Godwin introduced herself, read Ms. Barry her rights, and explained the reason for questioning Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry immediately denied the theft. However, she eventually admitted taking the money and said she had done so because of financial problems. Officer Godwin did not place Ms. Barry under arrest at the time of the interview because the crime at issue is a misdemeanor. Instead, she completed an arrest affidavit charging Ms. Barry with petit theft. Ms. Barry’s employment with Boston Avenue was terminated on April 30, 2012. The theft of the money was reported in the news media, including television, newspaper, and the internet. On April 12, 2013, in the case of State of Florida v. Nicole S. Torres, Case No. 2012 008933 MMAWS (Volusia County Court), Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to petit theft, and adjudication was withheld. She was required to pay restitution in the amount of $28.55, and to pay court costs. Ms. Barry claims that she did not take the money, and that she would never take anything that did not belong to her. She does not recall what she placed in her pocket that day, but insists it was not the baggie with money. Ms. Barry also claims that she only told Officer Godwin that she took the money because she felt she was being harassed and threatened by Officer Godwin, and was afraid she would lose her daughter. In her view, admitting to the theft and telling Officer Godwin “what she wanted to hear” was the easiest course of action. Officer Godwin denied pressuring Ms. Barry, and said she did not threaten her in any way. She did not threaten to take Ms. Barry’s child, and certainly would not do so over a $28 theft. She also denied saying that if Ms. Barry did not cooperate, she would do what she had to do. Officer Godwin’s testimony is credited. Even assuming that she made the statement Ms. Barry attributed to her, which the undersigned does not find, the statement is not particularly threatening. It is simply a statement indicating that the officer would investigate and follow up without Ms. Barry’s cooperation, something she would be required to do in any event. After multiple viewings of the video tape and review of the evidence received, it is found that Respondent took the baggie from the envelope slot on Ms. Gaw’s door. Given Respondent’s participation in the March of Dimes fundraiser, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Respondent knew the money in the baggie was from the March of Dimes fundraiser.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charges in Counts 1, 3, and 5 of the Administrative Complaint, and not guilty of the charges in Counts 2 and 4. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded; that she pay an administrative fine of $1,000; that her teaching certificate be suspended for a period of two years, followed by a period of probation for five years; and that prior to returning to the classroom, she take a three-hour college level course in ethics. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2014, 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 11th day of June, 2014.
