Findings Of Fact Respondent is Clarence Davis, holder of teaching certificate number 137897 issued by the State of Florida. Respondent is currently employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract which has been in effect since April 21, 1971. Respondent is presently a teacher at Azalea Middle School. In September of 1988 or early October 1988, a 12 year old female student, J.B., in Respondent's gym class complained to Respondent that another student was hitting her. Respondent refused to take any action. From his view of the class seating arrangement on the gym bleachers, Respondent felt there was no way that the student accused could have hit the complainant. Respondent told J.B. to stop crying like a baby. Respondent had been previously requested to use extra sensitivity in dealing with J.B. because she was a recent victim of a violent sex crime. J.B., through her parents, subsequently requested and received a transfer from Respondent's class by the school principal. At the beginning of the 1988-89 school term, D.W. was a student in Respondent's gym class. D.W. testified that Respondent yelled at him in a rude manner and propelled him into a fence on an out door court yard who he hit a volley ball incorrectly. D.W.'s testimony in this regard is not credited because his version of events was not corroborated by other testimony and is in conflict with testimony of Respondent that the incident did not occur and that D.W.'s class did not participate in any out door volley ball activity. D.W. admitted he "mouthed off" to Respondent on several occasions. When Respondent would give D.W. a directive, D.W.'s response was "no". Such an admission is inconsistent with D.W.'s testimony that he was afraid of Respondent; therefore that portion of D.W.'s testimony also is not credited. The principal of the school transferred D.W. from Respondent's class at the request of D.W.'s parents and because D.W. did not have respect for Respondent. Due to his absence on the day that volley ball teams were chosen, V.C. was not assigned to a team when he returned to Respondent's gym class on or about October 19, 1988. V.C. was not supposed to be seated in the gym bleachers with other students who were excused from "dressing out." Respondent yelled at V.C. and told him to get out of the class. V.C. complied and went to the school administrator's office. V.C. was not given a pass or a referral by Respondent in accordance with school policy requirements. V.C. was frightened by Respondent's action. A subsequent parental request to transfer V.C. from Respondent's class was granted by the school principal. On October 20, 1988, Respondent went to the classroom of a fellow teacher, Ms. Moore, and gestured through the glass portion of the door for her to come out and speak with him. She started her class to work on an assignment and stepped out the door to speak with Respondent. The conversation lasted four to five minutes and dealt primarily with Respondent's concern that he was being harassed by school administrative officials. Petitioner's policy no. 6Gx52-2.08 directs that class interruptions must be made at such times as will not interrupt classroom instruction. Just prior to the conversation with Ms. Moore, Respondent had spoken with the school principal in the principal's office. At the meeting with the principal, the principal deliberately left his door ajar for Respondent, not wanting to have a closed door meeting with Respondent. Respondent came into the principal's office and shut the door. Respondent was told by the principal that D.W. would be transferred to another class. Respondent argued with the principal, shook his finger in the principal's face and said "I won't be treated like a child." When the principal reached for the door handle, Respondent held the door shut and continued speaking in a voice loud enough for administrative personnel seated at desks approximately 15 feet outside the door to become concerned. The principal did not ask Respondent to open the door or to remove his hand from the door. Respondent then left the office, walked a short distance toward the exit to the administrative office section, and came back to the door of the principal's office where he again shouted that he wasn't being treated fairly, or words of similar import. Respondent then left the area. Another 13 year old male student, P.L., was transferred from Respondent's class at the request of his mother after the first grading period of the 1988-89 school year. P.L. received an "F" from Respondent for the first grading period because P.L. refused to dress out for physical education class. P.L. also witnessed Respondent yell and scream at other students. P.L. did not recall specific incidents and his testimony cannot be credited as corroborative of any particular incident alleged against Respondent. On or about October 28, 1988, Respondent grabbed D.B., a 14 year old seventh grade student, who was in the process of fighting with another student. As established by Respondent's testimony, D.B. is a "street smart" kid adept at fighting who poses a danger to other students in such a situation. As a result, Respondent held D.B.'s arm and carried him back to his office from the floor of the gym. D.B. is still in Respondent's class. Testimony of D.B. that Respondent intentionally twisted D.B.'s arm is not credited due to the demeanor of the witness while testifying; the lack of corroborative testimony of Respondent's arm twisting conduct by other witnesses; the testimony of another student, L.H., that he observed the incident and did not see D.B.'s arm twisted; and Respondent's denial of such action. On or about September 5, 1986, the principal of the school where Respondent was then employed, counselled Respondent concerning his aggressive touching of students. Respondent was reprimanded in a memorandum from the principal of Azalea Middle School dated April 18, 1989, for unprofessional conduct. The Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County reprimanded Respondent by letter dated June 1, 1988, for failure to meet professional standards relating to personal conduct. Respondent was warned that failure to follow administrative directives and treat colleagues and staff in an appropriate and acceptable manner in the future would result in a recommendation to Petitioner that Respondent be disciplined through suspension or termination of employment. The Director of Personnel Services for Petitioner was presented at final hearing as an expert in education practices and administration. Based upon his review of Respondent's previous disciplinary record, he opined that disciplinary action was appropriate. While he had met with Respondent to advise him of the disciplinary matters pending against Respondent, the director admitted that he did not discuss with Respondent the alleged incidents involving students J.B., V.C., D.W., and P.L.; therefore he did not have the benefit of information from Respondent in formulating an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the discipline proposed in this case. The school principal never consulted Respondent with regard to learning Respondent's version of the incidents involving students J.B. or D.W. The principal heard Respondent's version during the October 20, 1988, meeting with Respondent in the principal's office. Notably, the principal did meet with D.W., his parents and another instructor in a different class to resolve behavioral problems in that class. As stipulated by the parties, Petitioner bases Respondent's suspension for three days without pay upon Respondent's alleged actions with regard to students J.B., D.W., and V.C.; his confrontation with the school principal on October 20, 1988; his discussion of the matter with fellow teacher, Ms. Moore, on October 20, 1988; and his alleged failure to comply with previous directives to correct deficiencies in his professional behavior as set forth in previous reprimands. Petitioner's second suspension of Respondent without pay for a period of five days is based upon allegations that Respondent engaged in actions after November 8, 1988, and prior to December 14, 1988, consisting of pushing and shoving students in a punitive manner; that such alleged misconduct by Respondent occurred while the previous suspension action of November 8, 1988, was still pending; and that Respondent had been previously warned in reprimands issued to him in 1986 and 1988 to refrain from such conduct. The basis of the allegation regarding Respondent's pushing and shoving of students, relied upon by Petitioner to support the second suspension, consists of the incident involving student D.B. A second incident involving student M.S., a female in the sixth grade physical education class of Respondent, occurred after the December 14, 1988 date of the charging instrument for the second suspension and is not credited with regard to present charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 88-5720 and Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 89- 0344 dismissing the proposed suspensions of Respondent from his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-5720 AND 89-0344 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 4. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. However, as to material findings see paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted to the extent facts are addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. The remaining portions are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 20 is accepted in material part and addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 21 accepted but unnecessary. By her admission, Respondent used $2000 borrowed from Washington toward her purchase of the car. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 12. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 2. Accepted in part Finding of Fact paragraph 3. Rejected as to suggestion, Respondent did not know. See subsequent findings of fact paragraph 5. Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph Rejected as to conclusion Respondent was not aware of the conversations between Butler and Washington which took place in Respondent's presence. Accepted only as addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted but unnecessary since true origin of funds was known to Respondent. Accepted as it states Respondent accepted loan-see findings of fact paragraphs 6 and 7. Rejected otherwise as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted but is unnecessary. See Findings of Fact paragraph 10 as to material findings. Accepted in material part in Findings of Fact paragraphs 11, 12; otherwise rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Rejected as argumentative. Rejected as argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 1960 East Druid Road Clearwater, Florida 34618 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue Southwest Largo, Florida 34640
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching contract should be renewed for school year 1995-96.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, petitioner, Suwannee County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate respondent, Lallah P. Singh, a teacher, on the ground his classroom performance in school years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was unsatisfactory. In doing so, petitioner relies upon Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, which authorizes a school board to terminate an employee with a professional services contract (PSC) when that employee has an unsatisfactory performance rating for two consecutive years. This proceeding represents the first occasion on which the Board has utilized the statute for a PSC teacher. Respondent, who has been employed in the Suwannee County school system since December 1977, is certified as a teacher in the areas of biology and mathematics for grades 6-12. A native of India, he holds the equivalent degree of a doctor in veterinary medicine from a university in that country. He has also obtained a master's degree in veterinary science in this country and is certified as an education specialist in mathematics. Until school year 1993-94, respondent was employed in a variety of positions, including a regular classroom teacher (1977-86), a home study teacher (1987-89), and an alternate education teacher (1990-92). During school year 1993-94, respondent was assigned to the Branford Pre K-12 School in Branford, Florida where he taught the in-school suspension (ISS) class. That class is made up of high school level students suspended from their regular classes for disciplinary reasons. The assignment required that respondent maintain discipline and assist students with work assigned by their regular teachers. Based on observations conducted by his principal during the school year, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for his classroom performance. He was notified of these deficiencies in writing and was told that such deficiencies must be corrected by the end of the following school year, or else he would face possible non-renewal of his contract. For school year 1994-95, respondent was reassigned to an ISS classroom four periods per day but was also required to teach a general science class one period per day. During that year, respondent was observed by his principal in the general science class on four occasions to determine if the deficiencies noted in the prior year had been remediated. While most of the earlier deficiencies were eventually corrected, respondent was still unsatisfactory in one performance area noted in the prior year, as well as two other areas, and his performance was accordingly deemed to be unsatisfactory. On May 15, 1995, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. By letter dated May 19, 1995, respondent requested a hearing to contest the Board's action. Although Section 231.36(3)(e)4.b., Florida Statutes, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the written appeal, the parties have waived this requirement by requesting hearing dates beyond that timeframe. As clarified by his counsel, respondent generally contends the Board erred in the termination process by (a) providing him untimely and insufficient notice, (b) performing an inadequate evaluation, and (c) offering him inadequate assistance to correct his deficiencies. He asks for reinstatement of his professional services contract, as well as back pay. Events Leading up to School Year 1993-94 Around 1982, the legislature amended Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, to create a professional services contract under which teachers could be employed. Prior to that time, teachers not on annual contract status were employed under what was known as a continuing contract. Both a PSC and a continuing contract are considered a form of tenure for public school employees. After the new law became effective, teachers employed under a continuing contract were given the option to convert to a PSC. The advantage to a PSC is that if a teacher is cited for unsatisfactory performance in a given year, he or she has the following year in which to remediate those deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not remediated in the second year, a school board can change the teacher to annual contract status and decline to renew the teacher's contract. This procedure contrasts with the continuing contract process which, after an unsatisfactory rating is given but is not remediated by the teacher, allows a school board to change the teacher to annual contract status and not renew the contract at the end of any given year. In school year 1991-92, respondent was still employed under a continuing contract. When he received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and was threatened with the possibility of being changed to an annual contract and not renewed, he consulted with a teacher's union field representative, Richard E. Layer, on his procedural and substantive rights. During their discussions, the two talked about whether respondent should remain on a continuing contract or switch to a PSC. According to Layer, he explained to respondent "how the statute (governing a PSC) worked," advised him that a PSC offered more job security than a continuing contract, and recommended respondent switch to a PSC since this would give him two years in which to correct any deficiencies that might occur in the future. Layer added that after their conversation, respondent "knew exactly what the (PSC) provided." Based on Layer's advice, in April 1992 respondent requested that he be converted to a PSC. This was done for school year 1992-93, and he remained in that status until his contract was terminated in May 1995. The Evaluation Process Generally When evaluating classroom performance in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board used standard evaluation forms developed by representatives of the Board and teacher's union. The evaluation, which must be performed at least once a year for teachers having a PSC, is conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor, who in this case was the school principal, Melvin McMullen. McMullen had assumed that position during the latter part of school year 1992-93, had received special training for conducting evaluations, and was required to perform evaluations for over fifty teachers in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The evaluation process for a teacher on a PSC consists of at least one classroom evaluation during a given school year. The results of the first evaluation are recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. Within five days after the observation, a principal-teacher conference must be held for the purpose of reviewing the outcome of the observation. At that meeting, the teacher must sign the form, which includes a written admonition that "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to your dismissal or non- renewal." Subsequent evaluations during the year, if any, are also recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. For all evaluations, the teacher is given an acceptable ("A") or unacceptable ("U") rating for each evaluated area. Although the assessment forms used herein changed in some minor respects from school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, their substance was essentially the same. Each assessment form for a classroom teacher contains six overall performance standards, including planning, teaching procedures, classroom managment, presentation and knowledge of subject matter, assessment techniques and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. Under the performance standards are found a total of twelve "indicators." Finally, within the indicators are found a "checklist of observable teaching behaviors," consisting of twenty-seven behaviors, each requiring a rating of "U" or "A." If any teaching behavior is given a "U," the indicator likewise requires a rating of "U." If an indicator is marked "U," the performance standard is also scored unacceptable. A total score is then assigned to the teacher, with one point given for each indicator with an "A," and the highest score being twelve. Anything less than a twelve is considered unsatisfactory and, if not corrected, may result in the teacher's dismissal. If the first observation of a PSC teacher results in an unsuccessful rating in any area, a "level-one" assistance plan is instituted by the principal, which consists of a principal-teacher conference to discuss the deficient areas, suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies, and a timeframe to correct the substandard performance. If insufficient progress has been made by the end of the timeframe, at the option of the assessor, the level-one assistance process can be repeated or a "level-two" assistance plan can begin. The latter level of assistance generally mirrors the assistance given during level-one but the assessor must also notify the superintendent that level-two has been initiated. If the deficiencies are still not corrected by the end of the school year, the superintendent is notified, and the teacher is again placed on notice that he must correct those deficiencies during the following school year or suffer the risk of being reverted to an annual contract status and not being renewed. Finally, during the subsequent school year, the same observations are conducted, and level-one and two assistance plans are implemented if deficiencies are observed. If remediation does not occur by the end of the second school year, the superintendent has the authority to recommend that the school board decline to renew the teacher's contract. School year 1993-94 Respondent was first evaluated by principal McMullen on February 23, 1994. He received a total credit of 10 out of 12 possible points. For the indicators "Recognizes and provides for individual differences" and "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," respondent received a "U." A conference was held by McMullen and respondent the same day, at which time respondent was given a form entitled "Related Work Performance Form (Appraisal III)." It contained not only an explanation of unacceptable areas and recommended procedure for correction, but also a notation that respondent had "2 weeks from today to demonstrate acceptable teacher corrective action." On March 14, 1994, respondent was again evaluated by principal McMullen. Although McMullen noted that "improvement" had occurred since the earlier evaluation, respondent received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Indeed, he was still deficient in the area of "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." At a conference held the same day, respondent was given an explanation of his unacceptable area, a recommended procedure for correction, and the following timeframe for improvement: "2 weeks approximately from 3/14/94.". On March 15, 1994, respondent was given a lengthy list of resource materials available for use in correcting his deficiencies, including videos, journals and publications. In addition, he was given written instructions for use of the materials. Based on the unsatisfactory performance rating, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent on March 25, 1994: This letter is to notify you that you have demonstrated unsatisfactory performance on the Final Observation/Assessment Form (Appraisal I), with deficiencies noted in the folowing areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum These deficiencies must be corrected by April 1, 1995. I am requesting that your employ-ment be continued an additional year in order to provide you assistance. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please schedule an appointment through Mrs. Cannon. I look forward in continuing to work with you on classroom management issues. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same day. On March 31, 1994, principal McMullen wrote the following letter to superintendent Blaylock: Dr. Lallah Singh has been notified of unsatis- factory performance on the Final Assessment Form with deficiencies noted in the following areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum I request that his employment be followed for an additional year to allow the opportunity to correct these deficiencies by April 1, 1995. Whether respondent received a copy of this letter is not of record. Although the March 14, 1994 evaluation was ostensibly used for personnel decisions that year, on May 6, 1994, a third formal assessment of respondent's classroom performance was conducted by principal McMullen. On that date, he received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Even so, respondent was still deficient in "Classroom Management" and the related indicator based on unacceptable ratings given for the following observable teaching behaviors: "Maintains rules of conduct" and "Maintains instructional momentum." Thus, no matter whether the March or May evaluation was used, at the end of the first school year in question, respondent's only noted deficiency continued to be for classroom management and the related indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." On May 10, 1994, respondent and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's latest assessment. Although McMullen noted that respondent had made "progress in meeting recommended procedures to help correct areas of concern," he noted that his level of improvement was "still not acceptable" and that respondent must continue the earlier suggestions for improving his performance. The two agreed to meet during the next school year's pre-planning period to discuss a plan of improvement for that year. This was embodied in a letter sent by McMullen to respondent on May 11, 1994. Sometime after receiving this notification, respondent contacted his local teacher's union representative, Willie Veal, Jr., for advice and assistance. On April 21, 1994, acting on the superintendent's recommendation, the Board reemployed respondent for the following year and placed him in a status known as "Professional Services Contract continuation (2nd year)," which is the Board's terminology for the "subsequent year" described in section 231.36(3)(e). Respondent did not receive a copy of this action. On June 7, 1994, however, respondent received a letter from the superintendent advising that the Board had approved him for a PSC for school year 1994-95. School year 1994-95 On August 19, 1994, respondent, union representative Veal, and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's teaching status for the 1994-95 school year. At that meeting, respondent learned he would be reassigned to ISS but would also be required to teach general science one period per day. Although respondent says general science was not his strongest suit, which was mathematics, it was a subject within his certified area of biology. He also understood that his contract was subject to being non-renewed if he did not correct his deficiencies during the school year. This was confirmed by witness Veal. The following letter was given to respondent on August 29, 1994, to memorialize the substance of the meeting: Thank you for meeting with me while Mr. Veal had a moment last Friday (August 19th., 1994) to generally discuss plans for teaching improvement for the 1994-95 school year. As we discussed, I believe the opportunity to teach a General Science class and Mr. Brown spending two periods a days (sic) with I.S.S. students (doing Drop-Out Prevention counseling) will be two positive techniques to aid improvement as noted on the Appraisal II Form from last year. You and I will meet again soon, to review matters particular to unacceptable areas noted on the May 6th., 1994 Observation/ Assessment. We will then outline other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist this teacher improve- ment process. On November 15, 1994, respondent was sent the following letter by principal McMullen: As we discussed at our 8/25/94 (sic) meeting, and briefly the other day, we need to meet this coming week to discuss items noted on the Appraisal II Form. We will review the items which were unacceptable on the 5/6/94 Observation/Assessment Form. Can a meeting between you and I be set up for Tuesday afternoon, about 2:30 in your room? Please let me know. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting was held on November 20, 1994. During the meeting, principal McMullen further discussed respondent's deficient areas in the prior year and suggested ways to improve them. He also recommended that informal observations be made in an effort to prepare respondent for his formal observations during the following months. While respondent contends this assistance was begun too late in the school year to be of any meaningful value, it was rendered more than four months before the final evaluation on March 29, 1995. Then, too, respondent's most persistent problem continued to be in the area of classroom management, for which assistance to remedy that problem had been offered throughout the previous year. On December 12, 1994, principal McMullen conducted the first of four observations of respondent's performance in his general science classroom. That classroom, rather than the ISS class, was chosen out of fairness to respondent in order to assess him in a controlled classroom environment. On that day, respondent received a score of 7 out of 12 possible points. More specifically, he received an unacceptable rating for the following indicators: "Uses instructional materials effectively," "Displays skills in making assignments," "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The following day, or December 13, 1994, petitioner was placed in the level-two assistance process. He was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance observed at the December 12 evaluation and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct each of those deficiencies. Late on the morning of the same day, or December 13, 1994, principal McMullen walked by the building in which respondent taught and "noticed (him) sleeping at (his) desk" with his shoes off and leaning back in his chair. There were four students in his classroom at the time. Respondent was given a letter confirming this incident and told that if he had a medical reason which caused him to sleep to provide the principal with a doctor's note by December 16, 1994. Respondent provided a letter from his doctor the following day in which the physician listed four medications being taken by respondent, none of which would cause him to sleep. However, the physician noted that respondent "occasionally" took an over the counter cough syrup "that may cause drowsiness." Whether respondent was taking a cough syrup that day is not of record. This incident is relevant to the charge that respondent did not properly manage his classroom. On January 24, 1995, principal McMullen again performed an assessment of respondent's classroom performance. On this occasion, respondent received a score of 10 out of a possible 12 points. He received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." On January 27, 1995, and pursuant to the level-two assistance program, respondent was again given a written, detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and a list of recommended procedures for correction. He was told that he would be reevaluated on or about February 17, 1995. Finally, respondent was given the following written notice: Failure to satisfactorily correct all area(s) of unacceptable performance within the expected timeframe may result in returning the teacher holding a CC/PSC contract to annual contract status. If area(s) of unacc- eptable performance are not satisfactorily corrected during the second year, the teacher may be recommended for non-renewal. On February 21, 1995, another classroom observation was conducted by principal McMullen. That day, respondent received a score of 10 out of 12 possible points. Respondent again received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." At a conference the same date, respondent was advised in writing that the following administrative assistance would be rendered: "Arrange conference time with fellow teachers/administrators, help secure resource materials and arrange for time to visit (illegible), etc." Respondent was also told that "(b)y April 5th (approximately six weeks), 1995 all observed/assessed areas should be scored acceptable." In addition, respondent was given a more detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and recommended procedures for correction of those areas. On March 13, 1995, principal McMullen acknowledged receipt of certain corrective measures which respondent proposed to use at his next observation. These corrective measures were considered by principal McMullen at the next observation. A final observation of respondent occurred on March 29, 1995. Respondent received three unacceptable ratings which resulted in a score of 9 out of 12 points. On that occasion, he received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Uses appropriate motivating techniques," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The second noted indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitiation and control," was the same indicator for which respondent had received an unacceptable rating the prior year. On March 30, 1995, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent: This letter refers to our meeting today on your 3/29/95 Observation/Evaluation. Having gone over that with you, I wanted to highlight the fact that you still have three areas deficient in evaluation of your classroom teaching. These areas are noted on your evaluation form. Instructional recommendations are due to the Superintendent April 1, 1995. Due to this being the second year in the process to correct noted deficiencies and those continue, I have no choice but to recommend non-renewal at that time. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same date. On March 31, 1995, principal McMullen notified the superintendent by letter that he could not recommend respondent for the 1995-96 school year term given his failure to correct the deficiencies. The superintendent accordingly recommended to the school board on April 21, 1995, that respondent not be rehired for the following school year. The recommendation was accepted by the school board at its April 25, 1995 meeting. On May 15, 1995, the superintendent advised respondent by letter that his contract was not being renewed for the following school year. This notice prompted respondent to request a formal hearing to contest the school board's proposed action. Was There Adequate Notice, Evaluation and Assistance? Notice Respondent contends that the school board erred by giving him inadequate and untimely notice of its actions. At the same time, respondent asserts that he was unaware of the consequences of the unsatisfactory performance ratings in school year 1993-94. He claims that, before the middle of school year 1994-95, no one ever specifically told him that his employment status was in jeopardy if his deficiences were not corrected by the following school year. Respondent's contention that he was unaware of the consequences of the 1993-94 unsatisfactory rating is not deemed to be credible. As early as 1992, respondent was given an explanation on how section 231.36(3)(e) "worked" by a field representative of the teacher's union, and according to the representative, "knew exactly what the law provided." Based on that advice, he switched from a continuing contract to a PSC since he had been told that this would give him two years to correct deficiencies before his employment could be terminated. Beginning in the summer of 1994, he was also represented by the president of the Suwannee County teacher's union, Willie Veal, Jr. At a meeting with Veal and principal McMullen in August 1994, respondent was told that he must correct his deficiencies before the end of the school year or face non- renewal. In addition, respondent had been through a similar evaluation process several years earlier. In 1992, he received an unsatisfactory performance rating and was told that unless the deficiencies were corrected, his contract might be terminated. In that case, however, the deficiencies were corrected, and he retained his tenure under a PSC. Finally, each of the many assessment forms that respondent signed during this process specifically noted that his "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to (his) dismissal or non-renewal." Therefore, the totality of the evidence belies respondent's contention that he did not understand that this could happen. Statutory requirements The school board did not strictly follow all requirements of the law in terminating respondent. For example, the law requires that the superintendent provide the teacher in writing "no later than 6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference school period, of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment." In this case, respondent received this notice from his principal, rather than the superintendent. However, such notice was sufficient to inform respondent of the gravity of the situation. In the subsequent year, or school year 1994-95, the same notice must again be provided to the employee "no later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the postschool conference period." In this case, the notice was given by the superintendent, but this occurred less than "6 weeks prior to the postschool conference period." Although several errors in procedure occurred during the termination process, they were not so serious as to impair the fairness of this proceeding, or to cause prejudice to respondent in the defense of this case. Therefore, the errors in procedure are deemed to be harmless. Evaluation and Assistance The statute also calls for the employee to be "provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." However, the specific type of assistance and opportunties to be afforded a teacher is not statutorily defined. Respondent contends that such assistance and opportunities were never provided. Beginning with his first evaluation in February 1994, respondent was given assistance in the form of specific suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies. Also, numerous principal-teacher conferences were held to discuss the observation findings. After the March 14, 1994 evaluation, respondent was given a lengthy list of videos, journals and publications to use in an effort to correct his deficiencies. He was also given written instructions for the use of the materials. At the beginning of school year 1994-95, respondent had a pre-school meeting with both his principal and union representative concerning this matter. He also met with the principal on November 20, 1994, and the two discussed "other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist (his) teacher improvement process." Following an evaluation on December 12, 1994, respondent was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct those deficiencies. After another evaluation on February 21, 1995, respondent was again given advice on how to correct his deficiencies before the next evaluation. Although respondent says he took this advice to heart, and did all of the things suggested by his principal, he was still unable to obtain an acceptable rating. The Board, however, cannot be faulted for respondent's continued inability to correct the cited deficiencies. Through his expert, respondent contended that the evaluation and assistance process was not adequate. In reaching this conclusion, the expert relied upon her experience in the States of Georgia and Texas, as well as Dade and Seminole Counties, Florida. She did not, however, have any teacher remediation experience in small, rural counties such as Suwannee. The expert pointed out that a peer teacher did not assist the principal in performing the evaluations and making subsequent recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. But there is no requirement that more than one person conduct the evaluation, and respondent (and his union representative) did not request that someone other than principal McMullen perform the observation. The expert further contended the Board should have assigned a peer teacher to assist respondent throughout this process. She also recommended that the Board send him to various seminars relating to his deficient areas. Again, however, there is no statutory requirement that a school board provide this type of assistance, especially when other forms of assistance and opportunities being given the teacher are adequate. Finally, the criticism that the Board did not adequately formalize its planned assistance measures into a written document is deemed to be unavailing. Because the assistance and opportunties provided respondent were adequate, the Board met its statutory obligation to provide "assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Summary After being evaluated in a fair and impartial manner, and receiving timely and adequate notice of his deficiencies, as well as adequate assistance and opportunities to correct those flaws, respondent did not remediate a noted performance standard and related indicator during two consecutive school years. Therefore, the Board could properly change respondent's contract status from PSC to annual at the end of school year 1994-95 and decline to renew his contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order terminating respondent from employment by not renewing his 1995-96 contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2988 Respondent: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 9-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-19. Rejected as being unnecessary. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 22-35. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-20. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-34. 57-67. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-46. 68-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35-37. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Victor Africano, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060-1450 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Charles F. Blaylock, Jr. Superintendent Suwannee County School Board 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060-2396 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment for gross insubordination, deficient performance, and conduct unbecoming a school board employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent continuously from December 6, 1993, through her termination on January 12, 2000. During her entire term of employment, Respondent was employed as a Secretary II. Respondent has a bachelor of science degree in marketing and business from Liberty University in Virginia. Prior to her employment with Petitioner, Respondent had worked as a secretary, including at Florida National Bank and, while living out-of- state, First Pennsylvania Bank. Respondent described her work with Petitioner as enjoyable. She testified that it involved word processing, answering the telephones, and filing. Respondent’s initial assignment was to provide clerical support for exceptional student education. This work required, among other things, considerable speaking on the telephone to coordinate the work of district-office workers with the various schools that they served and typing of school psychological reports concerning students. Repeatedly, Respondent demonstrated problems with accurate and timely typing of school psychological reports, declined to take school-related telephone calls from the switchboard, and reported to work late. When her supervisor conducted an informal conference, Respondent explained that she was often late to work due to a conflicting school schedule of her child, so the supervisor agreed to start Respondent’s workday one-half hour later. When Respondent’s tardiness did not improve, the supervisor had a formal conference for the record (CFR). At the CFR, which took place on February 27, 1995, the supervisor warned Respondent that she must report to work on time and do her job while at work. During this period, Respondent would be late 10-15 times within a 20-day pay period. These occasions of tardiness were substantial, not a couple of minutes, but 30-40 minutes. Even after the supervisor postponed Respondent’s starting time, Respondent continued to report to work late. During this period, Respondent resisted answering the phone and typing. The supervisor had one primary typist, whose typing speed was considerably better than the typing speed of the other secretaries, so the supervisor directed her to do nothing but type school psychological reports. The supervisor directed the other three or four secretaries, of whom Respondent was one, to type school psychological reports when time permitted and to answer the telephone to assist district-office field workers, school personnel, and parents. Respondent resisted this dual assignment. The supervisor could not recall having another CFR for any other employees during the period that she supervised Respondent. Shortly after the February 27 CFR, Respondent’s supervisor transferred to a different area and did not have further contact with Respondent. Respondent’s new supervisor also had problems with Respondent’s job performance. On June 23, 1998, the supervisor completed a written evaluation of Respondent’s job performance and rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge (specifically, ability to communicate effectively) and interpersonal skills (specifically, positive relationship with the public and harmonious relationship with the staff). The overall performance rating was unsatisfactory with the following note: “Additional opportunities will be provided to Annet to improve her interpersonal skills that interfere with the day-to-day operations of the office. If not successful, stronger measures will be taken.” Protesting the inaccuracy of the evaluation, Respondent refused to sign the form. The new supervisor had observed Respondent’s communications with parents on the telephone and staff in the office. Respondent was often rude with parents, so the supervisor talked to her about how to answer the telephone, giving her suggestions for improvement. Respondent’s relationship with her coworkers suffered from her disruptive behaviors, such as loud singing and talking. At one point, Respondent’s relationship with one coworker had so deteriorated that it became necessary for her supervisor, in September 1998, to direct Respondent to change desks. However, when directed to change desks, Respondent refused, forcing her supervisor to reduce the directive to writing. About four months later, to give Respondent a fresh start elsewhere, her supervisor facilitated Respondent’s transfer to a school that served as a center for exceptional student education. The supervisor did not fill the vacancy in the district office created by the transfer, nor did she fill an existing vacancy at the school; essentially, the supervisor merely transferred the physical location of Respondent’s job position. By memorandum dated January 12, 1999, Respondent’s supervisor advised Respondent of the transfer and her new duties, which again included typing school psychological reports. The memorandum also informed Respondent that her workday hours would remain 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with lunch from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. and breaks starting at 10:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. About one week after Respondent reported to the school for her new assignment, the principal gave her a written schedule showing Respondent’s hours as 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with one hour for lunch and 15-minute breaks starting at 10:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The schedule also assigned tasks to be performed during different times of the day. These tasks included typing, filing, telephone work, and assisting parents, staff, and students. These tasks included one block of two hours and fifteen minutes devoted to performing district-office tasks, but while remaining at the school to which Respondent had just been reassigned. Respondent was dissatisfied with her new assignment, preferring to work at the district office where she had been assigned. Respondent’s new supervisor, the school principal, noticed immediately that Respondent had trouble interacting appropriately with staff and parents, typing school psychological reports accurately, and answering the telephone when it rang. The principal corrected Respondent’s style of answering the telephone, informing her that she was to identify the school and herself, offer assistance, and offer to take a message if the person being called is not available. Instead, the principal heard Respondent repeatedly deal with callers brusquely, such as by stating, “They’re not in the office. Call back later.” While at the switchboard, Respondent repeatedly sent callers to the wrong extension. On April 15, 1999, the principal had a CFR with Respondent. The next day, the principal gave Respondent a written memorandum reflecting their discussions. The memorandum identifies nine specific areas of Respondent’s job performance, to which the principal expressed serious concerns. For each of these areas, the memorandum supplies a detailed list of behaviors and actions to do and not to do. For example, the form directs Respondent to speak with others pleasantly, politely, and professionally--not argumentatively, sarcastically, or caustically. Another item directs Respondent to spell check and proof read all typed materials--not submit uncorrected typed materials. Another item directs Respondent to remain engaged in work while at work--not doodle, read magazines, or make personal telephone calls while at work. The memorandum documents informal conversations on February 4 and March 17 between the principal and Respondent in which the principal had already counseled Respondent about her rudeness and idleness, including one conversation in which the principal noted, “You had to be told in excruciating detail how to perform the most mundane of tasks.” The memorandum notes that Respondent had characterized the principal’s assessment of her work as unfair, and the principal had warned her that a failure to improve her job performance and her relationships with staff and parents would jeopardize her future employment with Petitioner. The memorandum notes that the CFR of the preceding day had ended with the comment from Respondent: “If you need to let off steam you need to find another way to do it. This is ridiculous.” During this period of time, Respondent had informed the principal that it was not Respondent’s job to proofread the material that she typed and, thus, she would not spell check these documents. On at least one occasion, Respondent mistyped a form, confusing the specific learning disability and severely emotionally disturbed classifications of exceptional students. During one month, every single item that Respondent typed had to be returned to her for corrections--at least once and sometimes more than once. Respondent resisted the principal’s criticisms by telling the principal to "get a life" and that the principal did not know what she was doing. In front of one parent, Respondent said that the mother should be doing a better job with the child. Many of Respondent’s statements of these types to supervisors, coworkers, and parents were made in the presence of students. The principal found Respondent repeatedly not working or reading a magazine when she had work to do. In response, Respondent would assert that she had not been told to do anything, and the principal each time reminded her that there was always filing to be done. At least four times over two months, the principal found Respondent on a personal call while parents or students were waiting for her to take care of their needs. One time, when the principal asked her if she could break off the call and take care of the people waiting, Respondent merely shrugged her shoulders and rolled her eyes, not responding whether the call was an emergency and leaving the principal to deal with the waiting parent. One morning, the principal walked into the office and observed the registrar working with the parent and the telephone start to ring. The registrar asked Respondent to answer the phone, but she did not. After the third ring, the principal answered the phone. Another time, the registrar was busy at the counter with a parent when she was summoned to the telephone. After a few moments, the registrar put the caller on hold and asked Respondent to remove an item from the mail because the mail room attendant was approaching. Refusing to comply with the request, Respondent told the registrar, “I didn’t put it in there. I’m not taking it out.” A distinct act of insubordination took place after the April 15 CFR and April 16 memorandum. On this morning, the principal entered the office and found the staff extremely busy, such as obtaining materials for teachers. Respondent was issuing admission slips for tardy arrivals. The telephone was ringing, and staff was juggling their other activities as best they could while still answering the phone. However, Respondent, although seated next to the switchboard, was not answering the phone at all. When the principal asked her to answer it, Respondent loudly replied, “Do you think I can do two things at once?” The whole office became quiet, as a teacher answered the telephone. The principal directed Respondent to start answering the phone, but four more calls came in, and Respondent refused to answer them. More memoranda followed. On May 25, 1999, the principal provided Respondent a detailed memorandum with an evaluation. The memorandum covers the same items already discussed. The evaluation is unsatisfactory in every major category. A memorandum dated May 27, 1999, accompanying a CFR of the same date, discusses, among other things, the telephone incident described in the preceding paragraph and reemphasizes that Respondent is the first person responsible for answering the telephone. Another CFR took place on June 9 with another memorandum dated the next day at which the same issues are discussed. The principal provided Respondent with a detailed list of recorded deficiencies, prescriptive means by which to correct them, recommended resources, and deadlines. The principal extended the deadlines for performing fairly undemanding tasks, but Respondent declined to perform them. At the start of the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent routinely came to work late. She was late every day in September, rarely arriving less than 30 minutes late and once over one hour late. On Monday, October 4, 1999, the principal provided Respondent with a memorandum documenting the days and extent of her tardy arrivals. The memorandum documents a discussion between the principal and Respondent on the preceding Friday, October 1. The memorandum notes that Respondent claimed to have changed her schedule, on her own authority, and the principal had informed her that the principal, not Respondent, had the sole authority to set her schedule. The memorandum documents that the principal had suggested that Respondent follow established procedure to change her starting time, but, until and unless the principal changed the time, Respondent was to report to work at 8:00 a.m., as she was always required to have done, on the following Monday, October 4. The memorandum notes that Respondent responded that she had to take her daughter to school and would not be reporting to work at 8:00 a.m. The memorandum documents that, on the morning of Monday, October 4, Respondent called in at 8:40 a.m. saying she had had car trouble and would be late; she arrived at 9:15 a.m. On October 5, the principal conducted another CFR and issued another memorandum, dated October 5. Respondent did not report to the CFR when directed, and the principal had to have her assistant principal get Respondent. After initially declining to attend, Respondent appeared at the CFR, 15 minutes late. When the principal asked Respondent to take a seat, she replied that she would prefer to stand, and did so. Disputing the date set for the CFR, Respondent stated that she would not remain. At the conference, the principal read Respondent the following definition of gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties: “a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.” Respondent unsuccessfully attempted to change her schedule to postpone her starting time to 8:30 a.m. Respondent was late to work every day from September to January. Each day, she would leave work at 3:40 p.m. to pick up her daughter and return to work late, usually at 4:05 or 4:10 p.m. However, when the principal offered to shorten her day by one-half hour, so as to allow her to leave work one-half hour earlier, Respondent refused to shorten her lunch. On October 6, 1999, the principal issued Respondent a reprimand for failing to finish her prescriptive activities within the extended deadlines. Giving her until October 26 to complete them, the reprimand warns: “Failure to comply with this directive will constitute gross insubordination and may lead to further disciplinary action.” On October 7, the principal sent her assistant principal to summon Respondent to the principal’s office to provide Respondent with the above-described documents. Respondent refused to come. The principal approached Respondent and asked her to come to the principal’s office, but Respondent replied that she had no intention of reporting to the principal’s office ever again and the principal was harassing her. The next day, Respondent did not report to work. When Respondent failed to meet the October 26 deadline, the principal issued a memorandum, dated October 28, citing her for gross insubordination. This memorandum effectively marked the end of the principal’s involvement with Respondent. Overall, Respondent’s repeated insubordination and carelessness had undermined the morale among staff at the school. The principal found it hard to assign work to other secretaries, who rightly felt that they were carrying Respondent’s load. The atmosphere in the office became strained. The principal could not possibly have done anything more to help Respondent do her work. It was not an issue of ability, but of a lack of effort and refusal to make the effort. At one point, Respondent told the principal that she found it demeaning to be told to file and answer the telephone given her high-level skills. Attempts by the district office to conduct CFRs were met by Respondent’s defiance: she did not attend any of the three scheduled meetings. By letter dated January 13, 2000, Petitioner suspended Respondent, effective January 12, 2000, and initiated this proceeding to terminate Respondent’s employment. Respondent is subject to the Contract between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (Contract). Contract Section 3.D provides that Petitioner may terminate a covered, noninstructional employee, such as Respondent, for “just cause.” Section 3.D defines “just cause” as including: “misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009.” Petitioner has proved that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Room 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Timothy A. Pease The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Joseph F. Lopez 250 Bird Road, Suite 302 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered terminating respondent's employment with the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007),1 to terminate Respondent’s professional services contract for the reasons alleged in a letter dated November 18, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught in the Polk County School System since 2000. For the first four school years, Respondent taught drama at the Rochelle School of the Arts. The next school year, Respondent taught English for one year at Kathleen Middle School. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent taught middle school English at Gause Academy until January 13, 2009. The allegations at issue in this proceeding pertain to the 2007–2008 school year at Gause Academy. By letter dated November 18, 2008, the superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that the superintendent was recommending that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On January 13, 2009, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the superintendent. The letter dated November 18, 2008, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of her employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: . . . excessive absenteeism, dishonesty, and ongoing gross insubordination. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of excessive absenteeism during the 2007-2008 school year at Gause Academy. It is undisputed that the absences for Respondent during the 2007-2008 school year totaled 43 days, of which many were before or after a weekend and resulted in three or four consecutive days. However, it is also undisputed that absences were due to illness and the remaining 14 absences were suspensions or leave time imposed by Respondent’s employer. During the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent missed days due to illness, and Petitioner determined that Respondent was a good, dynamic teacher who related well with students and worked well in the classroom. Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence any credible and persuasive reason why 30 absences for sickness during the 2005- 2006 school year were acceptable to Petitioner, but that 29 absences for sickness during the 2007-2008 school year warranted termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The medical reasons for Respondent’s absences during the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 school years were the same. Respondent has suffered debilitating migraine headaches from a very young age. When Respondent suffers a serious migraine headache, it is difficult for her to function. However, Respondent has managed to control the effects of her migraines. A preponderance of the evidence does not explicate persuasive reasons why 30 absences during the 2005-2006 school year did not prevent Respondent from doing her job satisfactorily, but that 29 absences during the 2007-2008 school year justifies the termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The allegation of dishonesty relates to a form, identified as an Employee Application for Leave, that Respondent completed for absences from October 1 through October 3, 2008. The form provides that Respondent was sick and unable to leave her bed from October 1 through 3, 2008. Respondent signed the form on October 6, 2008, and the school principal approved the form on October 7, 2008. Sometime after October 7, 2008, the principal received information that Respondent had been arrested on October 1, 2008. The testimony of the principal during the hearing shows that he has no knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest, including the time of the arrest and the time Respondent was released and returned to her home. Nor does the principal have any knowledge of whether Respondent was ill with a migraine from October 1 through 3, 2008. Local law enforcement officers arrested Respondent at her home at 6:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, on a charge that Respondent had issued a bad check. The officers took Respondent to the courthouse, the amount was paid, and Respondent was back home by 9:00 a.m. Between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, Respondent’s mother called the school and told school officials that Respondent was ill and would not be in to work. Neither Respondent’s mother nor Respondent misrepresented Respondent’s illness. Respondent was ill with a migraine headache while she was at the courthouse and, upon her return home, was confined to bed for three days. The remaining allegation is that Respondent did not prepare adequate lesson plans. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of inadequate lesson plans. At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the principal performed a Quality Performance Summary Assessment for Respondent, which is the equivalent of a year-end evaluation. The principal rated Respondent as “Needing Improvement” in the areas of Planning for Learning Communication and Professionalism and rated Respondent as “Unsatisfactory” in the area of Managing the Learning Environment. The principal indicated an appropriate Professional Development Plan (PDP) would be written for the 2007-2008 school year. The PDP was presented to Petitioner at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. The primary strategies identified for improving classroom planning included: maintenance of a plan book to be turned in at the end of each week to the assistant principal and participation in in-service training for expanded classroom strategies. The PDP identified a Professional Resource Team to assist Respondent in the implementation of the PDP. The team consisted of the assistant principal, guidance counselor, and dean of students. Lesson planning at Guase Academy is left to the discretion of individual teachers. There is no template for lesson plans. Each teacher is left to develop lesson plans in a manner that is appropriate for his or her purposes. The assistant principal and guidance counselor did not provide Respondent with meaningful assistance toward the PDP goals. The assistant principal instructed all teachers that they could use documents identified in the record as “curriculum maps” as lesson plans. Respondent relied on the assistant principal and utilized curriculum maps to develop her lesson plans. Respondent worked extensively with the dean of students to formulate and complete lesson plans in a manner that was satisfactory to the principal. Respondent also worked with three fellow teachers who evaluated Respondent’s lesson plans and found them to be sufficient. None of the lesson plans were ever satisfactory to the principal. Respondent met with the principal on numerous occasions during the 2007-2008 school year. At each meeting, the principal gave only a cursory review of the plans, concluded they were inadequate, and gave no explanation of a specific deficiency. Respondent never refused to provide lesson plans and never failed to submit lesson plans until after it was apparent that no lesson plan from Respondent would satisfy the principal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order reinstating Respondent’s professional services contract with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of August, 2009.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County should dismiss the Respondent from her employment as bookkeeper at Tyrone Middle School on charges that, on March 14, 1997, the Respondent participated in using the school's intercom system to eavesdrop on and tape record a conversation between a classroom teacher and another adult taking place in the teacher's classroom.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Verna Carter, was employed as bookkeeper for Tyrone Middle School in Pinellas County during the 1996/1997 school year. Prior to that, she was "house clerk" of the eighth grade (essentially, the equivalent of the office manager for the administrative staff of that grade level, which was headed by an assistant principal). During the 1996/1997 school year, Martha McKnight was the Tyrone Middle School Principal. McKnight had been made Tyrone Middle School Principal at the beginning of the 1995/1996 school year. During her first year, antagonism developed between the Principal and a significant number of classroom teachers and other school personnel. During the course of the year, the Respondent took the Principal's side, and a close personal as well as work relationship developed between the Principal and the Respondent. When the position of school bookkeeper opened during the summer of 1996, Principal McKnight promoted the Respondent into the position although she was not yet qualified for the position. The Respondent took a bookkeeping course and passed the middle school certification test in August 1996; she became the school's bookkeeper in September 1996. The antagonism between the Principal and the opposing faction of teachers and personnel continued during the 1996/1997 school year. After-ours on Friday, March 14, 1997, while in a darkened room in the vicinity of the school office's intercom system, the Respondent heard voices coming through the intercom. She recognized the voices of Scott Bailey, one of the teachers who was antagonistic to Principal McKnight, and Bailey's mother. The Respondent realized that she had accidentally left the intercom system on after previously receiving a call from Bailey in response to an "all call" for him. She was about to turn the intercom off when Bailey and his mother began talking about Principal McKnight. Instead of turning the intercom off, the Respondent began to eavesdrop on the conversation between Bailey and his mother. While the Respondent was eavesdropping, Principal McKnight entered the room and joined the Respondent in eavesdropping. McKnight then went to get a tape recorder. While she was gone, Cindy Bishop, the school's acting media specialist, who was also working late, entered the darkened room and was in the room unbeknownst to Principal McKnight when McKnight returned with a tape recorder. McKnight proceeded to hold the recorder up to the intercom speaker to record Bailey's conversation with his mother for the Principal's possible use against Bailey later. Shortly after the recording began, the two eavesdroppers heard noise in the hallway adjacent to where they were, and Principal McKnight gave the tape recorder to the Respondent and signaled to the Respondent that she wanted the Respondent to continue tape recording for her while she left to see what the noise was and divert the intruder. The Respondent complied and continued the secret recording for the Principal. When the Principal left the room, Bishop approached the Respondent and asked her what was going on. The Respondent told her and continued to eavesdrop and tape record in front of Bishop. After several minutes of mostly silence, they heard a loud noise and Bailey's mother saying, "Well, you're probably going to get in trouble for doing that, too." The Respondent handed the tape recorder to Bishop and told her to keep recording while the Respondent went to Bailey's classroom to find out what had caused the loud noise (and was going to get Bailey in more trouble). Almost as soon as the Respondent left, Bishop realized that what she was doing was wrong. She turned the tape recorder off and left. Bothered by her role in the tape recording (minimal as it was), Bishop telephoned an assistant principal to discuss the incident. Over the weekend, she decided to report the incident to the School Resource Officer at Tyrone. Her report initiated an investigation that resulted in a letter of reprimand to Bishop, the suspension and recommended dismissal of the Respondent, and Principal McKnight's suspension, recommended dismissal, and retirement pending the dismissal proceedings. The Respondent does not dispute the essential facts of this case. Rather, she pleads ignorance that what she did was wrong, illegal, and against school policy. She also questions why her punishment was harsher than Bishop's. (The Respondent also indicated that another reason she asked for a hearing was her mistaken belief that the decision to dismiss her was reached before her viewpoints were considered.) It is found that the Respondent should have known that what she did was wrong and against school policy, if not illegal. In addition to being school bookkeeper for the 1996/1997 school year, she had been eighth grade "house clerk" for two years, had volunteered at the school for 14 or 15 years, and had been president of the Parent/Teachers Association three or four times. It also is found that the Respondent's punishment was appropriately distinguished from the punishment against Bishop and equated with the punishment recommended for Principal McKnight. Unlike Bishop, the Respondent knew exactly what she and the Principal were doing and why. Unlike Bishop, the Respondent was not just following the Principal's orders, she was the Principal's ally in her running battle with Bailey and the other teachers in the anti-McKnight faction. The Respondent initiated the eavesdropping, and she eavesdropped and tape recorded for much longer than Bishop. In contrast to the Respondent, Bishop quickly recognized that what she was doing was wrong, stopped, and promptly reported the incident to the proper authorities. The evidence was clear that, due to the Respondent's active role in eavesdropping and tape recording Bailey's private conversation for McKnight's use against him, the Respondent's effectiveness has been seriously impaired. Her actions violated the privacy and freedom of expression of a teacher at her school and contributed to the creation of a negative and fearful environment at the school. It is reasonable to think that teachers would not trust the Respondent to properly respect their dignity and rights in the future. Pinellas County School Board Policy 6Gx52.31(1)(c) makes commission or conviction of a felony grounds for suspension or dismissal of a school employee, and (v) makes misconduct or misconduct in office grounds for punishment ranging from a caution to dismissal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment as school bookkeeper at Tyrone Middle School. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Wesley Bridges, II Staff Attorney Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Verna T. Carter 5233 6th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a school teacher who has earned an associate's degree from Miami-Dade Community College, a bachelor's degree in education from the University of Miami and a master of science degree from Florida International University. Respondent has a valid and current Florida Teacher's Certificate and is certified in the areas of science and social studies. Respondent has been employed for thirteen years as a teacher by the Dade County School Board. He was employed for one year in 1965-69 re-employed in 1972 and continued his employment until his suspension on July 25, 1984. The Dade County School Board has an official policy of annual performance evaluations of all teachers. The criteria established by the Petitioner for the teacher evaluations are: (1) preparation and planning, (2) knowledge of subject matter, (3) classroom management, (4) techniques of instruction, (5) assessment techniques, (6) teacher-student relationship, and professional responsibility. For the years 1972 through 1983 Respondent was annually evaluated by the Petitioner, his job performance was found to be acceptable, and he was annually recommended for continuing employment with Petitioner. For the school year 1983-84 Respondent received an evaluation of "acceptable" and he was recommended for employment. However principal Henry Pinkney later amended his "acceptable" evaluation recommending that Respondent continue his employment under prescription. During the 1983-84 school year Quentin Collins was a student attending North Dade Junior High School where Respondent was one of his teachers. On May 10, 1984, Quentin Collins was one of approximately 30 students in a class taught by Respondent. On that date Collins was repeatedly talking, misbehaving, and disrupting the class. After several warnings by Respondents the student was directed to go to the teacher's desk in the front of the classroom. For the next several moments while Respondent attended to the other students in the classrooms Collins was at various times sitting, kneeling, squatting and leaning on or against the teacher's desk. After he decided to sit on the floors his back was against the teacher's desk and his legs were extended straight out so as to block the aisle next to that desk. After Respondent finished walking around the classroom and talking with other students, he turned to return to the area of his desk and literally, almost stepped on Collins' legs. As Respondent stepped over (and not on) Collins' legs, Collins raised his knees and grabbed Respondent's legs in such a manner that Respondent feared he was going to be "tripped" by the student. In a brief and sudden instant, Respondent grabbed both of Collins' legs, lifted him in the air, and then lowered Collins back down. During this brief bodily entanglement, Collins' head may have bumped the linoleum floor. The incident was not reported to the school administrators until four days later and Collins did not tell his mother about these events until a later date. Collins was examined by a physician four days after the incident. There is no evidence that the student sustained any injury or has any medical problems as a result of the incident of May 10, 1984. Although Respondent was evaluated as "acceptable" and recommended for employment by the principal of North Dade Junior High School after the incident with Collins and after the principal had been advised of the incident with Collins the May 15, 1984 Annual Evaluation of Respondent was amended by the principal on June 7, 1984 to show that Respondent was unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. Even the "amended" Annual Evaluation fails to recommend that Respondent be terminated from his employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against him reinstating Respondent as an employee of the Dade County School Board and awarding to Respondent full back pay for the period of time that he has been suspended from his employment DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1986, at Tallahassee Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder Esquire 2750 Galloway Road Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami Florida 33165 Dan J. Bradley Esquire 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Coconut Grove Florida 33133 Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132 APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony, argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 5 have been rejected as not being supported by the evidence herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or as modified to conform with the evidence or style. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as being immaterial. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 15 and 16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony, argument of counsels or conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis Ward Carroll held a Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 169701, which was valid from July 1, 1972 until June 30, 1982. As a certificate holder Respondent was disciplined on August 7, 1979, when the State Board of Education entered an Order adopting a set of stipulated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Board's Order suspended Mr. Carroll's license to teach for sixty (60) days beginning on June 15, 1979. This discipline resulted from Mr. Carroll's numerous absences from school due to his drinking alcohol. The stipulation recited several arrests and numerous admissions to the Detox (detoxication) Center for disorderly intoxication. These instances occurred between 1976 and 1978. According to the stipulation Mr. Carroll voluntarily entered an alcoholic treatment program on December 4, 1978 for a period of six (6) months. During all times pertinent to the Amended Administrative Complaint Mr. Carroll was employed as a full-time science teacher by the School Board of Duval County at Fletcher Senior High School. On May 18, 1979, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel of the School Board of Duval County, Florida, sent a letter to Mr. Carroll informing him that he would be employed for the next school year, but he was warned that, Any further indiscretion, however, such as public drunkeness or drinking while on the job will be reported to the Professional Practices Council and could result in a recommendation for your dismissal in accor- dance with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. May 1980 Absence During the 1979-80 school year, Mr. Carroll was absent from his teaching duties without prior approval for approximately one week in May, 1980. Before and during his absence Mr. Carroll failed to give notice of his absence as required by school policy. Upon his failure to appear for teaching as scheduled his principal, Dr. Knight, became concerned about his welfare and sent Mr. Daugherty, his administrative assistant, to look for Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll could not be found during the school day, but after work Mr. Daugherty, who was going to the grocery store with his wife, saw Mr. Carroll walking down the street. He was "in real bad shape" and was redolent of alcohol. When Mr. Carroll was offered a ride home he declined stating, "No, I want to go to the lounge." Mr. Daugherty then took Mr. Carroll to the Jax Liquor Store Lounge and promptly found a police officer. Mr. Daugherty explained his concern about Mr. Carroll to the officer. The officer picked Mr. Carroll up from the lounge and transported him to the Detox Center. Mr. Daugherty, who is now a school principal in Okeechobee, Florida, would not, if requested, hire Mr. Carroll as a teacher in his school. He believes that due to Mr. Carroll's drinking problem he could not be relied upon to appear as scheduled for teaching his classes. Dr. Knight has the same opinion. April 14, 1981 Arrest During the afternoon of April 14, 1981, a passing motorist notified Officer Russell of the Duval County Sheriff's Department that a man was staggering down the middle of East Point Road in Jacksonville, Florida. The patrolman went to the location described, and observed Mr. Carroll walking down the centerline of the street. Mr. Carroll smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet. Because of his condition he was transported by Officer Russell to the Detox Center where he was later arrested. July 21, 1981 Arrest At approximately 1:15 a.m. on July 21, 1981, Officer Nixon, a patrolman with the Duval County Sheriff's Department, received a complaint from Mr. Carroll's sister that he was creating a disturbance in her home. She reported that Mr. Carroll was drunk and she wanted him to remain in the house because she thought his condition was too dangerous for him to be out in public. Upon his arrival the police officer attempted to talk with Mr. Carroll but he refused to respond at all. He was quite intoxicated and had to be physically assisted out of the house and into the patrol car. Mr. Carroll was charged with disorderly intoxication and taken to the Detox Centers. Spring 1981 Absences According to Fletcher High School policy teachers were required to either give advance notice of their absences or if such notice was not possible to call the school secretary before 7:00 a.m. of the date on which they would be absent. This notice was required because substitute teachers needed to be obtained as rapidly as possible. If a teacher is too late in giving notice of his absence, it is impossible to obtain a substitute. Other teachers are then required to cover for the absent teacher with the consequential disruption of their omen teaching schedules. During the months of February and March, 1981, there were numerous times when Mr. Carroll did not report his absence as required. He either gave no notice or the notice he gave came after 7:00 o'clock. As a result of his unauthorized absences it was discovered that Mr. Carroll left either inadequate lesson plans or no lesson plans at all for the substitutes who appeared to instruct his class. The failure of Mr. Carroll to timely submit his lesson plans substantially interfered with the ability of the substitutes to teach the appropriate subject material. During one of his absences due to drinking student grades for the third nine-week period were due. Mr. Carroll did not leave any grades with the school administration to be given in his absence. Initially, the administration was unable to obtain the grades from Mr. Carroll. When it appeared that no grades would be available, students were told that they would receive an "I" (Incomplete) grade. This possibility caused much confusion and consternation among the students' parents. It resulted in numerous explanations to them by Mr. Carroll's principal. At the very last moment Mr. Carroll's mother delivered his grade book to the school. The "I's" which were previously placed on the students' report cards had to be removed and the correct grades were then posted. Respondent's unauthorized absences were the result of his being an alcoholic. Frequently Mr. Carroll was unable to go to school because he was in the Detox Center. Finally Mr. Carroll was given a leave of absence beginning on April 21, 1981 in order to seek treatment for his problem. Effectiveness Mr. Carroll's effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously reduced by his alcoholism. He cannot be depended upon to appear at the required time for the instruction of his classes. In two instances he appeared at school with the odor of alcohol on his breath. 1/ Knowledge of and rumors about his alcoholism have reduced the respect accorded him by students at Fletcher High School. On March 12, 1981 Mr. Carroll received an official reprimand from his principal, Dr. Jim Ragans. The reprimand noted that Mr. Carroll had been delinquent in giving notice of his absences to the school administration. The reprimand also noted deficiencies in Mr. Carroll's lesson plans and his completion of the student attendance register. He was warned that any reoccurrences of the enumerated delinquencies would result in a recommendation for his dismissal from teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate 2/ of Otis Ward Carroll for a period of two years pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and that once the revocation period has expired he be recertified only upon an affirmative demonstration that he is rehabilitated from alcoholism. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1982.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended and dismissed from employment, as a Microsystems Technician, with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the School Board was a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. In November 2001, Mr. Li was employed with the School Board as a Microsystems Technician. No dispute exists that, as a Microsystems Technician, Mr. Li is an educational support employee, and his employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME, hereinafter the AFSCME Contract. In April 2004, Mr. Li was assigned to two worksites, Cypress Creek Elementary School, hereinafter Cypress Creek, and Blue Lakes Elementary School, hereinafter Blue Lakes. At both schools, his responsibilities included installing computers, running the network, maintaining the software for the computers, and training students and teachers on how to use the software. At Cypress Creek, Mr. Li was assigned to work ten (10) days per month. He experienced problems with his attendance immediately at Cypress Creek, resulting in the principal, Faye Haynes, issuing an “Absence From Worksite Directive,” hereinafter AWS Directive, on May 27, 2004, to Mr. Li. The AWS Directive included, among other things, in detail his leave without pay, authorized (LWOA), and leave without pay, unauthorized (LWOU). Further, the AWS Directive advised Mr. Li, among other things, that his absence from his duties adversely impacted the educational and work environment; and directed him, among other things, to be in regular attendance at the school and on time, to report his intent to be absent directly to the principal or assistant principal, and to provide to the principal or assistant principal written documentation, by way of a written medical note from the treating physician, of absences for illness. Additionally, Mr. Li was advised that future absences would be considered LWOU unless and until the documentation was provided. Mr. Li signed the AWS Directive. However, his attendance failed to improve. A second AWS Directive was issued by Principal Haynes to Mr. Li on September 7, 2004, as a result of his being absent on September 2, 2004. Mr. Li signed the second AWS Directive on the same date. The second AWS Directive included the same matters of which he was previously advised and the same directives. Moreover, Mr. Li was advised that his non- compliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities or insubordination. Mr. Li’s absences failed to improve, and his absences adversely affected the worksite at Cypress Creek. Both teachers and students were suffering from the lack of timely computer- associated activities that were dependent upon Mr. Li timely performing his responsibilities. Mr. Li’s attendance was complicated even more on October 26, 2006. He was arrested for burglary, involving a vehicle, and battery. At the time of his arrest, Principal Haynes was not aware that the reason for Mr. Li’s immediate absence was that he was in jail; she was only aware that he had not reported to work at Cypress Creek. Mr. Li testified at hearing that, while he was in jail, he was given one (1) telephone call and that he called his wife. He explained to his wife what had happened and requested her to call Cypress Creek. Further, Mr. Li testified that his wife called Cypress Creek and indicated that he had been arrested. No testimony was presented contradicting the testimony that Mr. Li’s wife had contacted Cypress Creek. His testimony is found to be credible. On November 1, 2006, Principal Haynes issued and mailed to Mr. Li an Employment Intention Memorandum, hereinafter EI Memorandum. The EI Memorandum indicated, among other things, the dates of Mr. Li’s absences; that the absences were unauthorized and warranted dismissal on the grounds of job abandonment; that several options were available (indicating the options); and that an immediate response was requested to any of the options. Principal Haynes was concerned that Mr. Li was in danger of losing his job due to the number of unauthorized absences and, as a result, she included, as one of the options, a form requesting a leave of absence without pay. Mr. Li testified that he did not doubt that Principal Haynes was attempting to help him. On November 3, 2006, after serving ten (10) days, Mr. Li was released from jail. He had missed seven (7) consecutive workdays. Mr. Li reported to work at Blue Lakes, where he was also the Microsystems Technician. However, he was informed by the principal at Blue Lakes that he was required to report to Regional Center V, as an alternate location, a consequence of his arrest. Being at Regional Center V, Mr. Li was not able to perform any duties and responsibilities at either Cypress Creek or Blue Lakes. Regarding the EI Memorandum, Mr. Li testified at hearing that he received the EI Memorandum after he was released from jail, but did not complete the form requesting a leave of absence without pay because he was unsure as to whether he should complete and return it. He was not sure as to whether completing the form would benefit or harm him, so he did not complete it. His testimony is found to be credible. The evidence is clear and convincing that Mr. Li intentionally did not complete the form requesting a leave of absence without pay. Not having the services of Mr. Li adversely impacted Cypress Creek. Principal Haynes needed the computer services for her school, and, to provide the needed services, she was forced to hire another school employee, a Microsystems Technician, on an hourly basis to work in the evenings to perform Mr. Li’s responsibilities. In order to pay for the needed services being provided by another Microsystems Technician, Principal Haynes had to redirect funds from other programs. As a condition of his alternate placement, on November 3, 2006, Mr. Li executed a Terms and Conditions of Administrative Placement at Alternate Location, hereinafter Terms and Conditions, form. Included in the Terms and Conditions was a requirement that he report to his work assignment during his regular duty hours, which were 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; that he report his attendance by signing-in as directed; that, if he was to take leave due to illness or personal reasons, he must notify the person to whom he reports his attendance in the mornings, who was the administrative director, Melanie Fox, Ph.D., or, according to Dr. Fox, to an administrative secretary; and that he must complete and return work assignments in a timely manner. Mr. Li had attendance problems immediately at Regional Center V, and Dr. Fox advised and reminded him that he was able to apply for leave for a medical condition, if he had such a situation. Due to Mr. Li’s absences, while he was assigned to the Regional Center, on January 19, 2007, Dr. Fox issued him a second EI Memorandum, which was his second EI Memorandum in less than three months. The EI Memorandum indicated that Mr. Li was absent from his worksite 34 times, beginning with September 15, 2006, and ending with January 18, 2007. Furthermore, Dr. Fox indicated, among other things, in the EI Memorandum that the absences were unauthorized and warranted dismissal on grounds of abandonment; that he had four options to which she requested his immediate reply, including notifying her of his need for leave and his intended date of return, requesting leave or resigning, using the forms provided; that he had three days in which to reply; that his absences were considered unauthorized until he communicated directly with her; and that his failure to respond would result in termination due to abandonment. Included with the EI Memorandum, per the School Board’s policy, was a Request for Leave for Absence Without Pay form and a Letter of Resignation form, as options for Mr. Li. He did not complete either form. To determine whether Mr. Li’s absences were authorized or unauthorized, Dr. Fox was guided by the terms of the AFSCME Contract. No dispute exists that the AFSCME Contract was applicable and controlling. Dr. Fox determined that, according to the AFSCME Contract, after the covered employee’s sick leave is expended, any subsequent absence becomes unauthorized unless the employee provides a note from an attending physician. As a result, Mr. Li had expended his sick leave and, therefore, his absences were leave without pay, unauthorized, but, when he provided notes from an attending physician, the absences were changed in the payroll reporting system to leave without pay, authorized. Mr. Li returned to work. However, his absences did not cease. As to Mr. Li’s arrest for burglary, involving a vehicle, and battery, on March 6, 2007, he pled nolo contendere to battery; adjudication was withheld; and his sentence included one-year probation, performing community service, and participating in an anger management program. Mr. Li testified at hearing that no burglary was involved, only a fight. His testimony is found to be credible. On May 16, 2007, a conference-for-the-record, hereinafter CFR, was held to address Mr. Li’s attendance problems; violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E1.01, Absences and Leaves; abandonment of position; insubordination; a review of his record; and his future employment status with the School Board. He did not attend the CFR due to being ill, i.e., passing kidney stones and experiencing great pain. A written Summary of the CFR was prepared, and Mr. Li was provided a copy of it. He does not deny that he received a copy of the Summary of the CFR. Included in the Summary of the CFR were Mr. Li’s absences for the 2005-2006 school year and from July 1, 2006 through May 3, 2007. For the 2005-2006 school year, he was absent six (6) sick days, six (6) personal days, nine (9) days LWOA, and one (1) day LWOU, totaling 22 days, excluding vacation days. From July 1, 2006 through May 3, 2007, he was absent two (2) sick days, three (3) personal days, 68 days LWOU, and 37 days LWOA, totaling 110 days, excluding vacation days. A copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4E1.01, Absences and Leaves, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, were attached to the Summary of the CFR. Also, included in the Summary of the CFR were directives to Mr. Li concerning his absences, which was his third time he was being issued directives. The directives included being in regular attendance and on time at the worksite; communicating directly with Dr. Fox when he intended to be absent; documenting absences for illness through a written medical note from his treating physicians presented to Dr. Fox upon his return to the worksite, with a failure to do so resulting in the absences being recorded as LWOU; and adhering to School Board rules, in particular 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Furthermore, in the Summary of the CFR, Mr. Li was advised, among other things, that the number of absences were deemed excessive; that his absence from work had adversely impacted the educational program and the effective operation of the work unit; that, if he had attended, he would have been provided an opportunity to respond with reasons for his excessive unauthorized absences and insubordination; that noncompliance with the directives would necessitate a review by the Office of Professional Standards, hereinafter OPS; and that a legal review by the School Board attorneys might result in recommended action or disciplinary measures, including dismissal. Even after receiving the Summary of the CFR, Mr. Li’s problem with absences continued. As of June 13, 2007, he accumulated an additional 29 unauthorized absences. Subsequent to the CFR, Principal Haynes recommended the termination of Mr. Li because she determined that she could not depend upon him and that she needed a dependable Microsystems Technician at Cypress Creek. The Regional Superintendent for Region Center V concurred in her recommendation. OPS concurred in the recommendation because it considered Mr. Li’s conduct to violate the AFSCME Contract and the School Board’s rules regarding Responsibilities and Duties, Code of Ethics, and Absences and Leaves. As to the unauthorized absences, Mr. Li’s deposition was taken by the School Board, and, during the deposition, he presented documents purporting to excuse some of the unauthorized absences. Further, at hearing, he presented additional such documents. Mr. Li testified that his personnel file should have contained all of the documents that he had presented; that he requested his physicians to provide the documents to Cypress Creek; that his physicians informed him that they were not required to indicate the specific nature of the illness for which they were treating him but required only to indicate that they were treating him on the dates indicated; and that his physicians forwarded the documents to Cypress Creek, some by fax. The School Board agreed to accept the documents as demonstrating that the absences indicated on the documents should be excused and changed to authorized absences. Even with the changing of the documented absences from unauthorized to authorized, the School Board asserts that the total number of unauthorized absences is 74. The 74 unauthorized absences include 12 days that Mr. Li was in jail and appeared in court, which were brought to the attention of the School Board by Mr. Li. No dispute exists that Mr. Li had exhausted all of his sick and personal leave. Mr. Li does not contest that the total number of unauthorized absences is 74. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li had 74 unauthorized absences. However, at hearing, Mr. Li testified that he wants the reason known as to the medical reason for his absence from the worksite. He testified that the reason for the unauthorized absences, excluding the aforementioned 12 days, was that he was suffering from depression, which caused his immune system to weaken, which lead to other health problems, such as being susceptible to viruses and infections. Also, he testified that he was being seen by a psychiatrist. Furthermore, Mr. Li testified that, prior to his arrest, he was participating in the Employee Assistance Program, hereinafter EAP, due to his depression, and was being seen by a counselor; and that he continued in the EAP until his termination. Additionally, Mr. Li testified that he failed to complete the Request for Leave of Absence Without Pay form provided by Dr. Fox on January 19, 2007, because he was unsure as what might happen if he completed it since Dr. Fox had indicated to him that she did not believe that he was ill. Moreover, Mr. Li testified that he was not attempting to dispute the 74 unauthorized absences and to have the unauthorized absences changed to authorized absences, but that he was attempting to demonstrate that he was not a “bad person,” that he was not faking his illness, that the absences were not on purpose, and that he was not insubordinate. The undersigned finds Mr. Li’s testimony to be credible. The undersigned provided Mr. Li with the opportunity to continue the hearing in order for him to have his psychiatrist and counselor testify in this matter; however, Mr. Li decided not to take advantage of a continuance but to proceed with the hearing without the psychiatrist and counselor as witnesses. Even though the undersigned finds Mr. Li’s testimony regarding his depression credible, in particular, as to the effect of his depression on his physical well-being, and even though depression undoubtedly affects one’s mental well- being, including one’s thinking process, no testimony was presented as to what extent Mr. Li’s depression affected his thinking process. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li was physically ill during the absences, except for the 12 absences he was in jail and appeared in court. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li was not in regular attendance and on time at his worksite. As to the unauthorized absences, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li failed to provide documentation, regarding his illness, through the production of written medical notes from his treating physicians. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li failed to communicate his unauthorized absences to Principal Hayes or Dr. Fox and that he intentionally failed to communicate his unauthorized absences to them. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Li refused to request a leave of absence. The evidence demonstrates that he did not request a leave of absence because he was unsure as to whether such a request would benefit or harm him, especially when Dr. Fox informed him that she did not believe that he was ill, but at the same time, providing him with the request. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Mr. Li’s failure to request a leave of absence was reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending and dismissing Jorge Li from employment with it. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Jorge Li 11458 Southwest 109th Road, Apt. X Miami, Florida 33176 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
