The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner based on alleged incompetence under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056; and/or whether termination of employment is warranted because Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34(3).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees at Bayside, Lockmar, and other schools in Brevard County. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was an art teacher in the Brevard County school system. Respondent worked at several different schools in Brevard County, including Bayside, Lockmar, Sea Park Elementary, Endeavor Elementary, and Indialantic Elementary. He taught at Bayside from 2003 until 2010, and then was transferred to Lockmar for the 2010-2011 school year. Respondent was given an annual evaluation each year at the school where he was teaching. Annual evaluations are used for the purpose of reviewing and critiquing a teacher's performance in the classroom. An annual review determines whether the teacher is "effective," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory" for the school year at issue. While at Bayside, Respondent's annual evaluations were generally "effective," meaning he was teaching in a fashion deemed satisfactory by the administrators. Mr. Tuttle, the principal, considered him an effective teacher, but he did not personally perform Respondent's evaluations. The evaluation for school year 2007-2008 was somewhat restrained in nature, describing Respondent as "an effective art teacher who satisfies all teacher competencies" and that he "demonstrates an acceptable level of knowledge of the subject matter." In the 2008-2009 school year at Bayside, the new principal, Mr. Novelli, began to have doubts about Respondent's teaching abilities and also about his mental health. Several incidents were reported to Novelli concerning Respondent that made Novelli very concerned. As a result, Novelli began to keep an eye on Respondent and did more frequent "walk-throughs" of Respondent's classroom. Walk-throughs by administrators are an accepted means of gathering information about the teacher and his or her teaching practices. At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was given an evaluation that deemed him "effective" as to his overall performance as a teacher. The evaluation describes Respondent in exactly the same words used in the prior year's evaluation form. The effective evaluation was issued despite an incident that occurred at the end of the school year, to wit: The parent of a student contacted Novelli and reported that Respondent had kept the student's art project, refusing to return it to the student. Respondent told Novelli that he kept the project because the student had failed to pay for a canvas; Novelli found that excuse to be inaccurate. The parent said Respondent had asked the female student to pose for him after school and had given the student his cell phone number. Novelli ordered Respondent to return the art project, which he did. Respondent then allegedly began asking other students if the art student was pregnant. When Novelli asked Respondent about the student, Respondent became "very hostile, very loud, very emotional, and [he] started yelling, 'I'm not a pedophile; I don't sleep with my students; I don't do drugs, you can call the American Fence Company and ask them. I've had a drug test with them.'" These unsolicited, random comments by Respondent caused Novelli even greater concern about Respondent's mental well-being. The next school year, 2009-2010, Novelli did an interim evaluation of Respondent. Interim evaluations are done when administration believes a teacher is struggling or having serious issues which impede his or her performance. The interim evaluation was done at the end of October 2009 and indicated several areas of unsatisfactory performance by Respondent, including: Planning; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Responsibilities; and Student Evaluation. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form, even though a signature does not equate to acceptance of the evaluation, it simply acknowledges that the evaluation has been discussed with the teacher (which it had been). Principal Novelli observed Respondent's classroom on several occasions and found the activities going on to be inconsistent with the lesson plans for that day. Respondent explained that the words he had written on the white board (in one case, the words "Van Gogh") were his lesson plan for the day. That was not acceptable, because lesson plans should be sufficient for another teacher to utilize to teach the class in the regular teacher's absence. Some of the problems in the area of responsibilities noted in the interim evaluation were: failing to timely provide administration with a list of students who could be identified as advanced placement candidates; failing to provide acceptable contributions of his students' art work for a poster design contest; and failing to submit art work for a proposed field trip timely and appropriately. Respondent was found to have a difficult time communicating with school administrators, guidance personnel, and fellow teachers. It became abundantly clear at final hearing that Respondent would be as uncooperative and recalcitrant as possible when talking to people he did not like. His demeanor demonstrated a strong resentment of his principal and others from Bayside. In the area of student evaluations, Respondent was found to have failed to provide daily participation grades to his students, despite saying he would do so in his course outline. All of his students received an "A" grade for one nine-week period. Novelli found those grades to be inconsistent with the observations he had made in the classroom. As for instructional organization, Novelli observed no substantive instruction going on during his classroom visits. Respondent explained that students were free to stay busy working on projects discussed in prior classes, so it might appear to an outside observer that they were not being instructed. However, there was insufficient evidence produced to substantiate Respondent's position in that regard. A Professional Development Assistance Plan (PDAP) was created for each of the areas of concern set forth in the interim evaluation. PDAPs are tools used to assist struggling teachers to find a way to overcome their shortcomings and improve in the areas of concern. On January 7, 2010, Novelli met with Respondent to go over the PDAPs and discuss Respondent's progress. Respondent refused to sign the PDAP forms. Thereafter, although he was given additional time to comply with the PDAPs' requirements, Respondent failed to follow all of the recommendations set out in the plans. For example, one of the recommendations for assistance involved Respondent going to observe another art teacher in their classroom. Novelli wanted Respondent to observe an art teacher selected by the district resource teacher, but Respondent preferred to observe a teacher (Leah Andritz) with whom he already had a friendship. Novelli felt that Respondent's observing his friend teach would not be as helpful as watching someone Respondent did not know. Novelli offered Respondent paid time off to observe the school-chosen art teacher. Ultimately, Respondent went to observe Andritz on his own time, rather than accept Novelli's offer. Respondent's annual evaluation was completed on February 12, 2010. Three areas (also called "strands") were graded as unsatisfactory: Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Student Response. The evaluation also graded Respondent as Needs Improvement in the areas of Planning and Responsibilities. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. A meeting was set for February 18, 2010, to discuss the evaluation. Assistant Principal Capalbo, whom Respondent trusted, was sent to escort Respondent to Novelli's office for the meeting. On the way from Respondent's classroom to the principal's office--which took three or four times longer than usual, because Respondent was making phone calls along the way--Respondent called and spoke to his union representative. The representative then came to the meeting as well. Respondent made numerous derogatory remarks and complaints about Novelli on the way to the meeting. He said Novelli had tried to have him arrested, had vandalized his car, and had attempted to engage in sexual relations with a married teacher.3/ There is no credible evidence that any of the allegations were true, but they made Capalbo wonder if Respondent was having mental issues. At the meeting, Respondent accused Novelli of recording a prior meeting by way of a USB pen. Respondent angrily threatened to file a lawsuit against Novelli and report him to the superintendent of schools. Each of the attendees at the meeting who testified at final hearing said Respondent became very agitated and angry. The union representative (who did not testify at final hearing) was ultimately able to get Respondent under control and persuaded him to leave the meeting. No credible evidence was provided to prove the existence of a USB pen or that meetings had been recorded. Respondent again refused to sign the evaluation form. As a result of Respondent's conduct at the meeting, Novelli placed him on paid administrative leave pending a review of his mental health and fitness for duty. He was on leave for about one week and returned after undergoing a psychological evaluation. A significant dispute arose between Respondent and Novelli concerning an event known as National Portfolio Day. The event was a special opportunity for art students that allowed them to have their art reviewed and to speak with representatives from several colleges and art schools. Respondent had taken students to the event in prior years. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent requested permission to take a number of his students and students from other schools to the event. His request was preliminarily approved by administration, pending several details being worked out. However, the permission was ultimately withdrawn, and no students from Bayside were allowed to attend. Respondent claims that the event was a valuable tool for students and had allowed many students to obtain significant scholarships to colleges in prior years. Novelli found out that the students from other schools who were going to the event were Advanced Placement (AP) students. Bayside did not have an AP program or any AP students.4/ Novelli asked Respondent to put together portfolios for the students he wanted to attend, and Novelli would get the artwork examined by an expert to see if the students were viable candidates for the event, even if they were not technically AP students. Respondent was given a deadline to get the student art portfolios to Novelli so they could be taken to the district office by a date certain. Respondent missed the deadline. Instead, Respondent personally hand-delivered the portfolios to the district office on the day they were due. The artwork was reviewed by an art expert who deemed the work to be inadequate for inclusion in the National Portfolio Day event. She rated the art at the lowest level of a five-tiered rating system. As a result of the art expert's review, Respondent was advised that no students from Bayside would be going to the event. Notwithstanding that decision being communicated to Respondent, he continued to act as if Bayside students would still be attending. He continued making transportation arrangements and notifying students' parents of the impending event. There were several unexplained emails admitted in evidence that show some continuing dialogue about the portfolio trip. The emails addressing this issue create some confusion as to whether Bayside students would be able to attend, but ultimately none attended. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was transferred to Lockmar. Although he had requested a transfer from Bayside, Respondent was extremely upset about the transfer. According to Respondent, he wanted to go to another high school where his former principal, Tuttle, was now the principal. The director of Human Relations Services, however, was told by Respondent's union representative that Respondent wanted to go to an elementary school. Tuttle said that his school's position had already been filled anyway. The principal at Lockmar (Hostetler) did not know at the time of the transfer that Respondent had received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation for his last year at Bayside. When she found out, she issued a memorandum (dated August 5, 2010) informing Respondent that he was on probation for a period of 90 days. The probation status, also called performance review, is essentially the same thing as a procedure called NEAT, except that a performance review is supposed to be completed within 90 days. That is, the teacher has 90 days to show improvement in the delineated areas of concern. It is not uncommon for a teacher to be placed on performance review following an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. As part of the performance review process, Hostetler frequently went into Respondent's classroom to observe his teaching style. Her visits would last the majority of the class period. She would visit classes of different grade levels and students in order to see how Respondent handled various age groups. After approximately eight weeks of reviewing Respondent, Hostetler issued an interim evaluation. That evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory in four areas and needs improvement in another area. Once again, Respondent was deemed to have unsatisfactory lesson plans. His instructional organization and development was again deemed deficient, as well as his presentation of subject matter. Further, he was found to be unsatisfactory in the area of responsibilities under the professionalism strand. The overall evaluation for Respondent was unsatisfactory. The evaluation was reviewed with Respondent on October 1, 2010, but he refused to sign it. On that same date, a number of PDAPs were created to help Respondent address his deficiencies. Respondent was given until December 10, 2010, to take steps to improve in the various areas. Later, when it became clear that he would not be able to meet that deadline, the PDAPs were extended to February 18, 2011, then to March 18, 2011, and then extended again to March 23, 2011. At least one of the extensions was done because Respondent was preparing his classes for an upcoming art show. On March 23, 2011, Hostetler completed Respondent's annual evaluation. It included three unsatisfactory scores and two scores of needs improvement. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory, his second unsatisfactory evaluation in two years. Once again, Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. There was considerable testimony and evidence presented at the final hearing concerning Respondent's tenure at Indialantic Elementary School from 1998-2002, some ten years prior to the final hearing. In his last performance evaluation at Indialantic, Principal Strong had given Respondent an overall unsatisfactory ranking. Although Respondent's performance at a different school so many years prior to the instant allegations may not be dispositive of anything in this case, it is noted that Respondent's administrators at that time had many of the same concerns as those raised by Novelli and Hostetler years later. Besides the on-going issues with less than satisfactory performance ratings, Hostetler had other concerns about Respondent as well. One issue had to do with Respondent sending children outside the classroom and instructing them to "look for dinosaurs." His intention was to keep the children from disrupting the class by their bad behavior. The instruction to look for dinosaurs was just a way of making the student sit and contemplate their behavior. Respondent claims to have learned the technique during training he took through a program called Sun Coast Area Teacher Training. Respondent maintains that he kept visual surveillance of the children when they were outside; the teacher in the adjoining classroom said he could not really do that and maintain contact with his other students. Nonetheless, it does appear that the children were belittled by their peers when they were sent outside to look for dinosaurs. Lockmar had been asked to take part in a contest sponsored by the local police department. Students were to draw pictures within certain parameters that would allow the pictures, if chosen, to be converted to magnets or other items. Respondent was supposed to have the children draw pictures related to a theme of policemen as peace keepers, then select appropriate pictures to submit for consideration by the judges of the contest. Respondent did have his children make drawings, but almost all of them failed to meet the stated size and content parameters. He then asked personnel in the front office to voice their opinion as to which drawings he should submit. Feeling uncomfortable making a decision such as that, the staff handed the drawings over to Hostetler. She ultimately found only three or four worthy of submission for the contest. Hostetler received complaints from other teachers that their students were not ready to leave the art classroom in a timely fashion. They complained that Respondent did not have them ready to go when the art period ended. Hostetler issued a memorandum to Respondent about addressing that issue appropriately. During the period of time Respondent was under performance review and addressing the PDAPs, he was assigned a peer mentor teacher, John Hays, to assist him deal with deficiencies. Hays worked with Respondent from September 2010 through May 2011, including approximately 15 on-site visits to the classroom and one visit with Respondent to another school's art classroom. Respondent made a few improvements during the time Hays worked with him, including upgrading the kiln, putting student drawings in the front office, and becoming more cooperative with others. However, Hays found that the classroom, as managed by Respondent, was not conducive to learning. The lesson plans did not comport with what was going on in the classroom, even though Respondent usually had an explanation for that, e.g., a special project was coming up and students needed to pay more attention to it than to what the lesson plan described. Hays seemed to doubt whether Respondent's reasons or explanations were entirely truthful. All in all, Hays did not see significant improvement by Respondent in most of the problem areas that were being addressed.5/ When Respondent left Lockmar, he was given the opportunity to retrieve all his personal property. At the beginning of the next school year, the new teacher in the art room discovered several pictures belonging to Respondent in the pod (office area) adjacent to the classroom. Some of the pictures were somewhat disturbing to the new teacher, so she turned them over to her principal, who turned them over to the School Board security office. The pictures depicted a person who looked much like Respondent and contained words and images that were not appropriate for elementary school-aged children (and possibly not even high school-aged children). Respondent testified that some of his high school students had made the drawings, but he would not say that the pictures were supposed to depict him (despite one being labeled "The Mighty O." Respondent was often referred to by students and teachers as "O.") Respondent admitted that the drawings were not appropriate for viewing by young children. There is, however, no evidence that any elementary school children ever saw or had access to the pictures. Respondent made some extremely unusual allegations about his prior principals, Strong and Novelli. He said Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend having a miscarriage, that Strong had intentionally caused that to happen, and that he was afraid Strong may do the same thing to someone else. He said Strong had tried to poison him by placing contaminated mulch around his portable classroom building. He said Novelli had caused him to be arrested by sabotaging Respondent's car so that he would be pulled over by police and illegally searched. He made the allegation about Novelli secretly recording meetings. He alleged that Novelli was involved in either killing or damaging the careers of teachers he did not like. Respondent requested leave to pursue a doctorate degree, but the leave was denied. Immediately thereafter, Respondent re-filed his leave request, citing medical issues. He said he used the leave to, in part, pursue his doctorate, but did not adequately explain the suspicious request for medical leave. The leave request was supported by a note from a chiropractor indicating Respondent had back problems. The note did not verify Respondent's allegation that Strong was poisoning him at Indialantic (a claim raised in Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony). There was no credible evidence to support the various claims Respondent made against his administrators, leaving the impression that the allegations are baseless. However, there was no direct showing by the School Board as to how these incredible stories directly affected Respondent's capabilities as a teacher. Respondent showed that he could be evasive and obstinate concerning the admission of even the least significant facts. He seemed reluctant to engage in conversation that was not full of innuendo, suggestion, or intrigue. For example, when asked whether he really believed his principal would vandalize his car (as Respondent had alleged), Respondent answered, "Because other teachers in the district, you know the Greek mythology Cassandra, how Cassandra would foretell the future? Other teachers in the district, as the Greek mythologist Cassandra, would forewarn me of Mr. Novelli's prior actions." When asked repeatedly if he believed another principal was interfering with his purchase of a building, Respondent replied, "I was very cautious with the information." When asked what that meant, he said, "It was worth investigating and finding out more." When asked if Principal Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend losing her baby, he responded, "My answer to that is it's an unfortunate situation" and "I have a child that I wish was born and because of the politics, it is not here." Other than Tuttle's restrained endorsement of Respondent, no fellow teachers or administrators were presented to prove or suggest that Respondent could work well with others. Hays said Respondent was cordial to him, but he was not a co-worker or administrator. Respondent seems to be very eager to assist his students as they prepare for life after grade school. He seems to enjoy teaching and wants to return to the classroom. At least two parents of his former high school students endorsed Respondent as an important reason for their child's success. Respondent said he had helped some students obtain scholarships to assist with their college education, although there was no substantive proof of that fact. In his written response to the 2009-2010 evaluation, Respondent stated he would "produce over $300,000 . . . in independent scholarships for [his] students." Although he testified several times about the scholarships he could generate for his students, there was no credible evidence to support his assertion. (The response to his evaluation was well written and rational. It was not comparable to Respondent's way of orally expressing himself, at least as evidenced by his testimony at the final hearing.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Brevard County School Board, terminating the employment of Respondent, Mark Ostermeier, for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 25th day of June, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Ivory Scott, held Teaching Certificate Number 460227, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent was employed with the School Board of Lee County Florida, and was assigned to Mariner High School. In addition to his duties as a health teacher and drivers' education instructor during the 1987-1988 school year, the Respondent coached the boy's varsity basketball team. M. C., a fifteen-year old female minor student at Mariner High School, participated in after school sports activities as the head statistician for the boy's varsity basketball team and as a player for the girl's basketball team. The Respondent first became acquainted with M.C. when she attended his health class during the first semester of the school year. Before the basketball season began, the student approached the Respondent and told him that she kept statistics for the boy's basketball team at her former high school the year before. The student volunteered to be one of the statisticians for the Respondent's team. She was interviewed by Respondent regarding her recordkeeping abilities and knowledge of the game. Based upon the interview and the student's display of knowledge, she was made the team's head statistician. Prior to granting permission to allow M.C. to participate in the boy's basketball program as a student athletic assistant, her mother voiced concern to the Respondent about transportation problems which could occur when a family member was occasionally unable to meet the student at the school after a game. The Respondent solved this problem with an offer to provide the student with a ride home whenever the family was unable to pick up the student. This potential solution to the problem was accepted by the mother, and the Respondent did give the student a ride home after a few games during the basketball season. On February 9, 1988, the student M.C. wanted to go home before she played in a basketball game at school at 4:00 p.m. The student asked the Respondent for a ride, and he agreed to give her a ride after school ended at 2:20 p.m. When the Respondent left the school grounds with the student, no one else was in the vehicle. The Respondent drove in a direction away from the student's home. Once an isolated area was located, the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with M.C. The Respondent then drove M.C. home, and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. During the following week, but before February 19, 1988, the Respondent again left the school grounds alone with the student M.C. They traveled to another isolated area and the Respondent again had sexual intercourse with the student. When the student was driven home, she was instructed not to tell anyone about the incident. On February 19, 1988, the student M.C. was crying in an hysterical manner in the courtyard area of the school grounds. The child's schoolfriend, A.F., tried to comfort the child, but was unable to calm her. The assistant principal who observed the scene, took the girls to the guidance area so that they could deal with M.C.'s loss of control in a more private area. A female guidance counselor was asked to keep an eye on the students because of M.C.'s unusual behavior. In an attempt to assist the student, the guidance counselor asked M.C. if she would like to go to the counselor's private office. The student accepted the offer, but did not discuss why she was upset. On Monday, February 22, 1988, M.C. returned to the guidance counselor's office. She implied that her problem was of a sexual nature, but was unwilling to discuss the matter further. A few days later, the counselor gave the student the Abuse Counseling Center telephone number. On Friday, February 26, 1988, the child M.C. contacted the guidance counselor and revealed that she had seen the man involved in her problems the evening before. The police officer on campus was contacted. The student revealed to the counselor and the officer that she was in a relationship with a man who was twenty-five years old, married, and the father of a child. Although the Respondent was married and had a child, he was older than twenty-five years of age. The evening before the limited revelations to the counselor and officer occurred, M.C. had attended the school district's boy's basketball tournament. The Respondent was present at the tournament. The following week, the counselor and the police officer urged M.C. to tell her parents about her relationship with the man. When the student did not tell her parents, the police officer called the student's mother and told her what the student had told him. The student was taken for a medical examination by her mother on March 3, 1988, and it was determined that her hymen was no longer intact. The student would not tell her mother the name of the man involved, but she agreed to tell the guidance counselor on Friday, March 4, 1988. On the appointed date, the student told the counselor the man involved was the Respondent, Ivory Scott. The guidance counselor informed the assistant principal who brought the student into the guidance office on February 19, 1988, about the allegations. The assistant principal advised the principal. When the principal was informed of the student's accusations, he sent for the Respondent immediately to prevent him from hearing the news from less reliable sources. After the principal notified the Respondent of the student's accusations, the Respondent admitted to having the student M.C. alone with him in his vehicle on several occasions. The Respondent denied that any sexual activity took place during these times, and he was unable to speculate why the child might be motivated to make the accusations against him. During the hearing, the Respondent denied that the student M.C. had ever been alone in his vehicle with him, or that the events testified to by the student regarding sexual intercourse had ever occurred. It was his testimony that M.C. had once confided to him that her stepbrother had intercourse with her. The Respondent did not report this purported confidence to the authorities, and there was no evidence in the record to substantiate that the student had a stepbrother. A number of students from the high school testified at hearing. Members of the basketball team and a student athletic assistant testified that on Thursday, February 25, 1988, M.C. was behaving in a flirtatious, sexually aggressive manner with a member of the boy's basketball team in the back of the bus. The basketball player and his mother testified as to M.C.'s persistent need to seek attention from the player. A former boyfriend of M.C.'s testified that, contrary to her statements that she had not kissed with boys prior to the sexual incidents with Respondent, he had engaged in kissing activity with her. The former boyfriend also testified that M.C. told him that nothing has happened between her and the Respondent. She told him this after a newspaper article related her accusations and the Respondent's arrest. The former boyfriend had telephoned her to discuss the matter after his grandparents mentioned that they read about the accusations in the newspaper. Diane Goldberg, a licensed clinical social worker who was accepted as an expert in the area of child sexual abuse counseling, opined that M.C.'s behavior after the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse with the Respondent was congruent, and consistent with behavioral indicators which reflect that sexual molestation has occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be revoked for violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, of the State Board of Education. That the allegation that Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4544 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected as to the finding that the student relied on Respondent for rides home after her basketball practices prior to the alleged incidents. Accept that she occasionally relied on Respondent for rides home after games. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Reject as to two week time period. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Witness incompetent to render legal conclusion. Rejected. Improper summary, Accepted. See HO #21. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #8-#10, #11, #13 and #15. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to fact. M.C. referred only to rides home, not rides home after games. See HO #6 and #7. Reject the second sentence as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The rest of paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. Accept first sentence. See HO #6. All but the last sentence in the first paragraph are accepted as facts presented. Although probative, these facts were not determinative. See Conclusions of Law. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The first two sentences in the second paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 4 is accepted. See HO #6 and #7. The third sentence is accepted as testimony. The finding of fact based on the evidence is found in HO #7. The last paragraph in proposed finding of fact number 4 is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed factual finding. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #19 and Conclusions of Law. Accept the first paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 6. See HO #14 and #15. The second paragraph is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first sentence. See HO #13 and #15. The rest of proposed finding of fact number 7 is rejected as irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Dr. Seitz's testimony was not filed in Case NO. 88-4544. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur C. Smith, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0008 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 315 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent School Board of Bay County (the “School Board”) has good cause under Section 1012.22(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2006), to reject the recommendation of Petitioner James E. McCalister, Sr., Superintendent of the Bay County School District (the “Superintendent”), to transfer the Intervenor Larry Bolinger (“Bolinger”) from the position of principal of Bay High School (“Bay High”) to the position of principal of Jinks Middle School (“Jinks”).
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent is the duly elected superintendent of the Bay County School District. He is serving his second consecutive term in that capacity. The School Board consists of five duly elected members: Thelma Rohan, Ron Danzey, Johnny Brock, Jon McFatter, and Donna Allen. Bolinger is an employee and former superintendent of the Bay County School District. The Superintendent defeated Bolinger for the superintendent’s office in the 2000 general election. Bolinger was principal at Merritt Brown Middle School (Merritt Brown) during the 2004-2005 school year. He was principal at Bay High for the 2005-2006 school year. His proposed reassignment from Bay High to Jinks for the 2006-2007 school year is the subject of this proceeding. Bay High, Jinks, and Merritt Brown are located in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. Florida has an “A+ Plan for Education” that grades schools based on student performance. The school grade is determined by student scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (“FCAT”). Fred Goodwin was the principal at Bay High for 27 years. Mr. Goodwin’s final year at Bay High was the 2004-2005 school year. He retired after Bay High received a school grade of “D” for two consecutive years. Bay High’s 2004-2005 school score improved by 28 points over the score received during the previous year. The school would have received a grade of “C” for the 2004-2005 school term but for the failure of more than 50 percent of the lowest scoring 25 percent of Bay High’s students (“the lowest quartile”) to make gains on the FCAT exam. Relevant to the subject of Bay High’s performance on the FCAT in recent years, the School Board opened Arnold High School (“Arnold”) on Panama City Beach in 1998. The new high school resulted in a significant reduction in Bay High’s student population because all of the beach students previously had attended Bay High. In order to increase the student population at Bay High and the school’s academic performance, the School Board started a Magnet program at Bay High. Bay High was given $250,000 through a grant to get the Magnet program started. The School Board also provided Bay High with extra teaching units for every year of the Magnet program’s existence. Along with the Magnet program, the Advanced International Certificate of Education (“AICE”) program was initiated at Bay High. One purpose of starting the AICE program at Bay High was to attract high-performing students. Despite such efforts, Bay High received a school score of “D” during the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years. In the years prior to Goodwin’s retirement, Bay High experienced significant problems in areas other than academics. The problems included, but were not limited to the following: (a) the school grounds and facilities were deplorable; (b) many students wandered campus during class time unattended; (c) teacher morale was low; (d) administrators, including Goodwin, were not visible on campus or at school events; (e) students and teachers were disciplined inconsistently; and (f) instructional class time was interrupted for nonacademic events. Knowing that the principal position at Bay high would be vacant after the 2004-2005 school year, the Superintendent advertised the position. Bolinger did not apply to fill the position. The general practice is that during the advertising process, some applicants for a position are screened out simply based upon an assessment of the application. A committee then selects and interviews five applicants. After the interviews, the committee sends the Superintendent the names of three applicants for the position advertised. In the case of the vacancy for principal at Bay High, the Superintendent did not select any of the top three applicants. Instead, he placed the applicants at other schools. On June 21, 2005, the Superintendent contacted Bolinger. The Superintendent requested Bolinger to meet at the Superintendent’s office. At the meeting, the Superintendent offered the Bay High principal position to Bolinger. The Superintendent’s offer did not foreclose Bolinger’s option to remain as principal at Merritt Brown. In the course of their discussion regarding the Bay High position, Bolinger told the Superintendent that he had four years left in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”). Bolinger stated that he would take the job at Bay High with the understanding that he would be the Bay High principal for the remaining four years before his retirement.1/ The Superintendent agreed that Bolinger would be allowed to stay at Bay High until his time in the DROP program was complete. Bollinger also told the Superintendent that if he was going to Bay High as principal, he must have two assistant principals. The Superintendent agreed to this condition. Randall McElheney and William Harrison are businessmen in Panama City, Florida, with close connections to Bay High as alums, parents, and volunteers. For the 2005-2006 school year, Mr. McElheney and Mr. Harrison served as business partners in the Partnership to Advance School Success (PASS) program. The PASS program is a cooperative effort between the State, the School Board, Bay High, and the business partner to improve the academic status of individual schools. Prior to the June 21, 2005, meeting between the Superintendent and Bolinger, the Superintendent told Mr. McElheney that there was only one person that could turn Bay High around. That person was Bolinger. After Bolinger accepted the position at Bay High, the Superintendent contacted several other School Board members to inform them of his decision. The Superintendent told Mr. Danzey that Bolinger was the one person in the school district that could lead Bay High. The Superintendent told Ms. Allen that Bolinger was the best person for the Bay High job. Mr. McFatter understood the Superintendent to believe that there was no one else in the district other than Bolinger who could handle the Bay High job. All of the School Board members supported the Superintendent’s decision to transfer Bolinger to Bay High. Not everyone in the community agreed with the Superintendent’s decision. The Superintendent knew that some people, unidentified here, opposed the transfer in part for political reasons. The Superintendent also knew that Bolinger would “ruffle some feathers” and upset certain individuals as he made needed changes at Bay High. On or about June 23, 2005, the Superintendent transferred Bolinger from Merritt Brown to Bay High for the 2005-2006 school year. Bolinger started working at Bay High that same day. The School Board subsequently voted unanimously to approve the reassignment. Bolinger signed a one-year written contract with the School Board for the 2005-2006 school year. The written contract provides as follows in pertinent part: THIS CONTRACT entered into between THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, party of the first part, hereinafter called “the School Board,” and Larry Bolinger (0061), party of the second part, hereinafter called “the Employee.” * * * The School Board agrees to employ the Employee in a position of PRINCIPAL for a period of 12 calendar months beginning July 1, 2005 (same being hereinafter referred to as the “employment period”) . . . . * * * 10. It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto . . . that neither the Employee nor the School Board owes any further contractual obligation to the other after the last day of the employment period. The Superintendent has never recommended that the School Board contract with administrative personnel in excess of one year. During his first year at Bay High, Bolinger was able to resolve many of the school’s past problems. With the help of the PASS program business partners, the grounds and facilities were cleaned. The business partners also worked with Bolinger to implement incentive programs to motivate student academic achievement. Attendance improved and students were in class during instructional time. Bolinger established clear definitive roles for each administrator. Teacher and staff morale increased as a clear chain of command and written policies eliminated favoritism. Student discipline became consistent and non-discriminatory. Bolinger and other administrators were visible on campus and at school events. All administrators were accessible to faculty, students, and parents. The faculty was included in decisions regarding the school. Most important, during the 2005-2006 school year, Bay High improved its school score from a “D” to a “C”. The school was eligible to receive a score of “B” on the FCAT, with a numeric score that was 11 points higher than the score received in 2004-2005. However, because less than 50 percent of the lowest quartile made adequate gains on the test, Bay High received a “C”. Beginning around the start of 2006, Bolinger heard rumors that he was going to be removed from his position because he had ruffled some feathers at Bay High. Certain individuals had complained to the Superintendent when they became upset with Bolinger for changing the status quo. Through out the year, Bolinger frequently consulted with the Superintendent about problems at the school. The Superintendent always reassured Bolinger that he was “doing the right thing” and needed to “keep on track.” The Superintendent encouraged Bolinger to be sensitive to students, teachers, and staff, but to keep his focus on improving student performance, especially the performance of the lowest quartile. In May 2006, the Superintendent met with Bolinger. At the meeting, the Superintendent stated that he would recommend Bolinger back as a principal, but not at Bay High. Bolinger stated that he felt betrayed because he had been loyal to the Superintendent. The Superintendent stated that he did not see it that way. The Superintendent never gave Bolinger any other reason for the decision. Once the transfer became public knowledge, the Superintendent and School Board members received e-mails from Bay High students, staff, parents, and community members. A significant majority of these e-mails discussed the improvements that Bay High made under Bolinger’s leadership. They expressed support for his remaining at Bay High. School Board members also received telephone calls from the public for and against Bolinger’s impending transfer from Bay High. The School Board members and Bay High’s business partners questioned the Superintendent’s decision to remove Bolinger as principal at Bay High. The Superintendent would not give anyone a reason, except to say to a couple of people, “That man is going to do what I tell him to do.” Mr. McElheney, one of Bay High’s business partners, funded a radio and sign campaign advocating that Bolinger remain at Bay High. The radio messages urged the public to attend the School Board meeting on May 30, 2006. After speaking with the School Board members, the Superintendent instituted a teacher hiring freeze. The hiring freeze allowed teachers to interview for positions throughout the district but prohibited anyone from being hired. The Superintendent did not want a teacher being hired at a school expecting certain individuals to be the administrators and then change his or her mind after an administrative change. At the May 30, 2006, School Board meeting, the Superintendent recommended the retention of Bolinger, and several other principals and assistant principals, as employees of the School District for the 2006-2007 school year. The Superintendent’s recommendation did not identify the particular school to which Bolinger, or any other principal or assistant principal, would be assigned. This was a departure from the custom of making administrative recommendations, including the school assignment for each administrator. At the May 30, 2006, meeting, the School Board allowed for public comment. At times growing heated, 47 people, consisting of students, parents, teachers, staff, and community members, spoke at the meeting. Again, a significant majority spoke positively of Bolinger and the difference he was making at Bay High. Many people requested that the Superintendent reconsider his decision. After the public comment portion of the meeting, the Superintendent stated that he did not intend to reconsider his decision about transferring Bolinger and would not give a reason for his decision. The School Board then unanimously voted to approve the recommendations as submitted without school assignments and with the understanding that no principals or administrators would be transferred from their current assignments without School Board approval. The School Board met again on June 28, 2006. At that time, the Superintendent made a recommendation to the School Board to transfer five administrators, one of which was the transfer of Bolinger to the position of principal at Jinks. Once again, the Superintendent refused to give the School Board a reason for his decision to transfer Bolinger. The Superintendent would not reveal the name of the person who would replace Bolinger as principal at Bay High. Mr. McFatter made the following motion at the June 28, 2006 meeting: A transfer of the principal from Bay High School this close to the beginning of the school year, coupled with the Superintendent’s hiring freeze, will in a number of ways adversely affect the student and staff of Bay High School and will severely disrupt the operation of the school for the upcoming year. Given the history of Bay High School, it is particularly crucial that this not occur. It is a school that has experienced two “D” school years, and under Mr. Bolinger’s leadership, started down the right road to recovery becoming a “C” school for the 2005-2006 school year. This eleventh hour disruptive recommendation will have an adverse effect on student achievement at Bay High School for the 06-07 school year. Based upon these findings of good cause, I move that the School Board reject the Superintendent’s recommendation that Larry Bolinger be laterally moved from the principal-ship at Bay High to the principal-ship at Jinks Middle School. The School Board unanimously voted in favor of the motion and to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to transfer Bolinger. This was the first time Mr. Brock, Ms. Allen, and Mr. McFatter had ever voted to reject an administrative personnel recommendation made by any school superintendent. Mr. Brock has served on the School Board for 10 years, Ms. Allen for four years, and Mr. McFatter for two years. Ms. Rohan voted to reject the recommended transfer because of her belief that the Superintendent breached his oral contract with Bolinger regarding Bolinger’s length of stay as principal of Bay High. At the meeting, Mr. McFatter voted to reject the recommended transfer of Bolinger for the following reasons: (a) the transfer would have occurred too close to the beginning of the school year and that, coupled with the hiring freeze, would adversely affect the students and staff at Bay High; (b) the transfer would interrupt operations at the school; and (c) improvement was made at Bay High under Bolinger’s leadership after it experienced two “D” years. During the hearing, Mr. McFatter stated that he voted to reject the recommendation because “everything [at Bay High] was positive in regard to the kids and their achievements. And to derail it without explanation was unacceptable and to my mind was good cause.” At the June 28, 2006, meeting, Mr. Danzey voted to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to transfer Bolinger because there were improvements at Bay High under Bolinger. Mr. Danzey thought it was too soon for another change in principals at Bay High and that the leadership at the school needed to stay in place. Ms. Allen voted to reject the recommended transfer of Bolinger because keeping the leadership at Bay High was best for the future of the school, its students, and faculty. Ms. Allen did not believe that anyone but Bolinger could implement his plan for improvement of Bay High as well as Bolinger himself. Mr. Brock voted to reject the Superintendent’s recommended transfer of Bolinger because improvements were being made at Bay High, students were feeling better about themselves, and removing Bolinger would harm the students. Mr. Brock stated that the Superintendent’s action was the equivalent of “pull[ing] the carpet” out from under the Bay High students. At some point in time after recommending the transfer of Bolinger, the Superintendent proceeded to advertise the principal’s position at Bay High as open for the 2006-2007 school year. During his deposition and at the hearing, the Superintendent revealed for the first time that he considered two applicants to be qualified for the Bay High job: Bill Payne and Mackie Owens. At the time of the rejection of Bolinger’s recommended transfer, the School Board members were not aware that the Superintendent might consider one of these two individuals to be the principal of Bay High. Payne had applied for the same position in 2005 and had not been selected by the Superintendent. For the 2005/2006 school term, Payne served as an assistant principal at Bay High under Bolinger. If the School Board had approved the recommended transfer of Bolinger, the School Board members would not have had an opportunity to consider the assignment of a Bay High principal until the July School Board meeting. Due to the School Board’s rejection of the Superintendent’s recommended transfer, Bolinger remains principal of Bay High. The Superintendent has not revealed the name of the person he would recommend to be principal at Bay High should Bolinger be transferred. During his deposition and during the hearing, the Superintendent testified that there were multiple factors that precipitated his decision to transfer Bolinger. First, there was an incident that involved the announcing of Bay High’s Top ten seniors for 2006. In late April or early May 2006, the Superintendent requested that Bolinger delay announcing the ten seniors with the highest cumulative grade point average because one student erroneously believed that he should be valedictorian at Bay High. The student’s parents wanted an opportunity to appeal the issue to the School Board on the following Wednesday. The Superintendent and Bolinger agreed that the announcement would not be made until the end of the week after the School Board meeting. On Wednesday, the School Board listened to the parents’ appeal. The School Board took no action to change the decision of the school and the Superintendent that the student academically ranked third behind co-valedictorians. That evening after the School Board meeting, Ms. Rohan, Chairperson of the School Board, went to Bay High where some teachers and staff members were planning an awards ceremony for Thursday morning. Learning that the decision was final, the teachers requested permission from Bollinger to include the Top 10 announcement in the Thursday awards program. Bolinger agreed to make the Top 10 announcement on Thursday. He made this decision because he thought the issue regarding the identity of the valeditorian was resolved and because some of the Top 10 students were not going to be in school on Friday. On Thursday after the announcement, the Superintendent received a call from a parent of the disappointed student. The parent was upset because Bay High announced the Top 10 on Thursday instead of waiting until Friday as anticipated by the parent. The Superintendent contacted Bolinger to inquire about the decision to make the announcement on Thursday. Bollinger explained that it was just a spur of the moment decision. Bolinger offered to apologize to the student’s parents over any misunderstanding about the timing of the announcement. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Rohan informed the Superintendent that she had been to Bay High on Wednesday evening planning for the Top 10 announcement the next day. Ms. Rohan’s statement led the Superintendent to erroneously believe that Bolinger had lied when he said the announcement was a spur of the moment decision. The incident involving the Top 10 announcement was the biggest factor that the Superintendent considered when deciding to transfer Bolinger. If Bolinger had waited until Friday to make the academic awards, the Superintendent probably would have recommended that Bolinger return to Bay High for additional years. Another factor that motivated the Superintendent to transfer Bolinger involved a facilities improvement request from Bay High, which the Superintendent rejected. The Superintendent erroneously believed that Bolinger sent parents to pressure him to change his mind. In April 2006, Bay High’s PASS business partners spoke to the Superintendent about some needed facility improvements at Bay High. The Superintendent agreed to send the district’s Director of Facilities to review a list of suggested needs. One of the improvements was a new baseball dugout, with lockers and a batting cage, as requested by Bay High’s baseball boosters. The Superintendent asked the business partners to follow up with him about the dugout issue in the future. Bolinger, as principal of Bay High, approved the facilities request before sending it to the Superintendent. The Superintendent rejected any request for improvements that were not academically related. Bolinger did not request that the business partners pressure the Superintendent about his rejection of any part of the facilities request, much less a baseball dugout. Bay High’s business partners had a follow-up appointment with the Superintendent on the morning that Bolinger’s recommended transfer became public knowledge. The business partners intended to discuss alternative means of funding the construction of the new dugout. However, the sole issue addressed at the meeting was Bolinger’s transfer. There was no pressure applied to the Superintendent about his rejection of any improvement at Bay High. A third factor that the Superintendent considered was that he thought the district would be better served if Bolinger served as a middle school principal. According to the Superintendent, Bolinger had been very successful as principal at Merritt-Brown. The Superintendent knew Bolinger was a good disciplinarian and believed he could solve some alleged problems at Jinks. However, the Superintendent subsequently had a conversation with the principal at Jinks which resolved any such problems. During the hearing, the Superintendent presented the expert testimony of William Montford, former Leon County School Superintendent and currently Executive Director of Florida Association of District School Superintendents. Mr. Montford’s expert testimony is accepted, limited to his experience as a school superintendent. A school superintendent serves the role of Chief Executive Officer of the school district. For that reason, a superintendent needs control over district personnel and the discretion regarding the placement of those employees. In making those decisions, a superintendent should consider the input from school board members, teachers, parents, and student. Ultimately, it is the superintendent’s responsibility to recommend what he or she believes is best – in terms of personnel placement - for the entire school district.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a final order rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation to transfer Larry Bolinger. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 22nd of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Trudy M. Benson, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and/or 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Florida Educator’s Certificate 868131, covering the areas of elementary education and exceptional student education (ESE), which was valid through June 30, 2019. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a fourth grade teacher at Suwannee Intermediate School (SIS), a fourth and fifth grade intermediate school, in the Suwannee County School District (SCSD). Respondent began her teaching career with the SCSD during the 2016/2017 school year at Suwannee Middle School as an ESE teacher. For the 2018/2019 school year, Respondent was transferred to SIS where she taught fourth grade math and science. Respondent received two consecutive Highly Effective Evaluations as an ESE teacher, from two different principals in her first and second years teaching in the public school system. Respondent also offered in evidence letters of recommendation from both principals, Jerry Jolicoeur and Jimmy Wilkerson, the superintendent, Mr. Roush, and a newly retired veteran ESE teacher, Ms. Candy Vickers; a letter of praise from ESE director Elizabeth Simpson; and a letter of Ms. Benson's major accomplishments as both an ESE volunteer and ESE teacher. Respondent had not been the subject of any previous complaints or disciplinary actions during her period of employment and by all accounts was a very successful ESE teacher. Leigh Fountain was also a fourth-grade teacher at SIS. She taught reading and language arts. Respondent and Ms. Fountain had a combined total of 49 students and taught in adjoining classrooms. One class of students would be with Respondent in the morning, while the other class was with Ms. Fountain. They would then switch students for the second part of the day. Whoever had the students at the beginning of the day was the students’ homeroom teacher. Ms. Fountain had student N.C. at the beginning of the day and was therefore N.C.’s homeroom teacher. Toward the end of the school day, N.C. and his classmates would return to their homeroom teacher, Ms. Fountain. The Events of October 29 and 30, 2018 On October 29, 2018, N.C. was at home attempting to do math homework assigned by Respondent. N.C.’s older sister was assisting him. She thought the homework was a little difficult for a fourth grader. She asked their mother if she could write a note to Respondent regarding the difficulty of the homework. Their mother, Mrs. W., said yes. The note stated “Don’t you think this is a little advanced for fourth grade.” The note was written in a “bubble cloud” on the worksheet next to the math problem. On October 30, 2018, N.C. was in Respondent’s class along with 21 or more other students. This was a difficult class for Respondent to manage because of the behavior issues, disciplinary issues, and ESE issues. Respondent considered N.C. as one of the students who contributed to disruption in the classroom. Respondent asked the students to pass their math homework forward. N.C. came up to Respondent with his homework and told her “there’s a note from my mother you need to read.” Respondent told N.C., “I will read it later when I have a moment when we’re done with the lesson.” N.C. insisted that Respondent read the letter. Respondent read the note “out loud to myself.” The note stated that the homework was a bit difficult for 4th graders or too difficult for 4th graders. Respondent then told N.C. “Well, maybe we should write your mom a note and let her know that even though these might be a little difficult, that you’re up for the challenge and that we think you can handle it.” Though not directed to the class, Respondent’s statement could have been loud enough for some of the students (five to ten) in the classroom to hear her. What occurred next is at the heart of this dispute. According to the Material Allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint: During October of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct when she instructed her fourth grade class to write letters to the parent of N.C., a fourth grade student in her class. The purpose of the letters was to explain that an assignment N.C.’s parent had complained about being too difficult, was not actually difficult. N.C. was embarrassed by the assignment. (emphasis added). Thus, according to Petitioner, Respondent instructed her students to write letters to N.C.’s parent regarding the homework. To support this allegation, Petitioner called as witnesses several of the students who had been in class that day. Petitioner also introduced in evidence six of the students’ written accounts of the events of October 30, 2018, obtained by its investigator, Randy Kosec, Jr. Neither the testimony of the students at hearing, nor their written statements, persuasively corroborate Petitioner’s version of the events that transpired that day. The Testimony of the Students N.C. was the first of the students to testify. On direct examination N.C. testified that when he gave his homework sheet to Respondent “She said to everyone, don’t you think this---she thinks y’all are a little---my mom thinks you all are stupid.” He further testified that after making this statement, Respondent told the students to write a letter to his mother, and then made N.C. “sit in the back at this little circle table while the kids asked me questions.” N.C. further testified on direct examination that Respondent put his homework sheet under a projector in order to show all of the other students what was written there. On cross examination N.C. conceded that after reading the note on N.C.’s homework, Respondent told him that “maybe we should write your mom a note and let her know that it is a little challenging, but we think you are up for it.” N.C. also confirmed that while Respondent was discussing the note with N.C. at the front of the classroom, another student, A.P., jumped up saying “yeah, let’s do that, let’s write her a letter.” After that, several other students chimed in and said, “yeah, let’s do it.” This version of events was corroborated by students D.P. and A.P., including the statement by A.P. that Respondent was having a conversation with N.C. only, and was not addressing the class. The written account of student A.G. includes the statement “I don’t remember writing a letter to anybody about the homework.” The written account of student A.J. includes the statement “I didn’t have to right [sic] any letter to a parent.” The written account of student J.P. includes the statement “I never have to write a letter to anyone [sic] parent.” The written account of student A.P. includes the statement that “One day she told us to write a letter to [N.C.’s] mom about my class because he and his mom said the homework [was too] easy so we all wrote letters to his mom and he took them home that day.” However, on cross-examination at hearing A.P. agreed that Respondent did not tell the class to write a letter. She was also emphatic that N.C. took the letters home with him that day because “I remember him stuffing all of them—trying to fit them into his bookbag.” Neither the written accounts of the students, nor their testimony at hearing, credibly support a finding that Respondent instructed her fourth grade class to write letters to N.C.’s parent about the homework assignment. To the contrary, the students’ testimony is conflicting and self-contradictory in many instances. By this, the undersigned does not mean to suggest that the students were intentionally being untruthful in their testimony, but rather that the precise events of that day, nearly two years earlier, had become vague in their memories. More significantly, the written accounts recorded by Investigator Kosec approximately seven months after the day in question, do not support a finding that the students were instructed to write letters to N.C.’s mom, since three of the six written accounts state that the students did not write such a letter. At hearing, Respondent credibly testified that she never instructed her fourth grade class to write letters to N.C.’s mother, as follows: I never assigned this to the students to do. I never told the students to write a letter. It was not my job for the students to write assignments. As I told Ms. Fountain and as she testified, I had never given them a writing assignment prior. Why on earth would I give them a writing assignment now? The credible evidence of record establishes that some of the students overheard Respondent’s conversation with N.C. and took it upon themselves to write a letter to N.C.’s mother. Respondent told the students “if you are going to write a letter, it needs to be respectful and polite.” While N.C. was still in front of Respondent, some of the students jumped up for paper. Others pulled out paper. It was a “hectic situation.” Some of the students wrote letters to N.C.’s mother. After the students wrote the letters, Respondent retrieved the letters. There were about ten letters. Respondent allowed the students 2 - 3 minutes to write the letters. After the students wrote the letters, N.C. went back to his seat. After the class, Respondent had a planning period. Respondent called and spoke with N.C.’s mother by telephone. Respondent “explained to her what had taken place.” N.C.’s mother was angry. Respondent shredded the letters at the end of the school day. As to why Respondent even permitted the students to write the letters, Respondent cited to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, which provides in part that Florida educators “Shall not unreasonably restrain a student from independent action in pursuit of learning.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-10.081(2)(a)2. According to Respondent, she was attempting to avoid violating this provision when she allowed some of the students to write letters. As Respondent testified at hearing: They overheard a conversation I was having with a student who insisted I read the note and insisted on a response, and they took it upon themselves to say, yes, let’s write her a letter. It is not for the undersigned to determine whether Respondent did, or did not, exercise good judgment in allowing some of the students to write letters to N.C.’s mother. Rather, it is the undersigned’s task to determine whether the Material Allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint have been proven by clear and convincing evidence in this record. Based upon the competent substantial evidence of record, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the sole material allegation of the Administrative Complaint, to wit, that Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct when she instructed her fourth grade class to write letters to the parent of N.C., a fourth grade student in her class. Rather, the evidence clearly and convincingly established that no such instruction was ever given by Respondent to her students.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Trudy Benson 19378 County Road 250 Live Oak, Florida 32060 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission may revoke or suspend John T. Guzalak's Florida teaching certificate, or otherwise discipline Mr. Guzalak, for violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered September 21, 1992?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the EPC, is authorized to discipline individuals holding Florida teaching certificates. The Respondent is John T. Guzalak. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Guzalak held Florida teaching certificate number 615516. Mr. Guzalak is certified to teach English and Speech. Mr. Guzalak's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. From approximately August of 1987, until June of 1992, Mr. Guzalak served as a teacher for the Okaloosa County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Mr. Guzalak's Attendance at Choctawhatchee Senior High School. Mr. Guzalak attended, and graduated from, Choctawhatchee Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Choctaw"). Mr. Guzalak graduated from Choctaw in 1981. Choctaw is a high school located in Okaloosa County, Florida. Choctaw has approximately 2,000 students, 117 to 120 teachers and a total of approximately 160 employees. While a student at Choctaw, Mr. Guzalak was active in debate and drama. His drama teacher was Mary Jo Yeager. Ms. Yeager was so impressed with Mr. Guzalak's acting ability that she cast him in the male leading role of essentially every play produced at Choctaw while Mr. Guzalak was a student there. Ms. Yeager and Mr. Guzalak developed a friendship and still remain friends. Mr. Guzalak's Employment by the School Board. After Mr. Guzalak had graduated from Choctaw and was attending college, Mr. Guzalak informed Ms. Yeager that he was interested in becoming a teacher. Ms. Yeager, who was planning to retire in a few years, talked to Richard G. Bounds, the Principal at Choctaw, about the possibility of Mr. Guzalak replacing her when she retired. Prior to August, 1987, Mr. Guzalak applied for a teaching position with the School Board as a teacher at Meigs Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Meigs"). Ms. Yeager recommended that Mr. Guzalak be hired. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Meigs and began his employment with the School Board in August, 1987. Mr. Guzalak taught speech/drama and English during the 1987-1988 school year at Meigs. The Stage Crafters' Party. In January, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a local theatre group known as Stage Crafters. The group presented a play in which Mr. Guzalak participated during that month. Mr. Guzalak organized and gave a party for the cast of Stage Crafters after the presentation of the play. The party was held at the home of Mr. Guzalak's parents, where Mr. Guzalak lived until approximately August, 1991. Mr. Guzalak invited all students in his speech/drama classes at Meigs to attend the Stage Crafters' party. Mr. Guzalak invited his students because he thought it would be beneficial for his students to meet and talk to individuals who were involved in drama and who had more experience with acting. Mr. Guzalak had alcoholic beverages available for his guests during the Stage Crafters' party. A table was set up where guests were able to obtain alcoholic drinks. Adults drank alcoholic beverage in front of Mr. Guzalak's students during the party. Alcohol was consumed in the presence of students who were under the legal age required to consume alcoholic beverages. The evidence failed to prove that students who were not legally old enough to drink alcohol who were at the Stage Crafters' party were encouraged or allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. The evidence also failed to prove that underage students were in fact drinking in the presence of Mr. Guzalak or that Mr. Guzalak drank alcoholic beverages in front of any underage students. The testimony of Chris Hutcherson, a student at Meigs at the time of the party, concerning the party was contradicted by the testimony of Aaron Utley, another student at Meigs at the time, and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak testified that the underage students who attended the Stage Crafters' party were mainly relegated to half of the house and the adults and alcohol were located, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages took place, in the other half of the house. Mr. Guzalak testified that this separation of his underage students from the adults consuming alcohol was deliberate and intended to mitigate the extent to which alcohol would be consumed in front of his underage students. This testimony contradicts the purpose for which Mr. Guzalak indicated the students were invited to the Stage Crafters' party and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak simply failed to exercise good judgement when he allowed his underage students to attend a party without also inviting their parents when he knew that alcoholic beverages would be consumed. Mr. Guzalak was counseled by Bobby Smith, Principal at Meigs and Mr. Guzalak's supervisor, after Mr. Smith learned of the party. Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Smith that he had not consumed alcohol in the presence of his students at the party. Mr. Guzalak did admit that alcoholic beverages had been consumed in front of his students, although he minimized the extent to which alcohol had been consumed. Mr. Smith counseled Mr. Guzalak about his lack of judgement in allowing his underage students to attend a party where alcohol was being consumed. Meigs Student-Cast Dinner. In May, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a play presented at Meigs. The cast of the play consisted of Meigs students. After the play, Mr. Guzalak took the cast of the play to dinner at a restaurant. Some parents also attended the dinner. Mr. Guzalak failed to inform Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Meigs administration about the dinner. During the dinner Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of the students, who were too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages, and the parents who attended the dinner. After the dinner about five students stayed to talk to Mr. Guzalak after everyone else had departed. When Mr. Guzalak was ready to take the students home who had stayed, he let one of the students drive his automobile. The student driver was 15 years of age at the time. The student driver had a learners' driving permit which allowed her to drive with an adult in the automobile. The student driver took the other students home and then drove to her own home. Mr. Guzalak then drove himself home from the home of the student that had driven his automobile. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had allowed the student driver to drive his automobile because he was concerned about the fact that he had consumed a glass of wine. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not give the drinking of the glass of wine with dinner in the presence of the students any thought, one way or the other, and is not credible. Mr. Guzalak allowed the student to drive his automobile that evening because Mr. Guzalak wanted to be accepted by students as a friend and not just a teacher. Consuming alcoholic beverages in front of students is against the policies of the School Board. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guzalak had previously discussed the inappropriateness of a teacher consuming alcohol in front of students as a result of the Stage Crafters' party. Despite this prior warning, Mr. Guzalak again exercised poor judgement and failed to adhere to School Board policy. Mr. Smith was informed of the dinner and spoke to Mr. Guzalak about it. Mr. Smith admonished Mr. Guzalak for drinking alcohol in front of his students. A few days after their discussion, Mr. Guzalak was given a formal, written reprimand by Mr. Smith. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Guzalak was specifically reprimanded for drinking alcohol in front of his students. He was also informed that he was required "to discuss any and all school sponsored activities with [Mr. Smith] before they occur." See Petitioners' Exhibit 2. During Mr. Smith's conference with Mr. Guzalak, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Smith about why it was improper for him to consume alcohol in front of students under the circumstances of the cast dinner. Mr. Guzalak found it difficult to understand why the drinking of a glass of wine with dinner in the presence of students by a teacher was inappropriate. Mr. Guzalak's Employment at Choctaw. Ms. Yeager decided to retire from Choctaw after the 1988-1989 school year. She recommended that Mr. Bounds hire Mr. Guzalak to be her replacement. Mr. Bounds questioned Mr. Smith about Mr. Guzalak's performance at Meigs. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Bounds of the dinner incident when Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of students and provided Mr. Bounds with a copy of the written reprimand, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that Mr. Smith had given to Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Bounds, Mr. Guzalak's supervisor at Choctaw, discussed Mr. Smith's written reprimand with Mr. Guzalak prior to, or soon after, Mr. Guzalak's employment at Choctaw. Mr. Bounds cautioned Mr. Guzalak about consuming alcohol in front of underage students. This was the third time that Mr. Guzalak had been cautioned about the inappropriateness of consuming alcohol in front of underage students. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak began his employment at Choctaw in August of 1989. Mr. Guzalak taught at Choctaw during the 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 school years. Part of his duties included coaching the forensic teams. The 1990-1991 School Year--Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak developed and maintained relationships with several Choctaw students which went beyond the appropriate and acceptable teacher- student relationship. Those relationships were more typical of the relationships that students develop among themselves. During the 1990-1991 school year students would go to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit. Students who went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year included Sarah Stimac, David Barron, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul, Kevin Mock, Richard "Matt" Schoditsch, David Hodges, Thomas Ignas and Ross Foster. Sarah Stimac, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were seniors at Choctaw during the 1990-1991 school year. David Barron was a sophomore at Choctaw. David Hodges and Thomas Ignas were juniors at Choctaw. Matt Schoditsch and Ross Foster were also students at Choctaw. Initially, students began going to Mr. Guzalak's home for school- related purposes. They went for assistance from Mr. Guzalak with school subjects, to practice for plays and to practice for forensic team competitions. Students eventually began visiting Mr. Guzalak's home primarily for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak allowed students to come to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit without invitation, without informing Mr. Guzalak they were coming and without asking for Mr. Guzalak's permission. While at Mr. Guzalak's home, students would watch movies, listen to music, play music, play chess, talk and "just hang out." Mr. Guzalak's characterization of student visits as tending to be "academic in nature" is rejected. At some time during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Guzalak invited a group of students who had formed a rock band to come to his home to practice for an upcoming pep rally. Bobby Arnold was one of the first students to be invited to practice at Mr. Guzalak's home. Eventually, the students included Steve Bucci, Kevin Foster and John Randall. A few other students would join in on occasion. At some point, students, including those mentioned in the foregoing finding of fact, would go to Mr. Guzalak's home and just play music as opposed to practicing for some upcoming event. Other students, including Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock would listen. The music sessions were social in nature and were not school related. Bobby Arnold's suggestion that the students and Mr. Guzalak, in addition to playing music, would talk about books is rejected to the extent that Bobby Arnold was suggesting an academic purpose for his visits. As Steve Bucci described the visits, they were "jam sessions." Bobby Arnold went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least five to seven times during the 1990-1991 school year. Steve Bucci indicated that the music sessions at Mr. Guzalak's home took place two times a month and more often if he was getting ready for a talent show. Matt Schoditsch went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least six times. Matt Schoditsch's testimony that he only went to Mr. Guzalak's home for academic purposes and not for social reasons was contradicted by many of the other witnesses in this proceeding, including Mr. Guzalak, and is rejected. Mr. Schoditsch's suggestion that students would "be sitting there reading a book or something . . . Magazines" is rejected. Even Mr. Guzalak admitted that students came for social reasons. David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home more than twelve times and less than twenty times. During three to five of those visits by David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home, beer was consumed by underage students in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Matt Schoditsch, Kevin Foster, Patrick Peavy and others were at Mr. Guzalak's home at times that David Barron saw beer consumed by underage students in front of Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak also consumed beer in David Barron's presence and the presence of other underage students. The beer consumed by David Barron was either provided by Mr. Guzalak or Mr. Barron brought his own beer. On one of the occasions where Mr. Guzalak provided beer to David Barron at Mr. Guzalak's home, it was a type of beer that David Barron had not seen before. Mr. Guzalak said that he got the beer when he had gone north to visit his parents. On one occasion Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in front of Kevin Mock. This took place despite the fact that Mr. Guzalak had previously been counselled by Mr. Smith (twice) and Mr. Bounds about the impropriety of drinking alcohol in front of students. Mr. Guzalak offered Kevin Mock a drink of the wine and Mr. Mock took it. Sarah Stimac also went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year. Patrick Peavy started taking Ms. Stimac to Mr. Guzalak's. Mr. Peavy was Ms. Stimac's boy friend during the 1990-1991 school year. Mr. Peavy and Ms. Stimac had started doing things with a group of their friends during the summer of 1989 and by the end of the summer they had developed a relationship. Sarah Stimac began going to Mr. Guzalak's home because Patrick Peavy and his friends, primarily Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock, liked to go there and they went there often. On one occasion during the 1990-1991 school year, Sarah Stimac saw Mr. Guzalak and Eric Gaul smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home in the guest rest room. They used a "bong", a pipe-like device used for smoking marijuana. Ms. Stimac also witnessed Patrick Peavy and Kevin Mock smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Mock admitted to Martha Clemons, his girl friend during part of the 1990-1991 school year, that he had smoked marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Sarah Stimac also saw marijuana smoked and alcoholic beverages consumed on at least one other occasion at Mr. Guzalak's home. Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock visited Mr. Guzalak's home more frequently than other students. By their own admissions, they went to Mr. Guzalak's home, on average, from two to three times a week. Contrary to Mr. Guzalak's testimony that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock were rarely at his home at the same time, Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's together or were at Mr. Guzalak's home at the same time often based upon their own admissions. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis. Sarah Stimac substantiated the fact that Patrick Peavy went to Mr. Guzalak's home frequently. She went with him approximately six times. She also picked him up at Mr. Guzalak's and she telephoned Mr. Peavy at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Peavy told Ms. Stimac and his parents that he was going to Mr. Guzalak's home more often than he actually went. Mr. Peavy lied to Ms. Stimac and his parents so that he could do other things without Ms. Stimac or so that he could do things that his parents would not let him do if he told them the truth. This gave Ms. Stimac the impression that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home more often then he actually was. Despite this fact, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis for non-academic purposes. The 1990-1991 School Year Initiation Night. At some time during the Fall of 1990, an annual event, referred to as "Initiation Night," took place at Choctaw. Groups of students at Choctaw traditionally go out together on Initiation Night. On Initiation Night during the Fall of 1990, Sarah Stimac drove Angie Smallwood to Mr. Guzalak's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. to pick up Patrick Peavy. Mr. Peavy had told Ms. Stimac that he would be there. Mr. Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were at Mr. Guzalak's home and were picked up by Ms. Stimac. After Sarah Stimac picked up Patrick Peavy, he told Ms. Stimac that he had been drinking and that he had smoked marijuana and taken LSD. The evidence, however, failed to prove where these events took place. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was present when these events took place or that he was aware of what had happened. After leaving Mr. Guzalak's home, Ms. Stimac and the students she picked up went to a local pizza restaurant and met other students, including Matt Schoditsch. The students then went to a bayou where they built a fire. Eric Gaul had a bottle of spiced rum. At some point during the evening Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies appeared. When they did, despite the cold evening, Patrick Peavy, who had been swinging on a rope swing over the water, fell into the water. Whether Mr. Peavy did so because he was startled (as he testified) or because he was trying to get rid of the marijuana and LSD he had in his pocket (as Ms. Stimac testified) need not be decided. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was directly involved in this incident. It is also not necessary to decide whether Mr. Peavy had drugs in his pocket because the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak had anything to do with any such drugs. After Eric Gaul admitted that the bottle of spiced rum he had, and which the deputies had found, was his and he had convinced the deputies that he had a stranger buy the rum for him at a liquor store, the students were allowed to leave. Although Mr. Gaul, after getting into Ms. Stimac's automobile, stated that he had been given the rum by Mr. Guzalak, the evidence failed to prove the truth of this hearsay statement. After the incident at the bayou the students went back to Mr. Guzalak's home. The 1990-1991 School Year Senior Prom. The day of the 1990-1991 school year senior prom, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy had a fight and broke off their relationship. They did, however, go to the prom together that night. The prom was held at a local motel. Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy rented a room at the motel. At some time before the prom was over, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy went to the room they had rented. Mr. Guzalak came to the room to visit. Mr. Peavy had invited Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak left after Ms. Stimac gave Mr. Peavy an ultimatum that either Mr. Guzalak leave or she would, and Mr. Peavy asked Mr. Guzalak to leave. Mr. Guzalak stayed approximately five to fifteen minutes. Although there was alcohol in Ms. Stimac's and Mr. Peavy's room, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was aware of the alcohol or that anyone was drinking while Mr. Guzalak was there. The 1990-1991 Spring Break Canoe Trip. During the spring break of April, 1991, a student party was organized. The party consisted of a canoe trip down a local river. The party was not a school-sponsored event. Mr. Guzalak was invited to come on the 1991 canoe trip. Although Mr. Guzalak remembered that he was invited by one or more students, Mr. Guzalak, who had an excellent memory for most details, could not remember the names of any student that invited him. Mr. Guzalak spent most of the trip with Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock. There were about 120 students who participated in the canoe trip. They met at the Choctaw parking lot the morning of the trip. During the canoe trip, underage students were drinking beer. They did so openly and in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Mr. Guzalak was offered beer at least ten times by underage students. Kevin Mock admitted that he drank beer in front of Mr. Guzalak during the trip. Mr. Guzalak did not make any effort to stop any of the underage students from drinking alcoholic beverages. Mr. Guzalak's testimony that there was nothing he could do about students drink beer on the trip is not credible. Mr. Guzalak had a duty and responsibility to attempt to stop underage students from drinking beer. Even if Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not attempt to stop the drinking because of the number of students involved was credible (which it is not), his testimony did not explain why he did not say something to those students who were bold enough to offer him a beer and then students who he came into contact with that were drinking beer By allowing the consumption of alcohol in his presence by students who were under the legal drinking age, Mr. Guzalak condoned their illegal behavior. When a teacher allows the violation of one law, it becomes difficult for the teacher to enforce other laws and rules governing student conduct. Mr. Guzalak failed to report the incident to Mr. Bounds or any other administrative employees at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak should not have just ignored the fact that students, some of whom were his students, had blatantly violated the law in his presence. The 1991-1992 School Year--Mr. Bounds Second Warning. In approximately August of 1991, Patrick Peavy's father spoke to Mr. Bounds about his belief that his son was drinking alcohol and using drugs at Mr. Guzalak's home. The evidence failed to prove what basis, if any, Mr. Peavy had for his suspicions at the time he made his complaint. As a result of the concerns raised by Patrick Peavy's father, Mr. Bounds spoke to Mr. Guzalak. The conversation took place on approximately September 19, 1991. Among other things, Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that a parent had reported that students were frequenting Mr. Guzalak's home and that alcohol and drugs were being used there. Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that the parent had followed his child to Mr. Guzalak's home. While Mr. Guzalak admitted to Mr. Bounds that students were frequenting his home, he denied that alcohol was being consumed or that drugs were being used. Mr. Bounds explained to Mr. Guzalak why it was not a good idea to allow students to come to his home. Mr. Guzalak, however, did not agree with Mr. Bounds' concerns over the possible pitfalls of forming personal, social relationships with his students. On September 24, 1991, Mr. Bounds wrote a memorandum to Mr. Guzalak "to reiterate my position regarding our conversation in my office on Thursday, September 19, 1991." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also stated the following in the memorandum: During our conversation you related to me that students from our school were invited and allowed to visit your home for non-academic reasons. Furthermore, you related to me that students from our school are not discouraged by you to establish a personal friendship with you. These personal friendships are encouraged by your participating in non-school related activities. You are hereby notified that all future contact with students from our school should be exclusively of a professional and academic nature. Moreover, meetings with our students should be held on our school property exclusively unless express permission is obtained from me. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also arranged for Mr. Guzalak to meet with Annette Lee (formerly, Annette Francis), Personnel Director of the School Board. Ms. Lee, who was Assistant Superintendent, Human Resource Division, at the time, met with Mr. Guzalak. On October 9, 1991, Ms. Lee wrote Mr. Guzalak a letter memorializing this meeting and provided him with a copy of a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching," a form containing some School Board expectations for teacher conduct. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Ms. Lee also discussed the inappropriateness of Mr. Guzalak's behavior and stressed to him the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with students. Mr. Guzalak again admitted that he had developed friendships with some of his students and that he had seen them on occasion socially. Among other things, Ms. Lee stressed the following portions of the "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching" form she had provided to Mr. Guzalak: Interaction with Students: Maintain a professional barrier between you and students. You are the adult, teacher and the professional; act like the expert not like another one of the "kids." . . . . 3. Refer students to the appropriate resource person for counseling and/or discussions about personal matters. . . . . 5. Do NOT discuss your personal life or personal matters with students. Do NOT discuss your husband, boyfriend, dates or controversial issues with students. . . . . 10. Chaperone only school sponsored functions. Do NOT socialize with students. If you chaperone a field trip, put in writing what your responsibilities will be. Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages in front of students. Do NOT take children home with you. . . . . C. Reputation in the Community. . . . . Communicate with parents and document your communications. Dress and act appropriately but professionally. You are a role model in the community as well as in the school; be a good example for students. Use common sense and good judgement. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain, or justify your behavior or actions. Avoid putting yourself in a position where it's your word against another person's word. . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Continued Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak was very concerned about what Mr. Bounds had told him about students coming to his home. Mr. Guzalak thought that he was being watched (by a parent) and he was concerned because some of the allegations about alcohol and drug use were true. Initially, Mr. Guzalak told students who dropped by or who asked if they could come by, not to come or that they could not stay. For example, Mr. Guzalak told Thomas Ignas and David Hodgson they should not come to his home. On at least one occasion, however, Mr. Guzalak allowed students to visit him at his home during the 1991-1992 school year after Mr. Bounds had instructed Mr. Guzalak to stop such visits. The incident took place during the first three months of 1992. Aaron Utley was told to come to Mr. Guzalak's home by either David Hodges or Thomas Ignas. When Mr. Utley arrived at Mr. Guzalak's home, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ignas were there with Mr. Guzalak. There were empty beer cans on the coffee table. Mr. Hodges was drunk. Mr. Guzalak did not request that any of the students leave. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that alcohol was consumed by Mr. Guzalak in front of the students or that the students consumed alcohol in front of Mr. Guzalak. The Florida State University Trip--September, 1991. At some time after Mr. Guzalak spoke to Mr. Bounds in September 1991, Mr. Guzalak took a group of students who were participating in the forensic program to Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, for a forensic competition. Among others on the trip were Chris Hutcherson, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey. These Choctaw students stayed in the same motel room while on the trip. One evening, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey came into the motel room where they were staying and smelled marijuana smoke. Mr. Hutcherson was in the room. Mr. Hutcherson had smoked marijuana just before the other students came into the room. Mr. Guzalak came into the motel room shortly after the students arrived and he smelled the marijuana smoke also. Mr. Guzalak asked what was going on, but no one admitted anything at that time. At some point during the trip, Chris Hutcherson admitted to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana in the motel room. At no time did Mr. Guzalak report Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Hutcherson's family, Mr. Bounds or any other administrative official. Nor did Mr. Guzalak take any disciplinary action against Mr. Hutcherson. Failing to report the use of illicit drugs was against school policy. Mr. Guzalak did not even explain to Chris Hutcherson why he should not have been using marijuana. Instead, Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Hutcherson that he had put Mr. Guzalak in an untenable position by his actions. Because Mr. Bounds had spoken to Mr. Guzalak only a few days before this incident, Mr. Guzalak's concern was not for Mr. Hutcherson or even the forensic team--"[i]t was for myself." See line 11, page 595, Transcript of the Final Hearing. Mr. Guzalak, by his use of marijuana and alcohol with students prior to this incidental, had placed himself in a position of action in a manner similar to that of Mr. Hutcherson. Therefore, it became difficult for Mr. Guzalak to carry out his responsibility as a teacher to report Mr. Hutcherson's admission. The Pensacola Trip--November, 1991. In November, 1991, the Choctaw forensic team went to Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, to participate in a competition. Since the competition was out of Okaloosa County, students were prohibited by School Board policy from driving their own vehicles. Students who participated in the competition were required to have their parents sign a form granting permission for their child to travel on the trip. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. On the permission form it indicated that "students' may not drive themselves to out of county school-sponsored activities . . . ." The students who were going on the Pensacola trip were told to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. They were scheduled to leave at 6:30 a.m. Chris Hutcherson, who was to participate in the Pensacola competition, did not want to get up as early as he would have to arise to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. Therefore, Mr. Hutcherson asked his mother, Sharon Philbrook, if he could drive his automobile to Pensacola. She told him no. She also spoke to Mr. Guzalak who confirmed the School Board policy that students were not allowed to drive their own vehicles on the trip and that transportation would be provided for students for the trip. The morning of the Pensacola trip, Ms. Philbrook found a note from Chris Hutcherson indicating he had taken his stepbrother's automobile despite her instructions to the contrary. Ms. Philbrook reported the incident to Mr. Bounds who suggested that she go to Pensacola and get Mr. Hutcherson. She did so. Upon arriving at the competition site, Ms. Philbrook introduced herself to Mr. Guzalak and explained what had happened. She also told him that she had reported the incident to Mr. Bounds and that Mr. Bounds wanted Mr. Guzalak to telephone him. Mr. Guzalak was very upset about what Ms. Philbrook told him and told her he wished she had not telephoned Mr. Bounds. In light of Mr. Bounds' admonishment of Mr. Guzalak in September and Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana on the Florida State University trip (which Mr. Guzalak had not reported), Mr. Guzalak's reaction is understandable. Mr. Guzalak's reaction and the other evidence presented by the EPC concerning this incident, however, failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was responsible for Chris Hutcherson's violation of School Board policy against students driving their own vehicles out of the county. As a result of Mr. Hutcherson's actions, Mr. Guzalak informed Mr. Hutcherson that he could no longer travel with the forensic team. Mr. Hutcherson's testimony concerning whether Mr. Guzalak told him that it was okay to drive his own automobile to Pensacola was not credible and is rejected. The Rush Concert--February, 1992. In February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak was responsible for the production of a play at Choctaw. During the week before the play was to begin, Mr. Guzalak cancelled a rehearsal. The rehearsal was cancelled because Mr. Guzalak and several students involved in the play wanted to attend a concert by a musical group, Rush, in Pensacola. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak went to the concert with any students from Choctaw, although he did see and speak to at least one student at the concert. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak acted improperly or violated School Board policy in cancelling the rehearsal. Matt Schoditsch's Party--February, 1992. On a Friday evening in February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak spoke to Matt Schoditsch on the telephone. Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak to come to his home. Mr. Schoditsch told Mr. Guzalak that there would be other students at his home, students that Mr. Guzalak knew, and that they would be grilling food. Mr. Guzalak knew that Mr. Schoditsch was having a student get-together. Mr. Guzalak's and Mr. Schoditsch's testimony that Mr. Guzalak was invited and came to Mr. Schoditsch's home only to discuss his participation in a play is not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak for social reasons, and that Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation and went to a student's house contrary to Mr. Bounds' directive to him and contrary to Ms. Lee's advice. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had assumed that Mr. Schoditsch's parents would be there. Mr. Guzalak also testified that it was not until after students starting showing up with beer that he realized that Mr. Schoditsch's parents were not there. This testimony is not credible. In light of Mr. Bounds' directive, which Mr. Guzalak indicated he was very concerned about, a reasonable person would have inquired. Additionally, a reasonable person, especially a teacher and one who had previously been accused of being too friendly with students, would seek out a student's parents soon after arriving at their home to introduce himself or to say hello if the teacher thought the parents were home. Even if Mr. Guzalak did not know that Mr. Schoditsch's parent would not be home before he arrived, he should have realized soon after arriving that they were not there and left. Shortly after arriving at Mr. Schoditsch's home, Mr. Guzalak saw students start to arrive with beer which they began drinking. According to Mr. Guzalak and Mr. Schoditsch, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Schoditsch about students drinking in front of him. They also testified that Mr. Schoditsch attempted to stop the drinking, but too many students started coming, and there was too much beer. This testimony is not credible. According to Mr. Barron, who also attended the party, there were only fifteen to twenty people at the party. If Mr. Schoditsch had really wanted to, he could have stopped the drinking. Mr. Schoditsch had no intention of stopping the beer drinking. And Mr. Guzalak did not expect him to. Even after Mr. Guzalak saw students drinking beer he did not leave immediately. According to his own testimony, he stayed another twenty-five to thirty minutes after he saw students drinking and even took time to go speak to a student, Jodie Brooks, before leaving. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Guzalak drank alcohol while at Mr. Schoditsch's home. Although Mr. Barron thought Mr. Guzalak was drinking a mixed drink because he was drinking out of Mr. Schoditsch's cup or glass, Mr. Barron did not testify about how he knew that Mr. Schoditsch was drinking a mixed drink. Use of Profanity. It is against the policy of the School Board for a teacher to use profanity in the presence of students. Mr. Guzalak used the term "fucking" in front of several students when he became angry about their use of squirt guns on a forensic competition trip. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak used profanity in the classroom. Supervision of Students on Trips. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak failed to provide adequate or required supervision of students while on school trips. Mr. Guzalak's Resignation from the School Board. Ultimately, several teachers became aware of various rumors about Mr. Guzalak and some of his inappropriate behavior with students. Those comments were reported to Mr. Bounds, who spoke to a few students and then reported the problem to Ms. Lee. The Superintendent of Okaloosa County Schools met with Mr. Guzalak in March 1992, and discussed the various allegations against him. Mr. Guzalak subsequently resigned, effective at the end of the 1991-1992 school year. Credibility of the Witnesses. Mr. Guzalak and the students who were most involved in the incidents at issue in this proceeding denied that most of the more serious accusations against Mr. Guzalak are true. In addition to denying the accusations against him, Mr. Guzalak also suggested that he is the victim of unfounded rumors. Finally, Mr. Guzalak questioned the credibility and motives of some of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding. The denials of Mr. Guzalak and those students who supported his version of events have been rejected. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Guzalak's testimony was not convincing. The denial of the accusations by several (but not all) of the witnesses called by Mr. Guzalak was also not credible and has been rejected. Many of those witnesses are young men who have developed a close relationship to Mr. Guzalak. They consider Mr. Guzalak to be their "friend." Their testimony reflected their desire not to betray their "friend" and has been rejected in large part based upon the weight of all of the evidence. The efforts to suggest that Mr. Guzalak is merely a victim of rumors also failed. Rumors were caused, in part, because of the perception that Mr. Guzalak was different or eccentric, and, in part, because of the incidents described in this Recommended Order. While there were no doubt rumors concerning this matter and Mr. Guzalak, the incidents which have been found to have occurred in this Recommended Order are based upon the specific knowledge of those witnesses found to be credible. Many of those incidents were confirmed or substantiated by more than one witness. Finally, the efforts of Mr. Guzalak to discredit some of the witnesses also failed. Most of those efforts were directed at Sarah Stimac, Chris Hutcherson and Aaron Utley. The testimony of Ms. Stimac, Mr. Utley and most of the other witnesses called by the Petitioner was credible. It is true, however, that Mr. Hutcherson's testimony contained inconsistencies and that Mr. Hutcherson evidenced an extremely bitter and judgemental attitude against Mr. Guzalak. Consequently, Mr. Hutcherson's testimony has not been accepted except to the extent that it has been corroborated by other evidence. Attacks on Ms. Stimac's credibility are rejected. The suggestion that Sarah Stimac was not credible fails to consider, among other things, the fact that Ms. Stimac's actions in this matter were taken at some personal expense and aggravation. Mr. Guzalak, during the investigation of this matter by the EPC, allowed several students to read confidential statements that Ms. Stimac and other students had given during the investigation. He did so without regard to the consequences to Ms. Stimac or the other students. As a result, Ms. Stimac has faced hostility and ridicule from those misguided students who believe that not telling, or "ratting," on a friend is admirable. Despite such hostility, Ms. Stimac refused to compromise her integrity. The weight of the evidence proved that other students, such as Aaron Utley and David Barron made the same choice that Sarah Stimac made. Rather than lacking credibility, Ms. Stimac's testimony, Mr. Barron's testimony, and the testimony of most of the other students who spoke out about Mr. Guzalak's inappropriate conduct is admirable. The Impact of Mr. Guzalak's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. There was no direct evidence to prove that Mr. Guzalak was not effective in the classroom. Most of the witnesses agreed that Mr. Guzalak was very effective in the classroom. Several of the witnesses spoke of Mr. Guzalak's intelligence and ability with some admiration. Unfortunately, Mr. Guzalak, by his own admission and based upon the facts presented in this case, has evidenced a lack of the judgement necessary for him to be entrusted with the education of young people. This fact is based upon the nature of the improper acts which Mr. Guzalak has been found to have committed in this case and by his attitude about the warnings he received from Mr. Smith, Mr. Bounds, Ms. Lee and even Mr. Guzalak's coworkers. A teacher that drinks alcohol in the presence of students and provides alcohol to, or condones the use of, alcoholic beverages by students has lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher because of the high standard of conduct expected of teachers. A teacher that uses marijuana in the presence of students or allows students to use marijuana in his or her presence has also lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's conduct was, therefore, contrary to the conduct expected of him by the School Board and the community. Mr. Guzalak's conduct is sufficiently notorious in the community that he has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's inability to follow the directions of his supervisors has also reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak probably has begun to take too much stock in the praise he has received concerning his intelligence and abilities. He has begun to believe his "reviews." As a result, Mr. Guzalak believes that he knows more about how to be an effective teacher than his supervisors and fellow teachers. Mr. Guzalak was asked during the hearing why he had a problem with Mr. Bounds' directive concerning his student friendships. Mr. Guzalak's response, which evidences his attitude about the appropriate role of a teacher with his or her students, was as follows: Because I was used to the idea at that point of having some social contact with students. It was important to me. I was, basically, disturbed because I felt that Richard Bounds was asking me to suddenly make some sort of major capitulation, not in my life-style, but in my mode of thought, in the way I viewed my relationship with students. He wanted me to be an authoritarian clone, if I must. Lines 18-25, Page 627 and Lines 1-2, Page 628, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Additionally, Mr. Guzalak answered the following questions: Q. [Mr. Bounds is] your principal. Shouldn't he be allowed to tell you how you should behave with your students? A. No. Q. He shouldn't be able to tell you how you conduct yourself with your students? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I'm an adult and because I'm a professional. And I'm capable of making those decisions on my own. . . . . Lines 17-25, Page 628 and Lines 1-2, Page 629, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Rather than being an "authoritarian clone," Mr. Guzalak attempted to reach some of his students by being their friend on their level. To some extent, he was influenced by Ms. Yeager, who developed friendships with her students. Ms. Yeager, however, was more mature, married, had a family and had been teaching for some time. As Ms. Yeager put it: . . . . Of course, I have an advantage, being an old, married woman. I mean, I had a husband. I had a family. I had a track record when I came here, Ms. O'Sullivan. I taught seven years junior high and two more years in high school. So I think age -- Not all people are respected because they're older, as you know. But, I'm saying I sort of had an edge there on John [Guzalak], plus experience. Lines 19-25, Page 375 and Lines 1-2, Page 376, Vol. III of Transcript. More importantly, Ms. Yeager, by her actions, her character and her good judgement, was able to develop a certain level of friendship with her students while maintaining her distance and her professionalism. Mr. Guzalak has not evidenced the ability to do the same because of his lack of judgement and his inability to heed the advice and experience of his supervisors and peers.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lawrence J. Ferrara, was an instructional employee of petitioner, School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board or petitioner). When the relevant events herein occurred, Ferrara was a classroom teacher under a continuing contract assigned to John I. Leonard High School (JIL) in Lake Worth, Florida. He has been employed as a classroom teacher with petitioner since August 16, 1965 and received his continuing contract of employment in June, 1969. He holds teaching certificate number 150262 issued by the State Department of Education and is certified in the areas of American Government and social studies for grade levels 7 through 12. Respondent received a bachelor of education degree from the University of Miami. His first assignment with petitioner was in school year 1965-66 at Lantana Junior High School. He remained there through school year 1967-68. At the end of that year, Ferrara was placed on a fourth year annual probationary contract because he had insufficient control of his classes. He transferred to John F. Kennedy High School for school year 1968-69, and received a continuing contract of employment at the end of that school year. Respondent then transferred to Boynton Beach Junior High School for the 1969-70 school year. Ferrara desired to teach at the high school level because he preferred to teach students having greater maturity and interest in learning. He secured an assignment to JIL in September, 1970, where he remained until his suspension in 1986. Ferrara was initially assigned to the social studies department teaching American History to the eleventh grade. He remained in that position until the fall of 1981. During this period of time, Ferrara's evaluations showed steady improvement in his performance, and Ferrara characterized the 1980-81 school year as the happiest and most enjoyable year in his teaching career. In fact, he referred only two students to the dean for disciplinary reasons during the entire year, and both were referred during the final week of school. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Ferrara had a reputation as a good teacher, and his relationship with other faculty members was favorable. JIL sits on a forty acre campus in Lake Worth, Florida. During the relevant years the school had a student enrollment ranging in size from 2,200 to 2,850 students. Most recently its faculty numbered approximately 145. The principal is the chief administrator at JIL. In dealing with employees, the principal follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA), School Board policy, administrator's directives and the JIL Teacher and Student Handbooks. There are several assistant principals, including deans, who have been given authority to counsel with and reprimand employees. Among other things they are responsible for discipline of students. There are also guidance counselors who may counsel with other staff members and students as the need arises. The principal designates department chairmen who have authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers, and to recommend course assignments within the department. In the case at bar, Ferrara was assigned to the social studies department, which had approximately sixteen teachers. Its chairman was responsible for reviewing lesson plans of all teachers to insure that curriculum objectives were being met. This action is mandated by the School Board. At JIL lesson plans were required to be prepared one week in advance. In addition, faculty were required to prepare emergency lesson plans to be used by substitute teachers if the regular teacher was absent. Finally, the department head issued textbooks to each teacher who was obligated to turn in the books (or monies from the student) at the end of the semester or school year. According to the CTA-School Board contract introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9, and which is applicable to Ferrara's employment, Subsection A1. of Article II provides that "teachers are expected to serve on school committees, self-evaluation and accreditation committees, attend meetings and workshops . . . such service (to be) on a voluntary basis . . " Subsection A2. provides that "employees shall assume reasonable responsibility for the safe return of all school property." Subsection F4. of the same Article requires employees to "assume the responsibility for taking a positive approach to discipline and to maintain constructive classroom control." Subsection B1. of Article III prescribes a duty day for faculty at JIL of seven and one-half consecutive hours per day. Subsection B2. requires that an employee obtain approval from the principal to leave the school premises for personal reasons during the defined duty hours. Subsection E4. of the same Article provides that "the teacher shall be responsible for the preparation of daily lesson plans to be made available to the substitute in the absence of the teacher. Such plans shall be made in advance at all times." The School Board has also promulgated various "local" rules which pertain to suspension and dismissal of employees, as well as the rehabilitation process to be following once a teacher is cited for deficiencies. They apply to Ferrara's employment. School Year 1981-82 In the spring of 1981, Ferrara heard rumors that he was being reassigned the following school year from exclusively teaching eleventh graders to teaching ninth grade American Government classes as well. At the same time he learned that the teacher of an advanced history class was leaving JIL at the end of the school term. Ferrara approached the social studies de- partment head, Catherine Thornton, concerning the vacancy but was told the vacant slot had been promised to a new teacher named Martin. Ferrara then met with the JIL principal, Dr. Munroe, in June, 1981 and asked that his teaching assignment not be changed. During that meeting he criticized Munroe's selection of athletic coaches to teach in the social studies department. Ferrara considered the department as a dumping ground for coaches and other unqualified teachers. Ferrara's request was turned down and he was reassigned to teach three periods of ninth grade American Government classes and two periods of eleventh grade American History the following year. Moreover, JIL was on double sessions at that time, and Ferrara was switched from the early session (6:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.) to what he considered to be the less desirable second session that ran from 9:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. He was also required to teach during the last three periods of the second session. Ferrara was extremely displeased, and felt that he was being treated as the new teacher who was typically given the lower grade assignment and the afternoon shift. In an effort to get the new assignment changed, Ferrara met with the department head and later with Dr. Munroe. After having no success, he met with the area superintendent and finally the school superintendent. Their advice was to take the assignment, be evaluated and then see what happens. Ferrara thereafter approached five of the seven members of the school board seeking their assistance in overriding the reassignment decision. This too was unsuccessful. At one of the meetings in Dr. Munroe's office on September 4, one administrator said that if Ferrara was unhappy with the new assignment then maybe he should quit. By this time Ferrara had engaged the services of an attorney, and after he and his attorney were unsuccessful in persuading the administration to change the assignment, he instructed the attorney to file a civil rights action in federal court. This was done on July 29, 1982. The lawsuit sought, among other things, the reassignment of Ferrara to his former teaching assignment in the eleventh grade. That suit has remained pending since then, and at time of final hearing, was on rehearing of an order of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's earlier dis- missal of the action. Charles L. Thornton (no relation to the department chairman) replaced Dr. Munce as principal at JIL in October, 1981. He had previously served as dean of boys at JIL in 1970-71 and recalled that he frequently visited Ferrara's eleventh grade class that year because Ferrara was having a "hard time" with his students. Before he left JIL in September, 1971, Thornton told the then principal of JIL that they had "problems" with Ferrara because of his inability to control his students. This was borne out by Ferrara's 1970-71 evaluation which cited Ferrara for deficiencies in no less than five areas, most of which were attributable to the fact that Ferrara was then an inexperienced high school teacher. When Thornton returned to JIL in October, 1981, he learned that Ferrara had hired an attorney to challenge the school's decision to reassign Ferrara to the ninth grade classroom. Even so, when Ferrara approached Thornton about changing his assignment, Thornton told Ferrara that no teacher assignments would be made mid-stream in the semester, but he would "revisit" the matter at the end of the semester. His denial was confirmed in a written memorandum to Ferrara. He also told Ferrara the change was not to be considered a demotion and that he would keep the same title, salary and number of work hours. At the end of the first semester, Thornton did not change respondent's course assignment because it would have disrupted the master schedule and he had some concern about respondent's performance. Unquestionably, ninth grade students are less mature and more difficult to control from a disciplinary standpoint than other students, but the subject matter of their coursework is easier than the subjects taught to higher grade levels. Although Ferrara considered his new assignment as being the most undesirable of all assignments in the social studies department, other teachers stated that it made no difference to them as to which group of students they were assigned to teach. During the batter part of the first semester, Ferrara was absent due to illness on several occasions. In the second semester he took a leave of absence for the entire semester due to illness apparently brought on by job stress. According to Ferrara, teachers assigned to the first session, which he preferred, were allowed to leave the school around 2:15 p.m. each day. Ferrara's classroom faced the parking lot and he could see them through his windows departing the school while he was required to remain there teaching until 5:15 p.m. He also acknowledged having "problems" with students during the last three periods of each day, and when coupled with the aggravation of seeing his colleagues leaving early, it induced a physical ailment which led to his taking the lengthy sick leave. During his second semester absence, Ferrara prepared no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute, although he was responsible for doing so for the entire year. His substitute contacted him for assistance, but Ferrara declined to offer any, saying it was the substitute's responsibility to do the work. It is noteworthy that Ferrara's substitute had some disciplinary problems when she took over his class, but after receiving assistance from the deans, she had only "minor" problems the remainder of the semester. Thornton prepared an annual evaluation of Ferrara in June, 1982, and gave him an overall rating of satisfactory. However, he found Ferrara deficient in the following areas: discipline of students, attending required extracurricular activities, teaching in a manner in which all students in the class could comprehend and relating in a more positive manner with his peers. Other than Ferrara's use of "various methods and materials," Thornton made no comments concerning Ferrara's areas of strength. The first deficiency was based upon Ferrara's inability to control the classroom environment. More specifically, Ferrara referred more students to the dean than any other classroom teacher at JIL, and for what appeared to be minor infractions. These included talking out of turn, squeaking a chair, going to the pencil sharpener without permission and leaving one's desk without permission. On some occasions Ferrara would refer entire groups of students. In all, Ferrara's referrals constituted around 25 percent of all referrals made by the 145 JIL faculty members. The dean of students was asked by Ferrara on at least three occasions to visit his classroom because his class was out of control. The dean observed that Ferrara had very little control over his students, managed the class "poorly," and concluded that very little learning was taking place. The dean discussed with Ferrara how to handle minor classroom infractions and advised Ferrara to review the JIL Handbook provisions regarding discipline. However, Ferrara was not responsive to these suggestions. Ferrara was also criticized because his students had difficulty in understanding "his approach to teaching." This was apparent from the fact that Ferrara had an extremely high rate of failure for his students. Ferrara himself conceded that his teaching performance began deteriorating in the 1981-82 school year and never again reached the level of performance achieved by him prior to that year. The evaluation noted that Ferrara did "not have an effective relationship with associates." This was confirmed through testimony that after his reassignment became effective, Ferrara would not speak to most of the members of the department, and no longer socialized with staff at the department's workroom. Even Ferrara acknowledged that after September, 1981 he became "reserved," did not talk to colleagues arid appeared unhappy and upset. Thornton required mandatory attendance by faculty at only two school functions each year: open house when parents, students and faculty met at the school, and graduation. Ferrara attended neither saying graduation was "too sentimental" and that he was always ill whenever open houses were held. Ferrara was given a copy of the above evaluation by Thornton, reviewed it and signed it on June 8, 1982. However, he told Thornton he disagreed with the contents of the evaluation. At their meeting, Thornton acknowledged to Ferrara that he had sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, and found Ferrara to be well-versed in his subjects. School Year 1982-83 Because of problems with Ferrara in 1981-82, the department chairman recommended that Ferrara be assigned to teach five ninth grade American Government classes in school year 1982-82. This recommendation was approved by the assistant principal for curriculum who draws up the semester schedule, and later by Thornton. While teaching a class in November 1982, respondent caught a student, K. B., mimicking him in class, grabbed the student by his arm and escorted him to his seat. He did so with such force that it left bruise marks on the student's arm. Ferrara was counseled by Thornton following this incident. In January, 1982, respondent gave a student an F in her coursework for disciplinary reasons. This is contrary to school board policy and resulted in the issuance of a memorandum by Thornton to Ferrara on January 21, 1983. Various former students of Ferrara during the 1982-83 school year testified concerning their impression of his teaching style and manner. Their comments included statements that he "wasn't normal" and was "different" from other teachers. It was established that he would not answer questions from many students, either ignoring them or telling them the answer was in the textbook. He called them "stupid," "immature" and "jackasses" on a number of occasions, that he `hated" teaching them, and told them he should be teaching a higher grade level but was being punished by the administration. It was further established that Ferrara frequently yelled in class, and that his efforts to discipline students were unsuccessful. After awhile, some students would make deliberate efforts to provoke Ferrara by beginning coughing, spells or squeaking their chairs, knowing that his efforts at discipline were merely a "show" and that they need not obey him. Ferrara would also frequently discuss in class his lawsuit against the school board without relating it to the subject matter. His most common teaching technique was to give students a reading assignment from the textbook and have the students answer the review questions at the end of the chapter. Only occasionally did he give a lecture. Most students indicated they did not learn a great deal in his class, and found the instruction boring. It was established that cheating frequently occurred when tests were given, and answer sheets were passed around while Ferrara was in the room. Many believed he was punishing them by keeping the windows shut and the air-conditioner turned off on hot days. Indeed, on one day in late April, Thornton went to Ferrara's class and found it extremely "hot" with the air-conditioner off and the windows closed. Ferrara was teaching the class wearing a sweater. Thornton ordered that the windows be opened to avoid having a student pass out from the heat. Ferrara justified his actions by contending the air-conditioner was frequently inoperative and that the windows often times stuck. This was disputed by the building maintenance chief. He also stated that he kept the windows closed because of traffic noises emanating from a nearby street. However, he conceded that he kept the students in a hot room on at least one occasion as punishment. Because of complaints made by parents and students to Thornton during the first semester, a conference was called by Thornton with respondent on January 28, 1983. At that time he gave Ferrara written notice that his behavior was "inappropriate," and that he must regain control of his classroom. On April 20, 1983, Thornton had a conference with Ferrara concerning an allegation that he had called a student an "ass." After Ferrara admitted this was true, Thornton told him not to call students such names again, that it would not be tolerated and that he should refer to the teacher's Code of Ethics which proscribed such conduct. On May 23, 1983, Thornton found two of Ferrara's students wandering in the hallway without a hall pass. They had been told to leave Ferrara's class, and that he did not care where they went. During the school year, Ferrara continued to disregard the requirement to complete lesson plans. On occasions when Ferrara was absent, the substitutes found no regular or emergency lesson plans available. Instead, the substitutes had to write their own plans and give assignments, without having any idea when Ferrara would return. The assignments completed by the students for the substitute teacher were thrown in the waste basket when Ferrara returned because he found them ungraded. However, substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. During the school year the dean of students continued to receive numerous discipline referrals from respondent. The reasons for referral were generally minor, which indicated Ferrara did not have proper control of his classes. In contrast, his substitute teachers did not experience this type of problem when they substituted for Ferrara. Some of the referred students were those who had no other disciplinary problems with other teachers. On some occasions, entire groups were once again referred to the dean. In short, there was no improvement in respondent's classroom management from the prior year. At the same time, the guidance counselors continued to receive numerous requests from students to transfer out of his classes. At the end of school year 1982-83, the department chairman wrote Thornton a memorandum which listed by teacher the number of textbooks missing or not returned to the teacher. Ferrara had sixty-three textbooks missing, which was far in excess of other department staff. In addition, although he returned twenty-three of forty-eight new textbooks assigned to him at the beginning of the semester for one course, seventeen were so defaced with obscenities that they were unusable. Ferrara did not deny that he lost the textbooks, but stated that some books were smaller than normal classroom size, and could be easily carried out of class in a concealed fashion by a student. He feared that if he began searching students, he would suffer possible repercussions from doing so. Despite these losses, Ferrara refused assistance from the area director of secondary education in creating a system of inventory and control for textbooks. In his annual evaluation prepared on May 26, 1983, Ferrara was cited for deficiencies in the following areas: teaching techniques, classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. In addition, Thornton attached to the evaluation a typed sheet containing specific recommendations for improvement in each of the four areas. The sheet noted that Thornton was "willing to provide (Ferrara) whatever assistance necessary in each of the . . . cited areas." Thornton also noted that Ferrara has strength in the areas of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, appearance, educational qualifications and in adherence to the defined duty day. Thornton and Ferrara held several meetings concerning the annual evaluation. Each deficiency was discussed, and Thornton made suggestions on how to improve in those areas. However, Ferrara was not receptive to these suggestions, and complained of unfair treatment in his course assignments. He also repeatedly discussed his lawsuit. He continued to maintain he was better suited to teach the eleventh grade even though he was certified to teach both the ninth and eleventh grades. Thornton advised Ferrara he was responsible to his students no matter what other problems he believed he had, and that he should work to improve his performance. School Year 1983-84 In school year 1983-84, Ferrara's teaching assignment did not change. In fact, unlike the prior two years, Ferrara did not request a change in his teaching assignment. He also did not request a transfer to another school although these were procedures for doing so. 1/ Ferrara's failure to control his classroom continued into the new school year. During the year the assistant principal (dean) in charge of discipline visited Ferrara's classroom at least ten to fifteen times after Ferrara requested his assistance in regaining control of the classroom. On his visits the dean found a "hostile" atmosphere, and verbal exchanges taking place between Ferrara and his students. He concluded that no learning could take place in this atmosphere. The dean noted that no other regular teacher or substitute had such classroom management problems. Ferrara's referrals to the dean represented a larger number than all other faculty members combined. The dean also observed Ferrara telling his students that he did not like teaching immature ninth graders. Similar observations were made by another JIL dean. Ferrara was counseled by the dean who told him that students felt Ferrara did not like them, and that his discipline techniques were unfair. Testimony by Ferrara's students confirmed that his teaching style did not change. He continued to call them names such as "stupid" and "immature" and told them he did not enjoy teaching ninth graders. His lawsuit was also a frequent subject of class discussion. The students also complained that Ferrara refused to open the windows on hot days when the air-conditioning was inoperative because of outside noise. The latter complaint was noteworthy since Thornton had previously given written instructions to Ferrara on September 16 and 26, 1983 concerning complaints about Ferrara keeping the room too hot. During the year, a parent requested that she and her daughter meet with Ferrara and a school counselor concerning a problem the daughter was having in Ferrara's class. At the conference, Ferrara dwelled primarily on his lawsuit against the school board and did not seem concerned with the real purpose of the conference. This prompted a complaint by the parent against Ferrara. Students continued to request transfers out of Ferrara's classroom at an increasing rate. Although two guidance counselors advised Ferrara of these complaints, they observed no change in his behavior. Based upon student and parent complaints about a high failure rate, Ferrara was instructed by Thornton in October, 1983 to furnish each student with a mid-marking report (progress reports) advising them they were not performing to expectations. This report would alert students and parents that a student was in danger of failing. Although such reports are required by school board policy, Ferrara frequently did not prepare these reports. In fact, he advised Thornton he felt they were unnecessary and would not prepare them unless Thornton allowed teachers to complete them during class time. There were thirty-six weeks during school year 1983-84. All teachers were required to prepare lesson plans for each of those weeks, and to turn them in prior to the beginning of each school week. The plans were then filed, and in the event a teacher was absent, the substitute teacher would use the plans and instruct the class without a break in continuity. Ferrara was absent for three weeks in the spring of 1984. However, he left no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute. During his absence, the substitute had no disciplinary problems. When he unexpectedly returned to class after this absence, the students booed him, and then, according to the substitute, the "entire class went out of control." Ferrara thereafter required his students to repeat the work previously done for the substitute. Ferrara continued to ignore repeated requests by the department chairman to make lesson plans available. These requests were in the form of memoranda to all department personnel on August 25, October 5, November 17 and December 7, 1983 and January 17, 1984. As of February, 1984 he had turned in only three weeks' plans for the preceding twenty-week period. The department chairman wrote him a memorandum on February 10 requesting that such plans be filed. Even so, in June, 1984 the department chairman reviewed the lesson plans filed by department staff for the prior year. She found that Ferrara had completed plans for only five of the thirty-six weeks during the just completed school year. Of those completed most were generally unsatisfactory. Ferrara did not deny this, but pointed to the fact that two or three other department teachers were also continually tardy in filing their plans. This was confirmed by the department chairman. Ferrara began to come to work late and leave early during the school year although he was warned several times to adhere to the defined duty days. He also had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Because of Ferrara's continuing performance problems, Thornton placed Ferrara on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure effective April 25, 1984. This procedure is designed to provide assistance to teachers having performance problems. Basically, it provides the teacher with an explanation of any deficiencies, assistance and guidance in the cited areas, and an "adequate" period of time in which to correct them. Its main purpose is to salvage an employee's career. In his letter, Thornton told Ferrara he was being placed on the NEAT procedure because of deficiencies in the following areas: inability to use acceptable teaching techniques; inability to maintain a positive classroom environment; inability to establish and maintain a professional and effective working relationship with parents, students and colleagues; and failure to submit proper records, including, but not limited to, progress reports and lesson plans, as required by the school center, the School Board and state law. Ferrara was given until October 16, 1984 to "fully correct these deficiencies." The two met in a conference May 4, 1984 to discuss the procedure and Ferrara's responsibility to correct the deficiencies by the established date. It was pointed out to Ferrara that he would be given time off to visit other personnel while seeking assistance, and that three individuals on the county staff were available for consultation on his noted deficiencies. Ferrara viewed the NEAT procedure as a "charade" and a way for the School Board to fire him. Although he admitted he resented being placed on NEAT, Ferrara stated he respected the system and did not intend to ignore it because he knew that to do so would give grounds to the Board to dismiss him. On May 30, 1984, Thornton prepared an annual evaluation reflecting the same deficiencies as were used to place Ferrara on the NEAT procedure. It also noted that Ferrara's areas of strength were his educational qualifications and his use of good oral and written language. Ferrara was given a copy of the evaluation and, although he disagreed with its contents, signed it on May 30, 1984. School Year 1984-85 On August 21, 1984, Ferrara met with Thornton and the assistant principal and discussed various types of assistance that were available to him which had not yet been provided. Ferrara told Thornton he was not interested in any assistance and walked out of Thornton's office. On October 22, 1984, Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the following deficiencies required corrective action: continued failure to submit timely lesson plans; continued inability to establish positive rapport with staff, parents and students; continued failure to maintain a positive classroom atmosphere; and a continued deficiency in his teaching techniques. Ferrara was also told that there had been "some improvement in (his) performance," and that Thornton believed he was "making an effort to improve (his) performance, and because of this, the time for correcting his deficiencies under the NEAT procedure was being extended until the end of the school year. During the school year Ferrara's classroom management problems continued. For example, one guidance counselor observed that most of the students visiting her were students in Ferrara's classes. In fact, over half of the students she gave counseling to desired to transfer out of Ferrara's class and sought her assistance in doing so. The dean of students observed that some 35 percent to 40 percent of total disciplinary referrals by all teachers came from Ferrara, including six students at one time. This dean found most of the referrals unnecessary, and ones that could have been handled by Ferrara. In addition, she was called to Ferrara's classroom about four times each semester to calm down the class. It was established that the students deliberately "egged" Ferrara on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. Other credible testimony established that Ferrara's class was out of control on many occasions, and that this disruption affected the amount of learning that took place in the classroom. One dean suggested to Ferrara that he observe other teachers so that he might improve his classroom performance. In teacher-parent conferences, Ferrara preferred to discuss his personal problems with the school board administration rather than the problems that the student was experiencing. In other instances, Ferrara would not respond to requests by parents to contact them. On September 19, 1984, at Thornton's request, the area administrator, H. W. Berryman, visited Ferrara's classroom to observe and monitor Ferrara. This was the only teacher observation that Berryman had performed as an area administrator. On that particular day Ferrara needed some ten minutes to get the class started. Berryman noted that during Ferrara's lecture, only a few students were attentive, and that most were note-passing, carrying on conversations and creating mild disruptions which Ferrara failed to stop. However, Berryman complemented Ferrara on his knowledge of the subject matter and said his overall delivery was reasonably good. He suggested Ferrara take less time to "start-up the class, and to take steps to insure that his class was more attentive during the lecture. On October 4, 1984, Ferrara was observed by another administrator, Dr. Mona Jensen, for the purpose of assessing his teacher performance. This was also done at Thornton's request. Jensen is a consultant certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and a trainer of other administrators in the use of FPMS. The FPMS utilizes a form for evaluating teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Dr. Jensen monitored Ferrara in these four areas and provided Thornton and Ferrara with a copy of her written report. Among other things, she observed a negative interaction between Ferrara and his students, and that there was a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. Some of his comments were caustic in nature, and he never smiled in class. Like Berryman, she observed students talking to one another and not participating in the activity. She recommended that improvements be made in all areas which her report addressed. On October 29, 1984, Ferrara was observed by Lois Biddix, who is also a FPMS certified state trainer. Biddix used the same type of form as did Jensen in evaluating Ferrara. On her visit, Biddix observed students talking to one another, and participating in activities unrelated to the lesson. She described the class as sedentary and lethargic, with students suffering from boredom and frustration. She attributed this to Ferrara's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. These observations were consistent with those made by Berryman and Jensen, and her recommendations for improvement were in the same areas as those of Jensen. Dr. Jensen returned to Ferrara's class for a second observation on January 31, 1985. While Ferrara spoke clearly and directly on that day, and had good communicative skills, Dr. Jensen found most students did not participate in the discussion. She also found a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. During the lecture, Ferrara demonstrated anger at a remark made by a student, and told the student that if she wanted a confrontation, he would gladly accept her challenge. Dr. Jensen's evaluation and notes were given to Ferrara after the visit. The recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. A number of Ferrara's 1984-85 students testified at final hearing. Their testimony painted a picture of continued class management problems. For example, it was confirmed that groups of students would collectively begin coughing at one time or squeaking their chairs in harmony to antagonize Ferrara or test his mettle. It was also confirmed that he continued to call freshmen "stupid" and "immature," that he told his students he hated teaching ninth graders and that the school administration was wrong in making him teach that level of students. He also discussed his pending lawsuit during class hours and referred to the school administration in a negative manner. On at least one occasion he discussed the qualifications or lack thereof of another department teacher. It was further pointed out that Ferrara refused to give credit for assignments given by his substitute teacher. There were complaints that Ferrara punished the students for talking by making them sit in a hot classroom without opening the windows or running the air-conditioning. There was also a "lot" of cheating during class even though Ferrara was present in the room. The general consensus of most students was that the class was boring, and that they did not learn a great deal in this type of environment. Ferrara was required to spend 7 1/2 hours each day on campus. 2/ During the year, he did not always arrive at school on a punctual basis or spend the required number of duty hours at school. On April 11, 1985, the department head wrote Thornton a memorandum criticizing Ferrara for his repeated tardiness, and leaving before 2:15 p.m. After Thornton notified Ferrara about this complaint, there was an improvement on his part. During the second semester of the school year, a guidance counselor, Elizabeth Konen, approached Ferrara and told him that the parents of one of his students desired a parent-teacher conference to discuss their child. Ferrara told Konen he did not have time to meet with parents. Konen found this to be the usual response of Ferrara whenever such a request was made. On another occasion, he wrote a note to Konen stating he had no time to meet with parents, but after Thornton intervened and ordered a conference, Ferrara attended. In December 1984, Thornton requested that Ferrara produce proof that he gave his students progress reports as required by Board policy. Ferrara could produce only two such reports, although he claimed four others had also been given reports. This was after Ferrara had been previously criticized on October 21, 1984 for the same deficiency. On January 8, 1985, Thornton again gave written notice to Ferrara that he give timely progress reports to all students who were failing or working below expectation. Even after this second warning, a student, S. Z., complained to Konen in February, 1985 that she had not been given a progress report by Ferrara. This was brought to Thornton's attention in a letter written by S. Z.'s mother. On March 25, 1985, Thornton wrote respondent a letter outlining his continued areas of "serious deficiencies," and his lack of improvement in those areas since being placed on the NEAT procedure. He was warned that unless there was "significant improvement," Thornton would have no choice except to recommend he be terminated. Ferrara was urged to implement the suggestions outlined in the letter, and was told that "any reasonable assistance" requested by him would be given. Despite receiving numerous criticisms for failing to turn in lesson plans, respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year 1984-85. However, he did turn in a complete set of plans at the end of the year, but they did not indicate what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. On June 10, 1985, Ferrara was given his annual evaluation for the school year. It noted numerous continued deficiencies in three broad areas: classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. The only noted areas of strength were knowledge of the subject matter and use of proper grammar and written language. In his meeting with Thornton, Ferrara was told, among other things, that he should not make unprofessional remarks to his students, that he must adhere to defined duty days, that he must file lesson plans and progress reports on a timely basis, and his attitude with peers should improve. School Year 1985-86 Despite Ferrara's failure to correct all deficiencies by the end of school year 1984-85, Thornton made a decision to give Ferrara one last chance to rehabilitate himself under the NEAT procedure. On August 19, 1985 Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the NEAT procedure was being extended until November 1, 1985 and that he must correct all deficiencies by that date. This gave, Ferrara a total of sixteen academic months under the remedial program. The letter also stated that if the deficiencies were not corrected by November 1, Thornton would make a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools concerning Ferrara's employment status. Respondent had been criticized for giving an unusually high rate of failing grades to his students during prior years. It was established that his failure rate was substantially higher than for other teachers in school years 1981-82 and 1982-83. For example, his failure rates in 1981-82 and 1982-83 were 24 percent and 33 percent, respectively. In 1983-84, it was a little more in line (18 percent) with that of the other teachers to whom he was compared. After the first semester of school year 1985-86 had ended, Thornton reviewed Ferrara's grades and found the failure rate had been substantially reduced. Indeed, it was then slightly over 10 percent, thereby supporting Ferrara's contention that he had improved in this cited area of deficiency. On November 18, 1985, a thirty minute evaluation of Ferrara's class was conducted by Sandra Cowne, an assistant principal at JIL. Among other things, Cowne found that Ferrara still had no up-to-date lesson plan book. She noted that Ferrara was in need of improvement in four areas of performance. All other areas indicated satisfactory performance. On December 2, 1985, D:. Jensen visited Ferrara's classroom to monitor and evaluate his performance. The purpose of the visit was to determine if Ferrara had implemented the recommendations for improving instruction previously made after her earlier visits. Dr. Jensen asked to meet with Ferrara just prior to the hour of observation but he refused saying he didn't want to discuss anything. She then asked for his lesson plan and was given a plan that was too brief and had insufficient detail. During the actual observation, she found that Ferrara had not added any positive teaching behaviors to his technique although she had suggested this to him after her earlier observations. According to Dr. Jensen, Ferrara's main deficiency was that he failed to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. She concluded that Ferrara was an ineffective teacher, ranking below average due to his lack of positive behaviors. A copy of her evaluation and notes was given to respondent. H. W. Berryman made a second visit to Ferrara's classroom on December 10, 1985 for a repeat evaluation. Berryman initially noted that Ferrara had heeded his prior advice from September, 1984, and had speeded up the start-up time for beginning his instruction. However, Berryman continued to be concerned with the lack of involvement by a large majority of the students in the classroom. Although he found that Ferrara had "in-depth content knowledge" of the subject matter, he concluded that Ferrara had "serious negative attitudinal problems in reacting to all of the students assigned to his classes." Several of Ferrara's students testified about their experiences in Ferrara's classroom during the first semester. They confirmed that respondent's teaching techniques had not changed from prior years. For example, it was established that the usual disruptions occurred during his class, such as students sleeping, passing notes, talking and generally being inattentive. Ferrara again called his freshmen students "immature" and "childish," and told them that he had been demoted to the freshman class because the school board could not fire him. It was pointed out that once he told the students that they were immature, Ferrara would lose control over the class. There were continuing complaints that the classroom was too hot, and that Ferrara told the students if they were unhappy about the room temperature to complain to the administration. On one occasion, he refused to move his classroom to an adjacent empty room even though a student had vomited on the floor and the stench remained after the area was cleaned. It was also established that Ferrara continued to talk in class about his pending lawsuit and the problems he was having with the school administration. During the first semester, Ferrara continued to send large numbers of students to the dean for minor infractions. He also sent as many as six at a time. Ferrara was now disciplining his students before referral by making them write repetitious sentences. However, this is considered to be an inappropriate form of discipline. This form of discipline prompted complaints from both students and parents to the administration. It was confirmed through testimony of an assistant principal that respondent's classroom control had not improved over a three- year period. This observation was concurred in by various guidance counselors who received visits from Ferrara's students. During the first semester of the school year, there was no improvement in respondent's professional relationship with his peers. He refused to speak to most colleagues, and openly expressed his disdain for the department chairman. When respondent was in the department workroom, the atmosphere was hostile and uncomfortable. Similarly, like in other years Ferrara did not attend open house. He also failed to provide adequate lesson plans as previously ordered on a number of occasions. At the end of the first semester, Thornton concluded that sixteen academic months was a sufficient time to allow Ferrara to correct his deficiencies. Finding that respondent was "damaging" his students, that no improvement in Ferrara's performance or attitude had occurred, that he was making no contribution to the school program, and that he was still besieged with student and parent complaints, Thornton concluded that disciplinary action was justified. Thornton did acknowledge that Ferrara had improved in the areas of adhering to duty hours, issuing progress reports, taking roll call and reducing the number of failures. Even so, he concluded that this was insufficient to satisfy his overall teaching performance deficiencies. Moreover, he found that Ferrara's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Thornton accordingly recommended that Ferrara be terminated. Ferrara's suspension without pay became effective on February 19, 1986 and he has remained in that status since that time. Respondent's Case Ferrara traced all of his problems to what he perceived to be an uncalled for demotion to the ninth grade classroom in school year 1981-82. He felt it to be unjust, and an action which ignored the seniority he had attained over the years. He acknowledged that once the reassignment occurred he became demoralized and bitter and was never the same teacher again. Ferrara did not deny that he called students names. He also conceded that he had problems maintaining classroom discipline, but suggested he was being paid to teach, not to discipline. Ferrara further admitted he yelled at students, and sent a great many to the dean's office, but blamed much of this on a small group of students who always instigated trouble in his classroom. Ferrara asserted his classroom discipline would actually improve at times during this period, but that each time Thornton sent a note criticizing him, he became demoralized and would again lapse into his prior ways. Although Ferrara considered the NEAT procedure a means by which petitioner could fire him, he contended he attempted to correct his deficiencies. However, it was Ferrara's contention that only through reassignment to the eleventh grade could he actually improve and correct his deficiencies. He believes Thornton to be biased since Thornton is a defendant in Ferrara's lawsuit. However, independent administrators confirmed that the deficiencies cited in Thornton's memoranda were real, and that Ferrara had made no visible effort to correct most of them. Moreover, contrary to his assertions, Ferrara was accorded adequate notice, sufficient means and ample time to correct his cited deficiencies. In this regard, the School Board satisfied all regulations pertaining to the rehabilitation and dismissal of an employee. Ferrara also pointed out that Thornton prepared a special file called the "Larry Ferrara Drawer" in November, 1982 so that Ferrara's actions and performance could be documented. However, Ferrara's teaching performance was in issue by this time, and Thornton was simply conforming with various state, local and union requirements that potential disciplinary action have a well-defined paper trail. Ferrara did not deny he missed all graduations and open houses from 1981 through 1985. He justified his absence from graduation ceremonies on the ground they were too "sentimental," and stated he was always ill whenever open houses were scheduled. Ferrara denied that students were punished by keeping the room hot. He blamed the heat on an often inoperative and inadequate window air- conditioning unit in his classroom, and windows that were difficult to open. This was denied by the school maintenance chief. Various students corroborated Ferrara's claim that the air-conditioner did not always work, but it is found that Ferrara sometimes punished his students in this manner. Ferrara attempted to repudiate the testimony of former students who testified for petitioner at final hearing by offering favorable testimony of other former students. However, the latter testimony either pertained to time periods too remote to be relevant to this proceeding, or was discredited by more persuasive and credible testimony from petitioner's witnesses. Ferrara contended he prepared all required lesson plans but waited until the end of the school year to turn them in. However, even it this were true, this was contrary to school policy since such plans were required to be turned in the week before they were to be used. Ferrara suggested that most of his difficulties were caused by his creating "waves" at JIL. As noted above, he believed Thornton and the administration were biased against him because he had sued them, and because he had publicly criticized various school policies and individuals in the news media. But it was never established that such animosity existed, or if it did, that it played a role in the dismissal process. Finally, Ferrara professed a sincere desire to continue in the teaching profession, albeit at a more mature grade level. He does not wish to be terminated after a twenty-one year career. He desires to be reinstated at JIL and allowed to teach the eleventh grade as he did during the years 1970- 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency (inefficiency), misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, and that he be dismissed as-an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board. DONE and 0RDERED this 11th day of August, 1986, in 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 11th day of August, 1986.
