The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year. Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators. Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997. On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised. At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students. On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive. Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were, and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised. Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students. On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete. At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999. Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment. Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators. September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day. Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him. Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline. A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments. Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him. Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule. On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students. The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment. After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day. On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up." The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved. On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors. At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend. Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices. He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule. On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures. Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it. On February 8 Respondent did not come to work. Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late. On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action. Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue. On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students. The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered. On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt. Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment. Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time. Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence. Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline. Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom. Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit." Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing. He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes. Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury. The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time. The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students. On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000. On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised. On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000. On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue In DOAH Case No. 97-5828, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed. In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated July 30, 1998, and, if so, whether he should be dismissed from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida teachers' certificates for violations of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Section 231.262, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Sections 231.261(7)(b) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, the Educational Practices Commission is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in Section 231.28(1). Richard V. Powell holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 585010, which covers the subjects of journalism and English- as-a-Second-Language ("ESOL"). His teacher's certificate has an expiration date of June 30, 1999. Mr. Powell was first employed as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system in August 1985. From 1989 through August 1996, Mr. Powell was assigned to Jose Marti Middle School as an ESOL teacher; in August 1996, he was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School ("JFK Middle School") as an ESOL teacher; in August 1997, he was given a new assignment as the facilitator of JFK Middle School's School Center for Special Instruction. On November 26, 1997, Mr. Powell was temporarily assigned to the Region II office. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Powell was employed by the School Board under a professional service contract. November 1995 incident On the evening of November 19, 1995, at around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., Mr. Powell was driving his Ford Bronco on Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Powell's fourteen-year-old son was sitting in the front passenger seat, and he and his father began arguing about his school behavior and progress and about his failure to do his chores around the house. Mr. Powell became angry and punched his son in the mouth with his fist and then pulled the Bronco off the street, into a vacant lot. Mr. Powell got out of the Bronco, walked around the back of the vehicle to the door on the passenger's side, opened the door, and pulled his son out of the vehicle. After the child was outside the vehicle, Mr. Powell punched his son once in the face and, when the child fell to the ground, Mr. Powell kicked him at least once in the ribs. 8/ The child broke away and ran to a convenience store about twenty-five yards from the vacant lot, where a witness to the incident had already called the police. When he arrived at the convenience store, the child was sobbing and holding his side; blood was pouring from his lip. 9/ After the altercation with his son, Mr. Powell was not feeling well and, believing that his son had run the short distance to his home, Mr. Powell drove home. He waited a few minutes for his son and then walked from his home to Pembroke Road. He saw his son, a police car, and an ambulance at the convenience store, and he walked up to the police officers and identified himself as the child's father. Mr. Powell's son was taken to the hospital and treated and released with a split lip and a bruise in the area of his ribs. Mr. Powell was taken to the Pembroke Pines, Florida, police station. Mr. Powell is a diabetic, and, while he was at the police station, he asked to be examined by a doctor because he did not feel well. He was taken to the hospital, where he remained for about an hour. After his release from the hospital, Mr. Powell was arrested and charged with child abuse. On July 29, 1996, after a bench trial on child abuse charges, the court found Mr. Powell guilty but withheld adjudication, sentenced him to six months' probation, and required him to complete a parent counseling course. 10/ Mr. Powell successfully completed the course in December 1996 and was released early from probation on January 8, 1997. In August 1996, Mr. Powell was transferred from Jose Marti Middle School to JFK Middle School, where Raymond Fontana was principal. In a letter dated August 1, 1996, Seth A. Levine, an assistant state attorney in Broward County, Florida, notified the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system that Mr. Powell had been tried on the charge of child abuse, and he advised the superintendent of the resolution of the case. The letter was forwarded to James E. Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, who reviewed the letter and transmitted the information contained therein to Mr. Fontana at JFK Middle School and to the state Department of Education Educational Practices Services. Mr. Monroe was not aware of the November 1995 incident involving Mr. Powell and his son until on or about August 14, 1996, when he received the copy of Mr. Levine's letter. In a letter dated October 10, 1996, the Education Practices Services notified Mr. Powell that it had received a complaint against him related to the charges of child abuse, and an investigation was begun which led to the filing of the original Administrative Complaint dated January 21, 1997. The disciplinary action taken against Mr. Powell by the School Board with respect to the child abuse charges consisted of a Site Disposition in the case, which the School Board referred to as Case No. A-17734. In a memorandum to Mr. Powell dated October 15, 1996, Mr. Fontana summarized the substance of a conference which was held on October 15, 1996, with Mr. Powell, Mr. Fontana, and William McCard, an assistant principal at JFK Middle School, in attendance. In the memorandum, Mr. Fontana indicated that "[t]he purpose of the conference was to establish a final disposition through administrative review of the above indicated case." Mr. Fontana further stated: Upon review of all the records and talking with you, it is determined that the incident in question happened in Broward County, no adjudication of guilt was established, and legally the case was closed. However, you have agreed to counseling in order to forestall any future problems. The case in question dealt with your own family member and alleged child abuse. We reviewed my expectations of you in regards to your teaching position at John F. Kennedy Middle School and your professional treatment of all your students. We reviewed the State Code of Ethics guidelines dealing with the same subject. Thus, I am directing you to follow the established State Code of Ethics Rules, School Board Policy, and Site Rules dealing with conduct becoming a teacher and subsequent teaching relationships with students. I feel that this will adequately bring closure to this incident and that in the future your teaching behavior will always be of the highest professional standard. In his annual evaluation for the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Powell was rated "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. Likewise, in his annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year, Mr. Powell was assessed "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. This annual evaluation followed a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post-Observation Report completed on April 16, 1997, by Mr. McCard, in which he found that Mr. Powell's performance satisfied every indicator subject to evaluation. 11/ November 1997 incident On November 25, 1997, Mr. Powell was the teacher in charge of the School Center for Special Instruction ("SCSI") at JFK Middle School. The SCSI is an indoor suspension program for children who are being disciplined for behavior violations; SCSI is an alternative to sending these children home for the duration of their suspension. The SCSI class was held in the school cafeteria at JFK Middle School from 9:00 a.m. until the end of the school day at 3:40 p.m. Two sets of double doors provide access to the cafeteria. One set, those on the right, were locked from the outside and not normally used; the students entered and left the cafeteria by the set of doors on the left of the building. At approximately 3:20 p.m. on November 25, 1997, the SCSI students were returning to the cafeteria after cleaning up an area outside the cafeteria. Mr. Powell was outside supervising the students as they returned to the cafeteria, and there was no adult supervising the students who had already moved inside the cafeteria. During this hiatus, a seventh-grade student named M. M. got into an altercation with several other boys in the class whom he suspected of taking his book bag. The boys began pushing and shoving M. M. and encouraging him to fight with one specific boy. M. M. refused to fight; he became angry and upset and left the cafeteria by way of the set of double doors on the right side of the cafeteria. Because he was angry and upset, M. M. pushed the door open quite forcefully. Mr. Powell had had surgery on his right foot the previous day; his foot was in a cast, and he used a cane to assist him in walking. At the time M. M. pushed open the cafeteria door, Mr. Powell was standing outside directly in the path of the door as it opened. M. M. could not see Mr. Powell because there were no windows in the door. As it swung open, the door hit Mr. Powell's injured foot, and Mr. Powell raised his cane and struck M. M. on his right arm. 12/ M. M. ran back inside the cafeteria, in tears. He rushed through the cafeteria and exited through the set of doors on the left side of the cafeteria. He went directly to the office of Sandra Clarke, one of the guidance counselors at JFK Middle School. When he arrived at her office, M. M. was agitated and crying, and he told Ms. Clarke that Mr. Powell had hit him on the arm with his cane. M. M. showed Ms. Clarke the mark on his arm, which was located on the outside of his right arm, midway between his shoulder and his elbow. Ms. Clarke observed that M. M. had a red welt on his arm, and she took him to the office of Patrick Snay, who was at that time the principal of JFK Middle School. Mr. Snay called in Assistant Principal McCard and told him about the allegations M. M. had made against Mr. Powell. Mr. Snay directed Mr. McCard to call the school police and to take statements from the students in the class who witnessed the incident. Mr. McCard took a statement from M. M. and observed the red mark on his arm. A school security guard went into the SCSI class right before school ended for the day and asked that any students who had seen the incident involving Mr. Powell and M. M. stay after school and write a statement telling what they had seen. Several students remained and prepared statements. 13/ Mr. Powell reported for school the next morning but was told to report to the School Board's Region 2 office. Mr. Powell worked at that office for one day, and then, beginning on the Monday after Thanksgiving, he was assigned to work at Highland Oaks Middle School. He worked at that school until he was suspended by the School Board on May 13, 1998. His duties at Highland Oaks Middle School included taking care of disabled students, accompanying them to their classes and to lunch, sitting with them, and taking notes for them, all under the direct supervision of the school's media specialist. At the direction of James Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Practices, a personnel investigation was initiated on December 6, 1997, with respect to M. M.'s allegations against Mr. Powell. A preliminary personnel investigation report was submitted on February 13, 1998, in which the investigator concluded that the charge against Mr. Powell was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on March 25, 1998, attended by Mr. Snay; John F. Gilbert, Director of Region 2; Ms. Falco, Mr. Powell's union representative; Dr. Monroe; and Mr. Powell. Several issues were discussed during the conference: Mr. Powell was allowed to review a copy of the School Board's investigative report regarding the incident involving M. M., and he was allowed to comment on the report. Mr. Powell denied having hit M. M. and advised the School Board personnel that he knew of an eye witness to the incident who would support his denial. Mr. Powell was also allowed to review a copy of the October 15, 1996, memo to Mr. Powell from Principal Fontana, discussed in paragraph 16, supra, memorializing the discipline imposed with respect to the charges that Mr. Powell had committed child abuse on his son. Dr. Monroe advised Mr. Powell that he had failed to comply with the directives included in that disposition. /14 During the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Powell was told that a recommendation would be made to the School Board that his professional services contract not be renewed and that a decision would be made whether to take disciplinary measures against him, which could include suspension or dismissal. In a letter dated April 29, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools recommended to the School Board that Mr. Powell be suspended from his position as a teacher and that dismissal proceedings be initiated against him. The School Board accepted this recommendation on May 13, 1998. On October 29, 1998, Mr. Powell was tried by a jury on the criminal charge of battery arising out of his striking M. M. A number of students testified at the trial, and Mr. Powell was found "not guilty" of the charge. On September 5, 1997, Mr. Powell was honored by the Florida House of Representatives with a Certificate of Appreciation for "his contributions and accomplishments in the National Association of Black Scuba Divers." As a member of that association, Mr. Powell was recognized and commended for his work with the sunken slave ship Henrietta Marie and for his lectures and seminars on the history of this ship. On May 28, 1998, an article about the Certificate of Appreciation appeared in The Miami Times, together with a picture of Mr. Powell and Representative Larcenia Bullard. Nowhere in the certificate or in the news article is Mr. Powell identified as a teacher or former teacher in the Miami-Dade County public schools. Mr. Powell is mentioned and quoted in an article which was published in the South Florida edition of the Sunday Sun Sentinel newspaper on February 1, 1998. The article discussed the celebration of Black History Month by the descendants of slaves who are living in South Florida. Mr. Powell is identified in the article as the person who led members of the National Association of Black Scuba Divers in a dive to the site of the Henrietta Marie. Mr. Powell also gave a lecture on the Henrietta Marie in February 1997 at the Miami-Dade County Community College, as part of a special African-American history course. Summary The evidence presented herein clearly and convincingly establishes that Mr. Powell struck and kicked his son on November 19, 1995, and that he struck M. M. with his cane on November 25, 1997, while carrying out his duties as an SCSI teacher. Mr. Powell's testimony that he did not strike either his son or M. M. is rejected as not persuasive, as is the testimony of those witnesses who testified that Mr. Powell did not strike M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude when he dragged his fourteen-year-old son from the passenger seat of his Ford Bronco, struck his son in the face twice, and kicked his son in the ribs at least once, causing him to suffer a split lip and bruised ribs. This act of violence is not only inconsistent with the public conscience, it is an act of serious misconduct which was in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence against children. The seriousness of Mr. Powell's act is only exacerbated by the fact that he acted in anger. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the November 1995 incident and from Mr. Powell's subsequent trial on the charges of child abuse is the testimony of Dr. Monroe. Dr. Monroe's testimony that there "was considerable notoriety via the print and the electronic media of Mr. Powell's action which resulted in his arrest" was not based on his personal knowledge but was based on information he received in August 1996 from an assistant state's attorney in Broward County. Dr. Monroe's testimony is not only hearsay unsupported by any other evidence in the record, it is not credible to prove that Mr. Powell's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Powell's service in the community. Moreover, Mr. Powell presented evidence that, subsequent to the November 1995 incident, he was publicly recognized for his contributions to the community through his work with the slave ship Henrietta Marie. The evidence presented is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude with respect to the November 1997 incident involving M. M. When Mr. Powell lashed out at this student and struck him with a cane, albeit after the student pushed a door into his injured foot, he demonstrated a flagrant disregard of public morals and of society's condemnation of violence against children, and he committed an act that betrayed the special trust placed in teachers. However, there was no persuasive evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's conduct involving M. M. was sufficiently notorious to expose either Mr. Powell or the education profession to public disgrace or disrespect or that Mr. Powell's service in the community was impaired with respect to the November 1997 incident. The most the evidence demonstrates is that the school received inquiries from parents about the need for their children to give statements regarding the incident, but these inquiries do not rise to the level of notoriety. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to infer notoriety and public disgrace and disrespect from the fact that Mr. Powell was tried and found not guilty of the charge of battery on M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which Mr. Powell struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell violated several provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida because he did not exercise professional judgment; because he inflicted physical injury on M. M. rather than protecting him from such injury; and because he exposed M. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by striking him and causing him to cry in front of his fellow students in the SCSI class. There was, however, no persuasive direct evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. This direct evidence consisted solely of the opinion testimony of Dr. Monroe, which was conclusory and was based exclusively on information he obtained from Mr. Powell's records and from discussions with school administrative personnel charged with monitoring Mr. Powell's conduct and teaching performance. No parents or students or members of the community testified that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and as an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of this incident. Under the circumstances of this case, however, it can be inferred from the record as a whole that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a School Board employee and as a teacher was seriously diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. Mr. Powell stuck a student with a cane during school hours, and the incident was witnessed by a number of students, who were asked to testify both in this proceeding and in Mr. Powell's criminal trial. In addition, the allegations against Mr. Powell with respect to the November 1997 incident were of such a serious nature that it was necessary to relieve Mr. Powell of his teaching responsibilities and to transfer him from JFK Middle School to the Region 2 administrative offices and, from there, to another middle school in which his contact with students was closely supervised. Finally, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which he struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell did not conduct himself in a manner which reflected credit on himself or on the school system, nor did his conduct conform to the highest professional standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that In DOAH Case NO. 97-5828, the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes, and revoking his teacher's certificate for a period of two years, followed by three years' probation, subject to reasonable conditions to be determined by the Commission; and In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes, and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 4-1.09; sustaining his suspension; and dismissing him from employment as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Kenneth Mills (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed January 9, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff at Miami Lakes. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Kenneth Mills, was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner and was assigned to teach mathematics at Miami Lakes. All acts complained of occurred during Respondent's tenure at Miami Lakes. During the 2007-2008 school year, Bridget McKinney was assigned to duties as an assistant principal at Miami Lakes. Among her responsibilities was the task of assuring that classrooms were ready for an open house at the school. The school had been chosen to be the site of a "town hall meeting." Respondent's classroom was among those rooms to be used for the session, and he was notified to have the room straightened and ready to receive the public. During an inspection of Respondent's classroom in final preparation for the meeting, Ms. McKinney discovered numerous photographs of Respondent hugging students, a large poster of a female student, and locks of hair taped to a cabinet with notes attached. Ms. McKinney removed the items described above and went to place them in Respondent's desk. When she opened the desk drawer, Ms. McKinney discovered more pictures of female students. One of the photographs showed a female student wearing a t-shirt that depicted the words, "I HAVE THE PUSSY, SO I MAKE THE RULES." Additional photos of female students showed one standing on Respondent's desk. Respondent took a picture of a female student standing on his desk. The picture was taken after hours. The student was not enrolled in Respondent's class at the time the photo was taken. Respondent claimed the student made the unsolicited visit to his classroom because "he looked lonely." One picture stored on Respondent's district-owned computer showed a female student with an added "I Love You" border around the photo. Respondent admitted that he possessed a school identification badge of a female student who was also shown in the poster-size photo Ms. McKinney removed from Respondent's wall. After Ms. McKinney reported her discoveries to the principal, James Parker, Respondent's computer was confiscated and turned over to the school investigators to conduct an analysis of the hard drive content. After retrieving the data, images were stored on a DVD, and the matter was turned over to the Civil Investigation Unit for further review. Respondent was notified of the on-going investigation in writing and was placed on alternate assignment at Region Center I. The investigation of the matter was assigned to Terri Chester. Ms. Chester reviewed the images from the DVD. The DVD stored photos and videos that were taken by Respondent. The images depicted: several provocative pictures with nudity or partial nudity; the picture of the female student with the t- shirt proclaiming "I HAVE THE PUSSY, SO I MAKE THE RULES;" audio of Respondent calling a student "nerd;" students who do not want to be video taped by Respondent who he challenges; Respondent proclaiming that video will be posted to You Tube by the next day; and other classroom activities that are inappropriate such as students running around the room, climbing on chairs, and attempts made by one student trying to staple other students in the back. Throughout the depicted images, Respondent does not redirect students to appropriate activities and does not assist them in any mathematics-related endeavor. Based upon the foregoing, Ms. Chester concluded that Respondent's conduct violated School Board rules. When presented with the findings of Ms. Chester's investigation, Respondent sought additional inquiry into the allegations against him. Ms. Chester then reviewed all information Respondent presented. Afterward, Ms. Chester referred the matter to the OPS. Dr. Hernandez, District Director at OPS, conducted a conference for the record (CFR) with Respondent. The purpose of the CFR was to discuss the investigative findings and Respondent's future employment with Petitioner. Throughout the investigation and review process, Respondent has not denied taking the pictures and videos. Moreover, when confronted with the images from his district-owned computer he provided no plausible explanation for the materials. Subsequent to the CFR, Mr. Parker as well as other staff from the region office recommended termination of Respondent's employment with the school district. Among the reasons Mr. Parker recommended termination was Respondent's failure to abide by the educational principles concerning teacher conduct. Mr. Parker determined that Respondent's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher since he failed to properly manage students, displayed an inappropriate familiarity with students, and took and retained improper images. At its meeting on October 17, 2008, Petitioner accepted the recommendation to suspend Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against him. Thereafter, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to contest the proposed dismissal. Respondent does not deny displaying the photographs in his classroom or the retention of locks of hair. Moreover, Respondent does not deny that he took the images that were stored on his district-owned computer. Photography is one of Respondent's main interests. He sought to combine his interest in photography with his classroom responsibilities. Finally, Respondent maintains that he did not do anything wrong and that he is the victim of an administrator trying to get him fired. Respondent advised that it was his intention to have a disruptive class at the time portions of the video were shot to add some levity to the class work. Respondent stated that during the two hour blocks of teaching allocated to each class that it was his desire to have the students have some levity and laugh. The UTD negotiated terms and conditions of employment for Petitioner and its teachers. Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, also known as the UTD contract, "any member of the instructional staff shall be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that such charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent's employment with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 20th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Mills 17890 West Dixie Highway, Number 703 Miami, Florida 33160 Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Alberto M. Carvalho Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School (“Henry Reeves”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 1982. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). Julian Gibbs, the principal of Henry Reeves (“Principal Gibbs”), was authorized to issue directives to his employees, including Respondent. The 2011-2012 School Year After holding various teaching positions within the School Board, Respondent was assigned to Henry Reeves beginning with the 2011-2012 school year. On August 18, 2011, Respondent arrived late to work on her first day at Henry Reeves. Respondent was supposed to arrive at Henry Reeves at 8:20 a.m., for a pre-planning faculty meeting and to set-up her room, but she did not arrive until after 12:30 p.m., because she reported that morning to another school, Van E. Blanton Elementary School. On August 23, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibilities memorandum concerning Respondent’s tardiness and informed Respondent that failure to report to work on time in the future would result in further disciplinary action.1/ Some time during the next few weeks, Principal Gibbs conducted an informal classroom walkthrough of Respondent’s class. At that time, Principal Gibbs observed that Respondent did not have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print- rich” classroom and outside bulletin board.2/ On September 16, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to display current student work, update and have print-rich classroom and outside bulletin boards, timely grade and file student assignments, label data charts, and graph student assessment results. Respondent was advised to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by September 20, 2011. On January 4, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to update outside bulletin boards and ensure her desk was organized and clutter free. The memorandum advised Respondent to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by January 6, 2012. The 2012-2013 School Year On October 17, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for allegedly not providing updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent on October 8 and 12, 2012. However, the School Board did not prove at the hearing that Respondent failed to provide updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the October 17, 2012, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. No witness with personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, the October 17, 2012, memorandum directed Respondent to “read and review the Code of Ethics cited in The School Board of Miami-Dade County Bylaws and Policies, 4210.01 and Common Sense Suggestions and School Board Policy 1139, Responsibilities and Duties for Full-Time Personnel.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On November 29, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for arriving late to two meetings on November 13 and 29, 2012. Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that it is her “professional duty and responsibility to report to all scheduled meetings on time” and “to review all notifications in regards to scheduled meetings and events.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On December 12, 2012, Principal Gibbs placed Respondent on support dialogue following an observation he made of Respondent in her classroom. Support dialogue involves a “two-way conversation” between the principal and teacher to develop strategies so that the teacher may improve for the next evaluation. Respondent was upset that she was placed on support dialogue. During the support dialogue meeting between Principal Gibbs and Respondent, Respondent spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner. Later that day during dismissal, Respondent again spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner, but this time in front of other teachers. Because of Respondent’s loud tone of voice during and after the support dialogue meeting, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum advising her to “immediately refrain from exhibiting inappropriate behavior, and adhere to all school site and M-DCPS policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, 3210.01, and Code of Ethics.” Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.” On December 18, 2012, Principal Gibbs held a Conference For The Record (“CFR”) with Respondent, because she allegedly struck a student with a ruler. During the conference, Principal Gibbs provided Respondent with a copy of School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics, and “How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching.” Respondent was “advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District’s concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism.” Respondent was “reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students.” Respondent was informed that “[n]oncompliance with these directives will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures and will be deemed as insubordination.”3/ During the December 18, 2012, conference, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a written letter of reprimand. The written reprimand directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.”4/ On January 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent “Absences and Tardies From Work Directives,” because Respondent was allegedly tardy and/or absent from work during the 2012-2013 school year on the following occasions: October 1, 2012: tardy one hour October 8, 2012: sick one day October 11, 2012: tardy 1 ½ hour October 12, 2012: personal one day October 25, 2012: sick one day December 4, 2012: personal one day December 6, 2012: sick one day December 12, 2012: sick one day December 19, 2012: personal .5 day January 9, 2013: sick one day January 10, 2013: sick one day January 15, 2013: sick one day However, the School Board failed to prove at the hearing that Respondent was tardy and/or absent from work as indicated in the directives and accompanying documentation. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the January 16, 2013, directives he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences. No witness with personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum and accompanying documentation are hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed that “[n]on-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination.”5/ On February 22, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibility memorandum because she was allegedly six minutes late picking up her students from the cafeteria. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the February 22, 2013, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the incident. No witness with personal knowledge of the incident testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed in the memorandum that “[i]t is essential that all teachers pick up their classes on time, especially when other classes are entering the cafeteria.” On March 14, 2013, Principal Gibbs held a CFR with Respondent because she “grabbed” a student “by the arm” on some unspecified date and time when the student was attempting to obtain a set of headphones out of his backpack. Principal Gibbs witnessed this incident [while] conducting an observation of Respondent in her classroom. However, at the hearing, Principal Gibbs provided no further detail regarding the alleged incident other than indicating that Respondent “grabbed” the student “by the arm.” There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent caused the student any emotional or physical injury. The student did not testify.6/ In any event, the CFR directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. The 2013-2014 School Year The School Board alleged in paragraph 18 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 13, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been poked under the eye and Respondent failed to render first aid. When asked about the incident, Respondent was completely unaware that a student had been injured [while] under her supervision.”7/ The School Board failed to prove that a student was poked under the eye on September 13, 2013, while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board points to Principal Gibbs’s testimony that he “personally observed the lead mark under the child’s eye.” This observation by Principal Gibbs allegedly occurred at some point on September 13, 2013, after the school’s dismissal of students, and after “the parent” returned to the school with the child. The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is unpersuasive. Even if Principal Gibbs observed a lead mark under a child’s eye at some time after the alleged incident occurred, that does not prove that the child was poked under the eye while under Respondent’s supervision. The child could have been poked under the eye at any time and anywhere. Principal Gibbs’s conclusion that a child was poked under the eye with a pencil while under Respondent’s supervision is based on speculation and hearsay of the parent and students. Nevertheless, on September 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 19 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 17, 2013 Respondent informed Mr. Gibbs that she had scratched ‘L.G.’, her student.” The School Board failed to prove that Respondent scratched a student under her supervision as alleged in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. No evidence was adduced at hearing in support of the School Board’s allegations in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Moreover, the School Board failed to address this issue in its Proposed Recommended Order. The School Board alleged in paragraph 20 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 18, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been stabbed . . . three times with a pencil by another student. Respondent failed to render first aid and failed to notify the other student’s parents.” The School Board failed to prove that a student was stabbed with a pencil by another student while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 20 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Again, the parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that: “[w]hen Respondent was asked about the incident, she indicated that she was on the other side of the room when it happened.” The School Board’s position, however, contradicts Principal Gibbs’s testimony at the hearing when he was asked: Q. Did you speak to Ms. Parris about this incident? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did she say to you? A. She doesn’t recollect the child being poked by another child in the wrist with the pencil. She just had no memory. Transcript, pages 53-54. Nevertheless, on September 19, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “Based on the witness statements, the following was gathered during the investigation: i. On September 24, 2013, under Respondent’s supervision, or lack thereof, four students were injured. [One] student, ‘A.J.’ was taken to the hospital by her mother hospital [sic] because of a facial contusion.” The School Board failed to prove that any students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Any witness statements are hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. The School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that on September 25, 2013, a third incident occurred in Respondent’s classroom. Specifically, the School Board contends: “A parent approached administration concerned about the safety of her child. . . . The student had been kicked in the face causing her face to swell.” Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. Even if Respondent was on notice of the allegations, however, the School Board failed to prove that a student was kicked in the face while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. Notably, Principal Gibbs testified that when asked about the incident, Respondent “said that she doesn’t recall a child being kicked in the face, but allegedly she was pushed by another child in the class, but she doesn’t recall the child being kicked in the face.” The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is not credible and is unpersuasive. The purported statement contradicts what Principal Gibbs wrote in the September 26, 2013, Professional Responsibilities memorandum. At that time, Principal Gibbs wrote that when Respondent was “asked what happened. [She] stated I have nothing to say.” Nevertheless, on September 26, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” On September 25, 2013, Principal Gibbs met with Respondent in his office to discuss her classroom supervision. The meeting was held behind Principal Gibbs’s closed door. During the meeting, Respondent felt as if Principal Gibbs was speaking to her in an arrogant manner. Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs, spoke to him in a loud manner, and, at one point, hit his desk with one of her hands and stated: “No, I’m not going to allow you to speak to me like that, because I’m 61 years old and I’m old enough to be your mother.” At no time during the meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way. Approximately one week later, Principal Gibbs and Respondent met in his office to discuss some student discipline referrals. During this meeting, Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs and spoke to him in a loud manner. At no time during this meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way.8/ In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s loud voice and conduct in her meetings and conversations with Principal Gibbs constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. Although Respondent may have used a loud voice during the meetings and conversations, and staff members may have overheard Respondent’s loud voice, given the context in which these meetings and conversations occurred (they were meetings and conversations between a principal and teacher--not a classroom situation involving students), the School Board failed to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to the alleged incident on March 14, 2013, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to each of the alleged incidents in September 2013, involving allegations of students getting injured while under Respondent’s supervision, the evidence at hearing failed to show that students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision. Accordingly, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these alleged incidents. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s failure to have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print-rich” classroom and outside bulletin board, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent did not have lesson plans available for a substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. Thus, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these allegations. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent “significantly arrived late” to important faculty meetings. The evidence presented at hearing merely showed that Respondent was late to a pre-planning faculty meeting on her first day at Henry Reeves on August 18, 2011, because she went to the wrong school. The significance of this faculty meeting was not established at the hearing. During the next school year, she was late to two other meetings in November 2012. It is unclear from the record that these two other meetings in November 2012, were, in fact, faculty meetings. Be that as it may, the fact that Respondent was late to three meetings from August 2011 to September 2013-- one of which was on the first day of school when she went to the wrong school--is insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in conduct which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent was tardy and absent from work to the extent alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Even if she was tardy and absent as alleged, however, the tardiness and absences do not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in any conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 30-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2014.
The Issue Did the Hendry County School Board (Board) have just cause to terminate Respondent from her employment as a paraprofessional teacher's aide?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the HCSD as a paraprofessional teacher's aide at LMS. The employment relationship between the Board and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 8, Section 8.013, Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides that "when an employee has completed three (3) years of the past five (5) with satisfactory service with the Hendry County School Board . . . and has been appointed for a subsequent year, he [sic] will be eligible for continued employment status, which status will continue year to year unless the Board terminates the employee for just cause (Emphasis furnished). Respondent was first employed with the HCSD on August 18, 1986, and worked continuously through May 25, 1999, when she was terminated. Since Respondent achieved "continued employment status," she can only be terminated for "just cause." The Board terminated Respondent for "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner" and "other sufficient cause" under School Board Policies and Procedures 218. There were no written evaluations of Respondent's performance accomplished during the first 9 years of Respondent's employment with the HCSD because the Board did not adopt its current policy until approximately 1996. However, there is no evidence that Respondent's work performance was unsatisfactory during the first 9 years of her employment with the HCSD. Respondent worked at LMS for each of those nine years of her employment with the HCSD and was routinely re-appointed for each ensuing year. The first 2 years of her employment, Respondent was assigned to work with students that were classified as "trainable mentally handicapped." Respondent had to assist these students in learning rudimentary skills such as brushing their teeth and changing their underwear. From the fall of 1988 until the spring of 1992, the equivalent of 4 school years, Respondent was assigned to the "Time Out Room." The assignment to the "Time-Out Room" was not punitive in nature, or the result of unsatisfactory work performance by Respondent. Disruptive students that caused a problem in the classroom were sent to the "Time-Out Room." The students went in the "Time-Out Room" for one period after which they usually would return to their regular class. Although Respondent was employed as a "Teacher's Aide" for exceptional education students with special needs she did not assist a teacher, but ran the "Time-Out Room" alone. After 4 years working in the "Time-Out Room," Respondent was assigned to Internal Suspension. The "Time-Out Room" was eliminated, and replaced with Internal Suspension. Internal Suspension was used as a form of discipline for students who violated school policy. Students were sent to Internal Suspension anywhere from 2 to 10 days. Internal Suspension was conducted in a double-wide trailer behind LMS. Respondent again was by herself in Internal Suspension and was not assisting a teacher. The first documentation of any performance deficiency by Respondent consists of a Procedure for Improvement form and a Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form, both dated January 22, 1996. The forms were prepared by James C. Allen, Principal of the LMS. The Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent achieved a "satisfactory" designation for 6 areas and a "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The deficiencies specified in the Procedures for Improvement form are: "Harshness in speaking with staff and students, assisting students with academic work, unacceptable activities in classroom, needlepoint, police scanner." The Procedures for Improvement form provided that Respondent had the "95/96 school year" to improve, and that Mr. Allen would "Recommend dismissal" if the deficiencies were not improved. Respondent successfully improved her performance. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote a letter to Respondent's union representative, with a copy to Respondent, stating that "I too am optimistic that improvement has occurred." On April 1, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote directly to Respondent expressing concern about "complaints/concerns" received about her conduct on a Beta Club trip to Washington, D.C., but stating, in pertinent part: These concerns cannot be overlooked, however, since we initiated procedures for improvement January 22, 1996, which dealt specifically with harshness in speaking with students/staff. Improvement has been noted. It must also be pointed out that Ms Dankanich (Beta Club sponsor) and some staff members felt that you did a good job in controlling your students and watching out for their safety and welfare. (Emphasis furnished). The March and April 1996 letters from Mr. Allen were included in Respondent's personnel file. Also included in the personnel file were letters from the Beta Club sponsor for the Washington, D.C. trip and a chaperone. These letters stated that Respondent spoke to students and adults and conducted herself in an appropriate manner throughout the trip. Respondent's annual "Overall Evaluation" for the 1995-1996 school year was "Satisfactory." Mr. Allen checked the box entitled "Reappoint based on employee's willingness to improve job dimensions not satisfactory." Respondent attained a "Satisfactory" score on 6 out of eight areas listed for job dimension with "Quality of Work" and Work Attitude" checked-off for "Needs Improvement." Respondent was reappointed and returned to LMS for the 1996-1997 school year. Respondent was assigned to assist with the "trainable mentally handicapped" students after having been on her own in the "Time-Out Room" and Internal Suspension for 8 years and working with Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students. This assignment required an adjustment for Respondent. On February 11, 1997, Allen presented Respondent with another Procedures for Improvement form and Special Non- Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. As in the preceding year, the Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The Procedures for Improvement form identified deficiencies as "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner, harshness in speaking with students/staff; unacceptable activities in classroom," and afforded Respondent the 96\97 school year to improve or be recommended for dismissal. Respondent wrote on both forms that she did not agree with them. In April 1997, 12 professional colleagues of Respondent wrote letters of support. These letters were included in Respondent's personnel file. The letters vouch for Respondent's professionalism and many stated that Respondent never was observed to engage in improper conduct or exhibit inappropriate speech or tone of voice. Throughout the second semester of the 1996-1997 school year, Respondent worked 2 class periods as a teacher's aide for Erin Berg-Hayes. Ms. Berg-Hayes was a sixth grade ESE teacher. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's job performance during the 1996-1997 school year was satisfactory. Respondent did not receive annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year. Since Respondent was not told otherwise, Respondent assumed she had improved her performance to Mr. Allen's satisfaction. Respondent received a letter of appointment at the end of the 1996-1997 school year and was reappointed for the 1997-1998 school year. For the 1997-1998 school year, the sixth grade students at LMS were moved to the Sixth Grade Center (SGC). Jodi Bell assistant principal at LMS was assigned to administer the SGC. Mr. Allen remained as principal at the LMS which consisted of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent worked as Erin Berg-Hayes' full-time aide for the 1997-1998 school year. Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes were assigned to the SGC. Ms. Berg-Hayes characterized Respondent's job performance during the 1997-1998 school year as "good." When Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's annual evaluation, Ms. Berg-Hayes advised Ms. Bell that she was "pleased" with Respondent's performance and "on the overall [Respondent's] performance was good and satisfactory." Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Bell checked off "satisfactory" in the 8 areas designated for assessment. There were no check marks in the "Needs Improvement" column. On the 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Ms. Bell checked the box for "Satisfactory" as Respondent's "Overall Evaluation," and also checked the box for "Reappoint for next year." In the section entitled "Comments by Evaluator," Ms. Bell wrote: "I have appreciated your willingness to go above what is expected and help wherever help is needed. Keep up the good work!" Respondent returned to the SGC as Ms. Berg-Hayes' Aide in the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent worked together for the fall semester after which Respondent requested to be reassigned. Respondent attributed this to a personality clash with Ms. Berg-Hayes that started in July 1998. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's performance declined in the 1998-1999 school year. Cathy Lipford, teacher's aide at SGC, who worked together with Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent for one period during the entire fall semester in the 1998-1999 school year did not observe a problem with Respondent's work performance. This teachers' aide was aware of some tension between Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes. However, this aide testified that Respondent appeared to take the initiative, and assisted students, and the aide never observed Respondent speaking inappropriately to students. Ms. Berg-Hayes did not prepare any documentation of Respondent's alleged performance deficiencies during the fall semester of the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes was not consulted about Respondent's performance by Mr. Allen, the former principal of LMS or Mr. Cooper, the current principal of LMS at the time Respondent's performance was evaluated for the 1998-1999 school year, when it was decided to recommend dismissal of Respondent for failure to perform her assigned duties or other sufficient cause. During the spring semester of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent was assigned as an aide to Dorothy Lomago, a varying exceptionalities teacher for seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent and Ms. Lomago worked together from January 1999 through May 1999. Ms. Lomago had been employed by the Board for 25 years. Prior to Respondent, Ms. Lomago only had had 2 other teaching assistants. Ms. Lomago considers compassion for children and initiative as the most important characteristics for a teacher's aide in special education. Ms. Lomago rated Respondent's performance in those areas as "ineffective." Ms. Lomago considered Respondent adequate in performing clerical tasks such as copying papers and grading papers. Ms. Lomago did not document Respondent's performance deficiencies. Ms. Lomago neither counseled nor corrected Respondent. Likewise, Ms. Lomago never brought to Respondent's attention the things she believed Respondent failed to do or did wrong. Ms. Lomago merely did what she was told to do by Mr. Cooper when he arrived at LMS in March 1999. On March 31, 1999, Respondent went to Mr. Allen's office for her 1998-1999 annual evaluation. R. Scott Cooper, assistant principal, Ms. Jodi Bell, assistant principal, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Davis, assistant principal were present in Mr. Allen's office upon Respondent's arrival. This meeting was terminated after Mr. Allen indicated there was a problem and asked Respondent if she wanted union representation. Respondent replied that she thought it would be wise. Before the meeting on March 31, 1999, Respondent was not aware that her job performance was considered deficient. Respondent had not been told of any deficiencies and had not received any counseling. In March/April 1999, Mr. Allen retired, and was replaced as principal of LMS by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper arrived at LMS some time in the last 2 weeks of March 1999. Respondent and Mr. Cooper had had no professional contact before March 1999. Mr. Cooper met with Respondent on April 16, 1999, for Respondent's 1998-1999 annual evaluation. Mr. Cooper gave Respondent 4 separate Procedures for Improvement forms and an Annual Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. This was Respondent's first notice of her specific performance deficiencies for the 1998-1999 school year. Mr. Cooper never conducted a formal observation of Respondent's job performance. Mr. Cooper based the annual evaluation predominantly on a review of the school board records, and on discussions with Mr. Allen, Ms. Bell, and Ms. Davis. The Procedures for Improvement forms specified the following deficiencies: "Work Attitude - able to successfully work with co-workers and students"; "Initiate Resourcefulness - ability to identify what needs to be done"; ""Dependability"; and "Quality of Work." The forms identified the following means of judging success in overcoming the foregoing deficiencies, respectively. "Supervisors will observe appropriate student/aide interactions in all circumstances"; "decreased necessity for teacher/supervisor to redirect Ms. Bennett's activities"; "Ms. Bennett will demonstrate the ability to effective [sic] facilitate school functions - adhere to work requirements"; and "Higher quality of work - decrease in errors." As a Statement of Assistance Offered, all of the forms provided: "Ms. Bennett may meet with Mr. Cooper weekly to obtain suggestions and assistance" Respondent was given until May 10, 1999, to improve her deficiencies. This was a period of 3 weeks or 15 school days. On Respondent's Annual Non-Instructional Personnel form, Mr. Cooper checked-off 4 out of 8 areas for "Needs Improvement" with "Satisfactory" checked for the remaining 4 areas. Mr. Allen checked "Unsatisfactory" for the "Overall Evaluation" and checked the box "Dismissal." Respondent noted her disagreement with the evaluation. On May 19, 1999, Mr. Cooper formally recommended dismissal of Respondent. Respondent received a Notice of Recommendation of Dismissal on that date. The Board approved Respondent's dismissal on May 25, 1999. During the 3 week period Respondent was given to improve her performance, neither Mr. Cooper nor any other administrator met with Respondent to advise her as to whether she was improving. There is no documentation whatsoever of Respondent's lack of improvement. During the 3 weeks Respondent was to improve her performance, she received repeated assurance from Ms. Lomago that they would be working together the following year. Ms. Lomago never advised Respondent that her performance continued to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, no one from the Board or any school administrator advised Respondent that she was not complying with the Procedures for Improvement or that her work continued to be unsatisfactory. Not hearing otherwise, Respondent considered her work to be satisfactory and did not meet with Mr. Cooper to obtain suggestions and assistance. The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to perform her assigned duties in a satisfactory manner during the 1998-1999 school year or that the Board had just cause or any other sufficient cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board reinstate the employment of Annette Bennett-Edwards and provide for back pay and benefits retroactive to May 25, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 6th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Upthegrove Superintendent Hendry County School District Post Office Box 1980 LaBelle, Florida 33935-1980 Richard G. Groff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Betruff and St. Paul, P.L. Post Office Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman Post Office Box 2989 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
Findings Of Fact Davis began working with the Board on September 16, 1974, as a custodian in the maintenance department. In 1980 Davis was transferred to the Stewart Street Elementary School as a custodian. In 1988 Davis was transferred to the Carter-Parramore Middle School as a custodian. On March 23, 1992, Davis was suspended by the Superintendent with pay. On March 25, 1992, Davis was recommended for termination and was suspended without pay by the Board. The suspension and recommended termination were the result of accusations made by Tomeka Mitchell and Tiesha Parker that Davis had made sexually explicit comments to them and had inappropriately touched them. Tomeka and Tiesha both testified regarding their versions of what occurred on January 28, 1992. Two other students, Cheryl Denise Roberts and Lashea Alexander also testified. Based on the demeanor of these witnesses and on the pervasive conflicts in their versions of the events, it is determined that their testimony is not credible or worthy of belief. Tomeka testified that on January 22 or 23, 1992, she and "Sherry" were going to meet Tiesha near the gym and that Davis stopped them, put his arms around Tomeka and Tiesha and said "This is what he wanted" and opened her button. She said nothing else happened. However, she apparently reported to HRS that Davis had touched her breast and unbuttoned her blouse. HRS determined that there was no evidence to verify these allegations. [See Finding of Fact #14] Tiesha said she was going to meet Tomeka, who was already talking to Davis, and when she and Tomeka began to walk away, Davis asked where they were going, called them over to where he was standing, and told them he "wanted some." When they asked what he "wanted," she said Davis pulled their heads together, tried to open her blouse which was buttoned, and then he "did it to Tomeka and looked down her shirt." Tiesha said that Cheryl Roberts and Lashea Alexander were standing next to them and all four discussed what happened and decided to go to the office and report it. On cross-examination, Tiesha acknowledged that Tomeka's blouse was unbuttoned before Davis called them over. Cheryl testified that she saw Davis look down Tomeka's blouse and that she (not Tiesha) was with Tomeka when Davis said he "wanted some." However, when Cheryl talked to Mr. Pace, the principal, on January 28, 1992, she said she had not seen anything, but was reporting what she had been told by Tomeka and Tiesha. Additionally, the information given by Cheryl at the time of the incident, the testimony she gave in her deposition on May 14, 1992, and her testimony at the hearing were inconsistent. Finally, Cheryl never mentioned that Davis had allegedly tried to look into Tiesha's blouse. Lashea's testimony was also contrary to that of Tomeka and Tiesha. According to Lashea's version, Tomeka and Tiesha had told her that Tomeka was afraid to go to class because Davis might say something to her, so Tiesha walked Tomeka part way to class. Lashea was near the gym with Cheryl and she saw Davis try to look into Tomeka's blouse. Lashea and Cheryl discussed what they had seen and Tomeka and Tiesha came back to the gym. Lashea told Tomeka that Davis had tried to look into her blouse and Tomeka said "Yeah, he tried to, but I didn't let him." Lashea denied that Davis tried to look in Tiesha's blouse. However, Mr. Pace recorded that on January 28, 1992, Lashea had not seen anything and had only told him what she was told by Tomeka and Tiesha. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the demeanor of these girls and from the differences in their stories is that no sexually explicit statements were made by Davis and that he did not he touch them in an inappropriate manner. The version of the incident given by Davis is credible and worthy of belief. On January 28, 1992, Davis saw Tomeka and Tiesha in the open corridor near the gym after the final bell for sixth period had rung. They were heading away from the gym. Davis asked them what class they were supposed to be in, and by their responses he thought they were supposed to be in gym. Tomeka's blouse was open and the top few buttons were undone. Davis told her to button her shirt up and he said he was sure that her parents wouldn't want her going around campus "looking like a 10 whore." Davis then told them they should be in class and he put his hand on the upper arm of each girl to guide them in the direction of the class. When it appeared they were going in the correct direction, Davis left them. Davis is a credible witness and his statements at all times between January 28, 1992, and the hearing have been consistent and forthright. According to Mr. Pace, the principal, and Lt. Morris, the school resource officer, Davis is a man of his word who is known to be honest and trustworthy. Further, Davis' reputation in the community is one of honesty and truthfulness. John D. Mathers, a Child Protective Investigator for HRS, sent a letter to Bryant dated March 18, 1992, and therein stated "The victim's statements of language addressed them by Dr. Davis [sic] meets departmental guidelines to verify the allegation of sexual exploitation, i.e. indecent solicitation of a child or explicit verbal enticement, and closing of report with classification of proposed confirmed." While this sentence is so poorly written as to render it unintelligible, Bryant interpreted it as saying that HRS had found that Davis had made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments and that these allegations of sexual exploitation were verified. In fact, the letter from Mr. Mather doesn't quite say that. Additionally, Mather said in his letter that Tomeka Mitchell told him that Davis had touched her left breast and had unbuttoned her blouse, but that no other witness verified Tomeka's allegations, and that those allegations of sexual maltreatment were not classified as proposed confirmed. The letter to Davis from Bryant dated March 23, 1992, advised Davis that the reason for the suspension and recommended termination was Davis' violation of Gadsden County Board Rule 5.112 which provides in pertinent part: Any member of the non-instructional staff may be dismissed by the School Board during his term of appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, giving good and sufficient reason therefor. Good and sufficient reason shall include but not be limited to: * * * (h) Violation of law, State Board of Education Rules, or School Board Rules. Upon investigation, it has been determined that on January 22, 1992 and January 28, 1992, you made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments to several female students at Carter- Parramore Middle School. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has also completed its investigation and has advised me that based on its investigation and interviews with the victims, their statements regarding your comments verify the allegations of sexual exploitation. Such behavior is violative of Gadsden County School Board rules. This determination by Bryant was based on the "information" he was given in the "final report" prepared by Pace and on the HRS letter. Bryant was unable to articulate the bases for his determination, but that is not surprising when the origin and nature of the "information" he considered is examined. The three men who gathered the information were Cecil Morris, the school resource officer employed by the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office; Rocky Pace, the principal at Carter-Parramore; and James W. Brown, Jr., the assistant superintendent for administrative services. According to Bryant, he was given a "final report" from Pace in a letter dated February 7, 1992, (Exhibit 4) with attachments: Pace's letter to Brown dated January 28, 1992, (Exhibit 5); a case report filed by Lt. Morris (Exhibits 9a and 9b); and a letter of reprimand to Davis from Pace (Exhibit 3). In that letter Pace advised that he had a tape of the interviews of Tomeka, Tiesha, a girl named Aquiana Delapierre, and Davis, however, Pace did not give Bryant the tape until sometime in March, 1992, when Bryant asked for it. Bryant never listened to the tape, but instead read written statements from the girls. No one was able to establish where these written statements came from or how they came to be in Bryant's possession. They first appeared in Lt. Morris' case file when he opened it to prepare for a deposition on July 2, 1992. He doesn't know where they came from or who took them. Pace knew nothing about the statements and did not give them to Bryant. Brown also had no knowledge of the statements. Ironically, there was no written statement from Davis. Bryant says he made his determination based on these written statements which he assumed contained the same information as the tape which he never heard. Bryant did not identify any information which he reviewed that set forth Davis' version of the event. The case report prepared by Lt. Morris contained a brief summary of the accusations made by Tomeka and Tiesha, but Morris apparently never even talked to Davis. In fact, from the testimony of Pace, Morris, and Brown, it cannot even be determined whether any investigation was ever done. Morris talked to Tomeka and Tiesha briefly and then took them to Pace. Pace taped statements from Tomeka and Tiesha and Davis. Morris was in and out of the room during the taping of statements from Tomeka and Tiesha, but he did not hear much of what they said. Brown then came to the school and again talked briefly to Cheryl Roberts because he knew her parents and to some other girls, but he doesn't remember their names. Morris had no investigatory responsibilities in the matter. Pace did no further investigation after he took the taped statements because Brown came to the school and Pace was informed that Bryant had put Brown in charge of the investigation. Brown says he was not in charge of the investigation, but had told Pace to do a thorough investigation and then report his findings to Bryant. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that none of these men did any investigation beyond the interviews conducted on January 28 and 29, 1992. The letter from Pace to Bryant (Exhibit 4), which Bryant calls the "final report," clearly states that Pace thought the investigation was still on going and that action beyond the letter of reprimand (Exhibit 3) may have been warranted at a later date. However the only continuing action involved that of HRS in its abuse investigation, which resulted in a letter which advised that no touching or unbuttoning had occurred. Bryant's accusations against Davis were limited to allegations of explicit and inappropriate sexual comments. These reasons given for the suspension and recommended termination must have been based almost entirely on the letter from Mather at HRS since there was so little competent and probative information considered by Bryant. However, the statements made by Mather in his letter are insufficient to show whether HRS actually took any action against Davis in this matter and no evidence was presented to show whether any such action was taken. Since Bryant never reviewed any statement by Davis regarding his version of the events, Bryant never knew that Davis' words and actions in trying to get the girls to go to their class and to get Tomeka to straighten and button her clothes were routine for Davis. From the time Davis was assigned to Carter-Parramore in 1988 until March 18, 1991, a Mr. White had been the principal at that school. White had asked Davis to assist in keeping order at the school and had authorized Davis to open the gym on cold mornings at around 7:15 a.m. so that early-arriving students could be warm. At times, Davis was the only Board employee on campus and he was to remain in the gym to keep order until other adults arrived. White also used Davis' assistance to break up fights and control campus access by non- students during the school day. With White's knowledge and consent, Davis also directed students to go to class when they were not where they were supposed to be, to straighten up their attire or behavior, and to stay in school and not skip class. Mr. White died unexpectedly in March, 1991, and Pace became the acting principal and ultimately the principal. Pace knew of all these activities by Davis and never told him to restrict himself to duties directly related to his job as head custodian. Pace acknowledges that Davis was friendly and interacted with students and pitched in wherever he was needed. It was entirely consistent with these acknowledged activities of Davis that he would stop two students who were outside after the sixth period bell had rung, would direct them to go to class and would insist that one of them straighten her clothing which was unbuttoned and allowed her breasts to be seen. Finally, the alleged matter involving Aquiana Delapierre must be examined. Aquiana made an allegation against Davis that he said he "wanted some" from her also. Aquiana was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing but she failed to appear. All other documentation of these allegations constitutes hearsay and absent her live testimony, that hearsay cannot form the basis for any findings of fact. Exhibit 9a is the report prepared by Lt. Morris regarding Aquiana's allegations. It is insufficient to support a finding about the alleged incident. Davis was employed pursuant to an annual contract. His contract had been renewed yearly for the preceding eighteen years. Davis had always received satisfactory job ratings. Because of the recommended termination and Davis' suspension in March, 1992, no recommendation or action was taken to renew his annual contract for the 1992-93 school year. Davis' contract for the 1991-92 school year expired on June 30, 1992. Davis has no statutory entitlement to renewal of his contract, but no evidence was presented to show any reason why his annual contract would not have been renewed but for this case. Further, Davis' position has not been filled by another employee. The clear fact is that Davis' contract would have been renewed but for these wrongful allegations and this action which followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Gadsden County enter a Final Order and therein: Award to Charlie C. Davis back pay for the period from March 25, 1992, until the expiration of his annual contract. Reinstate Charlie C. Davis to his position as head custodian at Carter- Parramore Middle School and renew his annual contract for that position for the entire 1992-1993 school year. Award to Davis back pay for the period covered by the annual contract for 1992-1993 during which has not been working or being paid. Deny the request for Davis' attorney's fees and costs necessitated for his defense against the suspension and termination on March 25, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2375 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Gadsden County School Board 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29-35, and 38-41 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 2. Proposed findings of fact 18, 20, 26 and 37 are irrelevant to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Charlie C. Davis Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5. Proposed findings of fact 6-18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Bryant, Superintendent Gadsden County School Board Post Office Box 818 Quincy, FL 32351 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Deborah J. Stephens Attorney at Law The Ausley Law Firm 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 David Brooks Kundin Attorney at Law Dobson & Kundin, P.A. Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's behavior toward an assistant principal violated the prohibitions against misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), and gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4), so as to constitute just cause for Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a teacher since 2001. He has taught English at North Dade Middle School for the past nine years. For the 2015-16 school year, Respondent was supervised by principal Fabrice Laguerre and assistant principal Kayla Edwards. Following an observation of Respondent, Ms. Edwards submitted to the principal a report citing several teaching deficiencies. The principal, who is now a principal at another school, decided that Respondent was or might be in need of professional assistance in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Placing a teacher on a PIP requires the principal to provide Respondent with notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. The record does not reveal whether the purpose of the Support Dialogue Meeting is to determine whether Respondent shall be placed on a PIP, to prepare the PIP, or to deliver an already- prepared PIP. Earlier, the principal had agreed with Respondent not to conduct any disciplinary meetings with Respondent without Respondent's union representative in attendance. Respondent wanted a witness to what might transpire during such a meeting, and the principal understood that this was the purpose of having a witness at each such meeting. Toward the end of the school day on December 15, 2015, the principal summoned Respondent to his office. Respondent did not know why he was being summoned to the principal's office. Respondent tried unsuccessfully to have the school's union representative in attendance, so Respondent reported to the principal's office without a representative. When Respondent arrived at the principal's office, he asked if he needed a union representative or other witness. The principal replied that Respondent could have a representative, but this meeting was merely to provide Respondent with notification of the "real" meeting, which was to be within 48 hours of delivery of the notice. The meeting to which the principal referred was a Support Dialogue Meeting. Despite the principal's assurance to the contrary, the December 15 contact seems to have involved more than merely delivering a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting in a day or two. As the principal testified, as soon as Respondent entered the office, implicitly assenting to sufficient contact to receive the notice described by the principal, the principal invited Respondent to sit down at a table, at which Ms. Edwards was already seated. The mere delivery of a notice would not have required that Respondent take a seat and probably would not have required the attendance of Ms. Edwards, unless the principal wanted a witness to his delivery of the notice to Respondent. Still standing, Respondent read some papers in front of him on the table and correctly concluded that they reflected unfavorably on his teaching performance and the source of the information was Ms. Edwards. It is impossible to sort out exactly who said what at this juncture. Respondent testified that his first comment was that he could not attend the meeting without a witness, and Ms. Edwards replied, "boy, get in here, stop your drama, and sign these papers." The reference to "boy" is implausible. It seems unlikely that Ms. Edwards would have uttered such an insult and, if she had, it seems as unlikely that Respondent would have remained in the office after hearing this disrespectful appellation. Ms. Edwards may have spoken the remaining words, but they are inconsequential--direct and plainspoken, but not unprofessional or disrespectful. The principal testified more plausibly that Respondent looked up after examining the paperwork and announced that this better not be about his teaching because he had taught a "perfect" lesson to the class that Ms. Edwards had observed. The principal again invited Respondent to take a seat. Instead, Respondent characterized the PIP as part of a "witch hunt" and averred that Ms. Edwards did not know what she was doing when observing Respondent. This testimony of the principal is credited. Past observations of Respondent performed by other administrators were satisfactory. Respondent and Ms. Edwards appear to have had some difficulties in the past. Most importantly, as noted above, Respondent had good cause to doubt that the sole purpose of the December 15 meeting was to deliver a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. Even the Notice of Specific Charges characterizes the December 15 meeting as the Support Dialogue Meeting itself. Respondent thus could reasonably believe that he could still prevail upon the principal not to implement a PIP or to design a less-elaborate PIP. On these facts, in a meeting attended exclusively by himself, the principal, and Ms. Edwards, Respondent's questioning the qualifications of Ms. Edwards did not constitute just cause for any adverse employment action, as long as he did not do so in bad faith, and nothing in the record indicates that he did. The principal testified that Ms. Edwards refrained from insulting Respondent and, more specifically, said nothing about where he went to college. Ms. Edwards' testimony candidly does not bear out the principal's testimony on this point. Ms. Edwards testified that she and Respondent each inquired of the other where he or she went to college, implying an inferiority in the other's school of higher learning. However, the parties' "questions" as to academic pedigrees are found to have been intended as nothing more than mild insults--that is, slights--and, as such, insubstantial. The principal also testified that, during this exchange, Respondent pointed a finger at Ms. Edwards with a "relaxed hand." This testimony is credited, but any implication that such a gesture was intended or perceived as threatening is rejected. Respondent's gesture was for mild emphasis: textually, this emphasis would be expressed by underlining, not boldface. This marks the end of the portion of the December 15 incident alleged as proof of misconduct in office. Interestingly, the testimony of Ms. Edwards and the principal set forth in the preceding two paragraphs does not describe Respondent in terms suggesting any loss of composure, but rather in terms not inconsistent with an employee unapologetically advocating for himself. The principal next asked Ms. Edwards to make a copy of a document, which necessitated her leaving the office for a few moments. But even this seemingly innocuous act proved fraught. Returning, Ms. Edwards did not see Respondent standing behind the door, and, when she opened it, the door struck Respondent harmlessly. Trying to seize a potential advantage, Respondent, implying that the act had been intentional, asked the principal if he had seen what had happened. The principal sensibly replied that Ms. Edwards could not see Respondent through the solid door, and the bump was accidental. The principal then ushered Ms. Edwards and Respondent out of the office. Up to this point, there had been no other witnesses because the office door had been closed--or, as to the last matter, closing. Once the unhappy trio left the office, the principal and Ms. Edwards testified that Respondent "kept going after" Ms. Edwards, now loud enough for others to hear, and caused much embarrassment. Ms. Edwards added that she was crying. Even though not alleged as grounds for adverse employment action, from Petitioner's perspective, this testimony from the principal and Ms. Edwards is important because it could provide a basis for inferring an earlier lack of composure on Respondent's part. However, as assessed by the Administrative Law Judge, this testimony is important because it is untrue and undermines the credibility of the principal and Ms. Edwards as witnesses. Three independent witnesses to the exit of the edgy ternion from the principal's office uniformly portrayed Respondent as not agitated. The first of these witnesses was a secretary, who was in her office two doors down from the principal's office. The secretary heard absolutely nothing, even though she was close enough to hear anything that might have been said, even if not loudly. Her testimony is credited. Ms. Edwards approached Respondent to give him the papers that she had copied. Ms. Edwards testified that she did not want Respondent to see that she was crying, so she extended her arm out in Respondent's direction and released her grip. It is hard to understand how, with her eyes averted from Respondent, Ms. Edwards would have known if Respondent was looking at her to receive the papers. In her version, Ms. Edwards released the papers and, for whatever reason, Respondent did not grasp them before they fell to the floor. Ms. Edwards' testimony is not credited, except for the papers falling to the floor. For his part, Respondent testified that he was the one crying because Ms. Edwards employed a phrase that reminded him of his recently deceased mother. Based on the testimony of the three independent witnesses, which omits any mention of tears and, to varying degrees, is inconsistent with such emotion, the crying testimony of Ms. Edwards and Respondent is rejected as melodramatic embellishment. Respondent testified that Ms. Edwards thrust the papers into his chest, leading with her closed hand. This testimony, which is credited, is corroborated by two custodians who witnessed the attempted exchange. The exchange was attempted because everyone agrees that the papers fell to the ground where the principal gathered them up. One custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, who was visibly agitated, walked quickly up to Respondent and, without much force, pressed the papers into the chest of Respondent, who grinned in response. The other custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, with her hand leading, "very strongly" "snapped" the papers into Respondent's hands "and stomach area," but this custodian thought that the two of them were playing around. Despite minor discrepancies in their testimony, the three independent witnesses clearly establish that Respondent had not lost his composure. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner failed to prove misconduct in office. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to treat Ms. Edwards with dignity or exercised poor judgment by insulting her and objecting to her supervisory qualifications. Each party slighted the other's academic pedigree; this inconsequential lapse, committed in the presence of only the principal, did not render objectionable Respondent's behavior in the incident. His questioning of Ms. Edwards' qualifications to observe his teaching would raise a different factual issue if directed toward his students or even uttered in the presence of his students, but raising this issue with the principal was appropriate and raising it in the presence of Ms. Edwards, whom the principal had included in the meeting, was forthright and timely. Respondent raised this issue at what he might have reasonably assumed was his Support Dialogue Meeting--meaning that this might have been his last chance to avoid a PIP or at least avoid a more elaborate PIP. Petitioner failed to prove any aggression by Respondent--unwarranted or warranted--or that Respondent was intimidating, abusive, harassing, and offensive toward Ms. Edwards. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent made malicious and untrue statements in defending this case. His testimony that Ms. Edwards referred to him as "boy" has been discredited, but the record fails to establish that this testimony was a knowing falsehood. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's effectiveness has been impaired by anything that he said or did in connection with the December 15 meeting. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed gross insubordination. As alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, this count fails even to state a claim of gross insubordination under the rule for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Specific Charges and reinstating Respondent with "back salary," as provided in section 1012.33(4)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Miami- Dade County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the letter of notification of suspension and dismissal dated June 20, 2013, and the Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 28, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed, in part, by a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Dr. Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dorothy De Posada, the assistant principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Petitioner alleges, in its Notice of Specific Charges, an array of factual scenarios spanning several years that, when considered individually or in concert, supply just cause for Respondent's termination. Below, the undersigned has endeavored to address each seriatim. 2010-2011 School Year: Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a Conference for the Record ("CFR") regarding this alleged incident.1/ Respondent was directed to strictly adhere to all Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB") rules and regulations, specifically, rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213. 2011-2012 School Year: On April 13, 2012, subsequent to the investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 27, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB rules and regulations, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Respondent was further directed to refrain from contacting any of the parties in the incident, refrain from using physical discipline, and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Respondent agreed to a 17-day suspension without pay regarding the alleged incident. 2012-2013 School Year: October 24, 2012 On November 16, 2012, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on October 24, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; refrain from contacting any parties involved in the investigation; and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Additionally, on November 28, 2012, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand concerning the October 24, 2012, incident. November 5, 2012 On November 5, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey observed several male students standing outside of Respondent's classroom during the class period. While Petitioner contends said students were told to remain outside of the classroom at Respondent's instruction due to body odor, Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to support such a finding.2/ November 26, 2012 Shawnda Green-McKenzie is the Horace Mann social studies department chair and a social studies teacher. Ms. McKenzie explained that, on or around November 26, 2012, it was necessary for several homeroom classes to be "dissolved." The students in the dissolved homeroom classroom were to be added to the roster of other homeroom classes. Ms. McKenzie further explained that the homeroom teachers, such as Respondent, were unaware of the number of additional homeroom students they would acquire until the day the additional students arrived. On November 26, 2012, Ms. Green-McKenzie observed that a substantial number of the newly acquired students did not have desks or chairs available for their use in Respondent's homeroom class. She further observed some of the children sitting on the floor. Petitioner failed to present any evidence concerning when the new students presented themselves to Respondent's homeroom or the duration said students did not have available desks or chairs. While Ms. Green-McKenzie agreed that children sitting on the floor would "be kind of a safety concern if someone were walking around in the classroom," she further opined that Respondent's classroom was "definitely too small to take any additional desks" and adding additional chairs would make it "tight." February 8, 2013 On March 21, 2013, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 8, 2013, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and the teaching profession. On April 9, 2013, Respondent issued a letter of reprimand concerning the alleged incident which likewise directed her to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit to herself and the teaching profession. February 20, March 7, and April 1, 2013 Dr. Jones-Carey testified that, on those occasions when a teacher is absent and a substitute teacher is unavailable, the students are typically "split" among classrooms within the same department. Teachers are expected to cooperate and receive the "split-list" students. Prior to February 9, 2013, Respondent was accommodating and amenable to accepting students on the "split-list." On February 20, March 7, and April 7, 2013, however, Ms. Green-McKenzie was informed that Respondent was unable to receive, or uncomfortable in receiving, any additional students. Respondent's refusal to accept the split-list students was premised upon her concern that accepting students, who may potentially have behavioral problems, may incite further problems between herself and the Horace Mann administration. After the second occasion (March 7, 2013), Ms. McKenzie-Green simply stopped placing Respondent's name on the split-lists. On each of the above-referenced occasions, Ms. McKenzie Green accepted the Respondent's split-list students into her classroom. Ms. McKenzie-Green explained that her classroom is a "double" that always has additional space and seating and can accommodate upwards of 60 students. Dr. Jones-Cary credibly testified that Respondent's unwillingness to accept the split-list children created a disruption in the "flow of instruction" and was disruptive to the operation of the school. March 1 and 5, 2013 On March 1 and March 5, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed Respondent, during class, seated in a chair in the doorway of her classroom with her feet up on the doorframe. On both occasions, Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to move inside the classroom; however, she refused. March 7, 2013 On March 7, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed that Respondent's classroom door was open. When Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to close the door, Respondent refused. In addition to Ms. De Posada's directive, Dr. Jones-Carey had previously issued an email directive to all faculty and staff to keep the classroom doors closed in an effort to preserve the newly-installed air-conditioning system. March 12, 2013 On March 12, 2013, Ms. De Posada was present in the main office with several parents, as well as clerical staff. Respondent was also present in the main office for the purpose of making photocopies. Due to the number and nature of individuals present, coupled with a pending deadline on another administrative matter, Ms. De Posada requested Respondent to leave the main office and offered clerical assistance in providing Respondent the needed copies. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that, in response to the request, Respondent complained loudly and defiantly, and refused to leave the office when directed. March 21, 2013 On March 21, 2013, Ms. De Posada presented to Respondent's classroom to conduct an official observation. On that occasion, she observed that, after the class bell had rung, Respondent's students remained outside and unsupervised. Ms. De Posada took it upon herself to usher the students inside the classroom. Respondent arrived prior to the late bell and took her seat at her desk. Ms. De Posada advised Respondent that she was there to officially observe and requested Respondent's lesson plans. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that Respondent thereafter opened her desk drawer, tossed her lesson plans to Ms. De Posada without speaking, and slammed the desk drawer.3/ Respondent proceeded to call roll and, upon completion of same, began reading the paper. Once finished her reading, Respondent remained in her chair and, with the exception of reprimanding three children, did not engage with the students. Respondent did not engage in any conversation with Ms. De Posada throughout the duration of the observation. Respondent concedes that she did not interact with Ms. De Posada during the observation because of her concern of being falsely accused of irate or belligerent behavior. April 3, 2013 On April 3, 2013, Horace Mann held a mandatory faculty meeting to provide training for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). Per the UTD Contract, teachers are required to extend their workday for the purpose attending faculty meetings; however, such meetings cannot exceed one hour and shall begin no later than ten minutes after students are dismissed. On this occasion, the faculty meeting was scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m., however, it began a few minutes later to allow all teachers to arrive. Respondent, believing the UTD Contract allowed for her to leave at 5:00 p.m., left prior to the meeting being formally dismissed and without prior approval, at approximately 5:00 p.m. When Dr. Carey-Jones called out to Respondent, she continued to walk away from the meeting. Respondent was notified via a school-wide email that a make-up session for the FCAT training would be conducted at 8:20 a.m. Respondent perceived the make-up session was voluntary because it was scheduled prior to 8:30 (the time she believes she is required to work) and conflicted with a FCAT practice run also scheduled for that morning. Respondent did not seek clarification as to where she was to report. Accordingly, Respondent did not present to the training, but rather, went to the testing center. It is undisputed that Respondent did not complete the requisite training, and, therefore, was unable to proctor the FCAT exam. As a result, other teachers were assigned to cover Respondent's duties or responsibilities. April 24 and May 6, 2013 On April 24, 2013, a CFR was held and Respondent was directed to adhere to School Board polices and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and her profession. On May 6, 2013, following Dr. Jones-Carey's recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated, the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") held a final CFR. Thereafter, OPS recommended that Respondent's employment be suspended pending dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Shavonne Anderson guilty of gross insubordination, suspend her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and place her on probation for a period of two years. Because Ms. Anderson has already been suspended for more than 180 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated, with the calculation of back pay not to include pay for the 180- day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 30th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
