The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a noninstructional employee of Petitioner's, should be fired.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Jimmie Alvin ("Alvin") was a School Security Monitor in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District").1 From 1989 until September 2003, when Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Alvin worked at Miami Beach Senior High School. During the 2001-02 school year, Alvin failed to show up for work without authorization at least twice, and he was tardy some 28 times. Alvin was disciplined for this poor performance at a conference-for-the-record held on April 25, 2002. Alvin's attendance improved thereafter, and during the 2002-03 school year, he was late for work just six times. Other problems arose, however. In September 2002, a female student accused Alvin of having touched her arm inappropriately while, allegedly, simultaneously calling her a "whore" in front of others. Following the student's complaint, the District charged Alvin with violating the School Board Rule against improper employee- student relationships. School detectives investigated the charge and found it "substantiated" on conflicting evidence. At the final hearing in this case, however, Alvin credibly denied the allegations. For its part, the Board offered no persuasive, competent, nonhearsay evidence to prove that Alvin actually committed the acts of which the female student had accused him. Thus, it is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that the evidence fails to establish Alvin's guilt with regard to the charge of engaging in an improper employee- student relationship. On March 3, 2003, Alvin was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to sell. On April 24, 2003, Alvin pleaded "no contest" to the criminal charge and was sentenced to one year's probation. At a conference-for-the-record on May 6, 2003, Alvin was notified that the District would review information concerning his past attendance problems, the alleged improper relationship with a student, and his recent criminal conviction, to determine an appropriate disciplinary response. At its regularly scheduled meeting on September 10, 2003, the Board suspended Alvin without pay pending the termination of his employment for just cause. At all times material, Alvin was a member of United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"), a teachers' union. The conditions of Alvin's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement referred to in the record as the "UTD Contract."2 Ultimate Factual Determinations The undersigned is unable to determine whether, as a matter of ultimate fact, Alvin should be fired for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, because the UTD contract is not in the evidentiary record.3 Therefore, it is determined that the Board has failed to carry its burden of proving the alleged grounds for dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Alvin of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Alvin be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Alvin back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools recommended that the Respondent enter into a professional services contract with the Petitioner, Gene Starr?
Findings Of Fact Gene A. Starr has been continuously employed by the School Board of Hamilton County as an agriculture teacher since the 1985-1986 school year. On March 18, 1988, the principal of Hamilton County High School recommended to the Superintendent of the Respondent that the Respondent enter into a professional service contract with Mr. Starr. At a meeting of the Respondent held on April 12, 1988, the Superintendent made recommendations to the Respondent concerning reappointment of a number of employees. The Superintendent specifically recommended that Mr. Starr receive a professional service contract. A motion was made and seconded by members of the Respondent to accept the recommendations of the Superintendent. The following events took place, as reported in the minutes of the Respondent's April 12, 1988, meeting: At the Board's request, Mr. Lauer [the Superintendent] appeared to discuss the recommendation of Gene Starr. The consensus of the Board was that the agriculture program has not progressed as per expectations, and that Mr. Starr's coaching duties conflict with his duties as an agriculture teacher. It was the opinion of some members that there should be more emphasis on crop production and harvesting and on supervision of home projects. Following the discussion of the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr, the Superintendent "asked for and was granted permission to withdraw his recommendation on & Mr. Starr and to resubmit another recommendation on him at a subsequent meeting." The Superintendent then "amended his recommendation to omit Mr. Starr" and the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations was amended to reflect this change. The Respondent then approved the Superintendent's recommendations, as amended. The Respondent did not consider whether there was "good cause" to reject the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr. At a May 10, 1988, meeting of the Respondent the Superintendent recommended that Mr. Starr be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1988-1989 school year and that Mr. Starr serve in the instructional position for a fourth year on annual contract instead of being granted a professional services contract. The recommendation was withdrawn on advice of counsel for the Respondent. At a May 23, 1988, meeting of the Respondent Mr. Starr and the Respondent agreed that Mr. Starr would agree to a fourth year on annual contract, "subject to and without prejudice to a formal hearing on his right to a professional services contract." Mr. Starr was informed of this action in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Starr filed a Petition for a Formal Hearing challenging the Respondent's action with regard to the Superintendent's recommendation to the Respondent that Mr. Starr receive a professional services contract. In the Petition, Mr. Starr specifically requested the following relief: That the matter be assigned to the State of Florida Division of Administrative hearings [sic] for the assignment of a hearing officer. That a formal hearing be held on this particular petition pursuant to Sec. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. as to Petitioner's entitlement to employment under a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools be accepted by the School Board of Hamilton County unless the School Board of Hamilton County concludes that there is good cause for rejecting the recommendation. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4116 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-9. 3 10. 4-8 Statement of events which occurred at the formal hearing and some of the arguments advanced by the parties at the formal hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Drawer 151 Jasper, Florida 32052 Owen Hinton, Superintendent Hamilton County School Board Post Office Box 1059 Jasper, Florida 32052 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether, as the district school board alleges, an elementary school teacher slapped a student’s face in class—an allegation which, if proved, would give the district just cause to suspend the teacher without pay for five days.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant, it was (and remained as of the final hearing) Beal’s employer. Beal is an elementary school teacher who, during the relevant school year (2018-19), taught a first-grade class comprising four special education students with autism, one of whom is named R.S. The incident giving rise to this action occurred on Friday, December 7, 2018. Throughout the morning that day, R.S. had been coughing intermittently, prompting Beal to admonish R.S., multiple times, about the need to cover his mouth. At some point, R.S. left his desk and approached Beal, who was sitting behind a table at the front of the classroom. R.S. positioned himself near Beal and proceeded to cough in her face. Because R.S. did not testify, there is no direct evidence regarding his intentions. It is reasonable to infer from R.S.’s conduct (and is hereby found), however, that—for whatever reasons—R.S. was deliberately directing respiratory jets towards Beal, using uncovered coughs to invade the teacher’s personal space. Beal continued to implore the student to cover his mouth and to move away from her, but to no avail. What happened next is in dispute. There were two adults in the classroom at this crucial moment—Beal and Martha Quesada, a paraprofessional who had been assigned to work one-on-one with one of Beal’s students (not R.S.). A second paraprofessional assigned to Beal’s classroom, Jeffrey Roberts, was having lunch in the media center when this incident took place. Beal testified that she began waving her hands back and forth in front of her face, to fan away the respiratory droplets from R.S.’s uncovered coughs. Beal’s testimony in this regard is credited as truthful, for the act she described is a spontaneous, self-protective response to being coughed on. Ms. Quesada testified that Beal did more than wave. She claims that Beal committed a battery upon R.S., slapping the boy across the cheek, hard enough to make a clapping sound, which she says she heard. Ms. Quesada testified that R.S. exclaimed, “Ms. Beal, you hit me!” as he began screaming loudly and inconsolably. This is obviously a serious accusation, which, if true, constitutes just cause for a five-day suspension. Although the possibility that Beal slapped R.S. cannot be ruled out, nevertheless, based upon the evidence presented, it cannot be found that, more likely than not, an attack occurred such as that described by Ms. Quesada. Her testimony is insufficiently persuasive to carry the School Board’s burden of proof. Given that the School Board’s case rests almost entirely on Ms. Quesada’s shoulders, an explanation is in order as to why her testimony comes up short. To begin, in her written statement prepared for the School Board on December 10, 2018, just a few days after the events at issue, Ms. Quesada described what she had seen as follows: “I saw Ms. Beal touching (like slapping) the left side of [R.S.’s] face and he screams and start screaming uncontrollably.” Touching is not like slapping, and yet here, in this important document, knowingly tendered as evidence during the investigation of the incident, Ms. Quesada conflated the two. This is not a minor matter, either. It is the material fact in dispute. Did Ms. Quesada see Beal merely touch R.S. and equate that with a slap? Then there are the little corroborating details about which Ms. Quesada testified, but which she failed to mention in her (nearly) contemporaneous written statement. Ms. Quesada wrote nothing about having heard the alleged slap, nor did she record R.S.’s supposed excited utterance accusing Beal of hitting him. While these are not necessary facts, they tend to make the essential allegation that Beal slapped R.S. somewhat more believable, and the School Board relies upon them. Their absence from the written statement, however, makes these seem like later embellishments, which, in turn, calls into question Ms. Quesada’s reliability as a witness. Next, a third corroborating detail contained in Ms. Quesada’s testimony is affirmatively disproved by the greater weight of the evidence. There is no dispute that after being coughed on by R.S., who was disobeying Beal’s instructions to stop, Beal left the classroom to ask Mr. Roberts to return and help her redirect R.S. (Mr. Roberts had known R.S. for a couple of years and had a good rapport with him.) Beal found Mr. Roberts in the media center, and he accompanied her back to the classroom.1 Everyone agrees that Beal was out of the classroom for about three minutes. According to Ms. Quesada, R.S. continued to scream the entire time and was still screaming when Beal and Mr. Roberts returned to the classroom. Ms. Quesada testified that Mr. Roberts tried to get the boy to calm down, failed, and thus had to remove the student, who was still screaming as he exited the room. Such behavior on R.S.’s part would be consistent with having been slapped by Beal, which is why the School Board draws attention to this aspect of Ms. Quesada’s testimony. Both Beal and Mr. Roberts, however, testified that R.S. was calm and quiet when they entered the classroom. Mr. Roberts recalled that R.S. was his usual self, exhibiting ordinary behavior. Mr. Roberts brought R.S. back to 1 The School Board emphasizes Mr. Roberts’s testimony that Beal was a “little upset” or “frustrated” when Beale approached him in the media center, as if this implies guilt. Beal’s reported mood, however, comports with the circumstances as she recounts them. Indeed, it would be surprising if Beal were not at least somewhat upset, since being coughed on at close range is annoying, as nearly everyone who has had the experience can attest. The undersigned regards Beal’s apparent frustration in that moment as a neutral fact. the library where he let the student watch a movie while he (Mr. Roberts) finished eating his lunch. During the 15 minutes remaining in Mr. Roberts’s lunch break, R.S. acted normally, and when it was time to go back to class, R.S. expressed no fear or reluctance, returning to Beal’s room without incident. In addition to these chinks in Ms. Quesada’s credibility armor are her immediate responses—or rather nonresponses—to Beal’s alleged abuse of R.S. It is undisputed that after Beal left the classroom, leaving Ms. Quesada in charge, Ms. Quesada did not use the telephone at her disposal to call security or request other help. Nor did she try to calm or examine R.S., whom she claims had just been slapped and was screaming. Ms. Quesada did not tell Mr. Roberts about the alleged attack when he returned to the classroom. Indeed, Ms. Quesada did not rush to inform anybody about what she allegedly had witnessed, including R.S.’s mother, whom she knew and could have approached when R.S. was picked up after school. Instead of promptly reporting the alleged incident, Ms. Quesada waited until after her shift had ended to call Maria Henao, the autism coach, who happened to be traveling at the time and unable to come to the phone right away. The two did speak the next day (Saturday), which was when Ms. Quesada first notified the School Board that she had seen Beal slap R.S. Ms. Quesada’s unhurried reaction to the alleged slap seems incommensurate with relative urgency of the situation. One would expect an adult eyewitness to classroom child abuse by a teacher to respond with a bit more vigor. Had Ms. Quesada intervened with alacrity, a timelier, and perhaps more fruitful, investigation would have been possible. Finally, there is some reason to believe that Ms. Quesada might be biased. At hearing, Ms. Quesada implied that a son of hers had died as a consequence of unreported child abuse, and she forthrightly acknowledged that, because of this personal tragedy, her “jobs” are to “protect the kids” and “to come forward no matter what” if she sees someone hurt a child. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to discount Ms. Quesada’s testimony somewhat to account for the possibility that she might assume the worst when it comes to uncommon adult-child interactions, such as the one at issue, and to resolve doubts and uncertainties in favor of the child and against the adult. Of course, none of the foregoing necessarily means that Ms. Quesada is not telling the truth, at least as she perceived the incident. Taken together, however, these considerations negatively affect the weight of her testimony, which to repeat is essentially, albeit not entirely, uncorroborated. The corroborating evidence, such as it is, consists of two hearsay declarations by R.S. One is the excited utterance, which was mentioned above. The other is R.S.’s alleged reaction to being asked by Ms. Henao, on the Monday following the alleged incident, why he had coughed in Beal’s face. According to Ms. Henao, R.S. answered this question by placing his hand on his cheek, becoming upset, and saying, “ow.” It should be added that this alleged communication occurred while Ms. Henao was walking R.S. back to class after his formal interview in connection with the investigation of Beal stemming from Ms. Quesada’s accusation, during which R.S. had said nothing about being slapped. These hearsay declarations were deemed admissible and considered.2 The undersigned considers R.S.’s alleged hearsay statements to be of little probative value because there is persuasive evidence that, at the time of the incident, R.S. was prone to exaggerating the effects of ordinary, harmless physical contact. Nichole Sanders, a teacher who was not involved in the subject incident, testified credibly that on several occasions around that time, R.S. declared that Ms. Sanders was hurting him, when in fact she was merely 2 R.S.’s excited utterance is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. The nonverbal conduct described by Ms. Henao (which the undersigned has treated as having been intended by R.S. as an assertion) is admissible to “supplement” Ms. Quesada’s testimony. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. This case serves as a reminder that admissibility and credibility are not synonymous. holding his hand.3 This tendency to exaggerate, coupled with the fact that R.S.’s statements are only hearsay, after all, is enough for the fact-finder to give this evidence very little weight. The bottom line is that Ms. Quesada’s thinly corroborated testimony, which is compromised by the several credibility defects described above, is insufficiently persuasive to support a finding that Beal slapped R.S. as charged. That said, Beal was not an especially effective witness, either. She was at times overly defensive and a little evasive. To be fair, however, being accused of child abuse, the undersigned imagines, is likely to negatively affect a party’s demeanor on the stand. Therefore, these factors do not compel a significant credibility discount. More troubling, in contrast, is Beal’s equivocation regarding whether her hand or fingers made contact with R.S. during the incident. Beal at times has denied that she touched R.S. and at other times allowed that her fingertips might have made contact with him inadvertently. Mr. Roberts testified that, on the next Monday after the incident (which was by then under investigation), Beal told him that she “might have” slapped R.S. on the hand, or even in the face. At hearing, Mr. Roberts emphasized that “might” was the “key word.” While Beal has expressed uncertainty about whether she touched R.S. that morning, she has consistently denied slapping the student. In this regard, Mr. Roberts’s testimony conflicts with Beal’s. Arguably, Mr. Roberts’s 3 The School Board argues that Ms. Sanders’s testimony does not establish that R.S. lied about being touched, as opposed to exaggerating the effects of the physical contact. This is true as far as it goes. But Beal is not charged with merely “touching” R.S. She is accused of intentionally slapping the student. Ms. Sanders’s testimony establishes that R.S. was capable of dramatizing a nonharmful touch and, in fact, did so several times in her presence. If, as is possible, Beal had made incidental, harmless contact with R.S. while waving her hands in defensive response to his purposeful, uncovered coughing in her personal space, it would be consistent with R.S.’s known behavior for him to have screamed “Ouch, you’re hurting [or hitting] me,” or words to that effect. testimony concerning Beal’s qualified “admission” corroborates Ms. Quesada’s testimony about the incident. As the fact-finder, the undersigned considers the “admission,” as recounted by Mr. Roberts, to be insufficiently probative to tip the scale in the School Board’s favor. There are two reasons for this. First, the “admission” is hearsay,4 and, hence, the possibility exists that Beal’s words lose some subtlety of the speaker’s intended meaning when filtered through a third party, even a relatively friendly one such as Mr. Roberts. Second, the “key word”—might—softens the “admission” to the point that it is not really an “admission” in the sense of being a concession to the truth of the matter. Regarding Beal’s credibility, the bottom line is this: she failed to prove her innocence. Fortunately for Beal, however, she was not required to do so. Beal has consistently denied having slapped R.S., which is the gravamen of the charges against her. The School Board failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Beal did, in fact, slap the student. Beal’s shortcomings as a witness do not make the School Board’s evidence more persuasive; the result, rather, is that the entire record, including Beal’s testimony, is insufficient to support a finding that, more likely than not, Beal slapped (or did not slap) R.S. on December 7, 2018. DETERMINATION OF ULTIMATE FACT The School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Beal by a preponderance of the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order exonerating Pamela D. Beal of all charges brought against her in this proceeding, rescinding the suspension, and awarding Beal back salary and benefits as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 (eServed) Maya A. Moore, Esquire Douglas G. Griffin, Esquire Andrew Carrabis, Esquire Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Eleventh Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Tenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Conclusions This cause coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, at its meeting conducted on August 16, 2011, to consider the Recommended Order, entered on June 21, 2011 by the Honorable Claude B. Arrington, Administrative Law Judge of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, having considered the Recommended Order, to which neither party filed exceptions, and being fully advised in the Premises: IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Recommended Order is adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference; and 2. RACHEL VON HAGEN’S professional service contract with The School Board of Broward County, Florida is terminated. Filed September 13, 2011 8:54 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Broward County School Board vs. Rachel Von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order aa AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this \ ( aay of hag » 2011. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD Za Aa By: ia iW. Williams, Chair COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES T. WHITELOCK, ESQ. Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13" Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 MARK HERDMAN, ESQ. Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater Florida 33761 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Broward County Schoo! Board vs. Rachel von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER Pursuant to Section 120.68, Fla. Sta., a party to this proceeding may seek judicial review of this Final Order in the appropriate district court of appeal by filing a notice of appeal with Noemi Gutierrez, Agency Clerk, Official School Board Records, The School Board of Broward County, Florida, 600 Southeast Third Avenue — 2"! Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this Final Order. A copy of the notice and a copy of this Final Order, together with the appropriate filing fee, must also be filed with the Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2399. If you fail to file your notice of appeal within the time prescribed by laws and the rules of court, you will lose your right to appeal this Final Order. fritz/allwork/doah/employment/vonhagen Rachel final order-final
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant Principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as Principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an Intern Principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time Intern Principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and (5) accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, a fact which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract. Employment Requiring a Teaching Certificate At the time of hearing, Ms. Maynard had not found employment requiring a teaching certificate since being suspended, without pay and benefits, by the School Board on or about March 18, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed Counts 2 (only as to gross immorality), 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16; Dismissing Counts 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17; and Suspending Doreen Maynard's educator's certificate for three years, with denial of an application for an educator's certificate for the three-year period, and, after completion of the suspension, placing her on probation for one year under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commissioner of Education. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, 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 21st day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Stanley McIntyre, was employed by the Petitioner as a custodian at Apalachicola High School in July 1984. Mr. Philip Michael Fox was the principal at Apalachicola High School at that time. Petitioner is a governmental agency charged with providing public educational instruction to students in the school district of Franklin County, and enforcing State laws embodied in Chapters 230 and 231, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6B-4, Florida Administrative Code, which pertain as pertinent hereto, to the hiring, termination or suspension of non-instructional employees such as Mr. McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre's duties as custodian included opening the front office of the school every morning, cleaning that front office daily, as well as cutting the grass on the school lawn. Mr. McIntyre was to work on a regular schedule for grass cutting such that the grass was supposed to be cut each Monday. On the morning of July 3, 1984, Mr. Fox approached Mr. McIntyre on his way into the school building in the morning and mentioned to him that the grass in front of the school needed to be cut. Mr. Fox stated that the grass was approaching knee length. Mr. McIntyre explained to him that he was letting the grass grow higher because of the summer heat and that it was harmful to the grass and its roots if the grass was cut too short during hot, dry weather. Mr. Fox indicated to Mr. McIntyre that he understood that reason, but still required the grass to be cut lower. In fact, the Superintendent and School Board members had complained to Mr. Fox about the unkempt appearance of the lawn. Shortly before July 3, 1984, an incident had occurred at the high school office involving the safe being left open and some money being stolen. The Respondent and two other custodians had evidently been questioned about the incident, taken to the local police station and finger printed. Mr. McIntyre was sensitive and upset about the incident, evidently believing that others working at the school believed him to be one of the culprits in the incident, especially the secretaries in the front office. Shortly before noon on July 3, 1984, Mr. Fox was departing the school to attend a Rotary Club meeting. The Respondent approached him to discuss this incident concerning which he believed he was under suspicion. Mr. McIntyre related to Mr. Fox that he was tired of being accused of things that went wrong in the front office and did not desire to work there any more. Mr. Fox assured Mr. McIntyre that he was not accused of any wrong-doing and that Mr. Fox had been assured by the school Superintendent that the matter had already been resolved. Mr. Fox assured Mr. McIntyre of this and told him that he was not accused of anything and not to worry about it, but that they would discuss it when he returned from lunch. After Mr. Fox returned to the school that day, Mrs. Martina, an employee in the office, informed him that Mr. McIntyre had put his keys on the front desk and informed her that he was leaving for the rest of the week. The keys Mr. McIntyre left with Mrs. Martina included those: to the front office door. In any event, Mr. McIntyre remained away from work for the remainder of that week, which included the fourth of July holiday. No arrangements had been made with Mr. Fox for Mr. McIntyre to be away from work and Franklin County School Board policies require that non-instructional employees have approval of their immediate supervisor before taking annual leave. There is no question that Mr. McIntyre had sufficient annual leave accrued so that he was not absent without leave for the remainder of that week. Although Mr. McIntyre obtained no approval from Mr. Fox, his immediate supervisor, he did inform Mrs. Martina that he would be on annual leave and such a practice had become customary at the school. In any event, the question of unauthorized absences is not properly at issue in this case since no such charge was made against the Respondent prior to hearing so that he could prepare to defend against it. On the Monday following the above incident, that is Monday, July 9, 1984, Mr. Fox instructed Mrs. Martina to inform McIntyre to come to his office to see him when he returned to work. Upon Mr. McIntyre's arrival, Mr. Fox questioned him concerning why he left his keys in the office the previous week. Mr. McIntyre again told Mr. Fox that he was tired of being accused of stealing from the front office and did not intend to work there any more. Mr. Fox informed him that it was not his proper place to tell the principal what he would and would not do, (meaning that he was subject to the principal's supervision and not independent of him), and reminded Mr. McIntyre that he had previously changed Mr. McIntyre's work schedule at his own request so that he would be able to work in the front office because of friction he was having with another custodial employee who had been associated with McIntyre because of their identical work schedules. After reminding Mr. McIntyre of this, Mr. Fox requested that he take back the keys to the front office and proceed to perform his job as previously instructed, including opening up the front office and cleaning it. Mr. McIntyre, however, stated several times that he was not going to work in the front office any more. Mr. Fox told him that he needed to simply do his job, whereupon Mr. McIntyre replied that Mr. Fox needed to make the secretaries do their jobs (in other words, to refrain from accusing McIntyre of any wrong-doing). Mr. Fox assured Mr. McIntyre that he would take care of any problem he was having with the secretaries and not to worry about it, but in the meantime to be sure to perform his own job properly. Fox told Mr. McIntyre more than once that his only concern should be proper performance of his own job. Mr. McIntyre responded that he was doing his job and so Mr. Fox responded that he needed to do it correctly because the grass in the front of the school needed to be cut. Mr. McIntyre, at this juncture, reiterated his reason for allowing the grass to grow long and Mr. Fox remonstrated that it was not short enough and he wanted it cut shorter. The grass was quite long, approaching knee length at that time. Mr. McIntyre then became excited and raised his voice at Mr. Fox, stating in effect that he was doing the best he could and that if Mr. Fox did not like the way he was doing his job, then Mr. Fox could fire him. Mr. Fox then asked him to simply go cut the grass and perform his other duties as instructed and that that was all he needed to worry about. Mr. Fox and Mr. McIntyre repeated themselves several times with Fox directing McIntyre to cut the grass and perform his job in the front office as instructed and McIntyre stating that he was doing his job and that if Fox did not like it he could fire him if he wished. Finally Mr. McIntyre stated his belief that Mr. Fox was "picking on him" because of an incident in which several black players boycotted the football team and intimating that Mr. Fox had blamed the Respondent for this dissension on the team. At this point Mr. Fox told Mr. McIntyre that the conversation was ended and that he should go to work. Mr. McIntyre persisted in responding to Mr. Fox in the above fashion and in effect challenging Fox to fire him if he was dissatisfied with his performance. After several such repetitions, Mr. Fox obliged him, requested his keys and told him he was fired. The doors to the office were closed during this conversation but Mrs. Martina overheard Mr. McIntyre shouting at Mr. Fox concerning his belief that he was performing his job adequately and challenging Mr. Fox to fire him. Mrs. Martina was not able to overhear everything stated by Mr. Fox, however. In any event, it has been established that on both July 3 and July 9, 1984, Mr. McIntyre informed Mr. Fox that he would not work any more in the front office. Mr. McIntyre, in his testimony, attributed his firing to an incident in which the black players quit the football team. Mr. McIntyre had worked as an assistant football coach at the high school at that time, some eight months before his firing. According to Mr. McIntyre, the incidents occurred in September and November 1983. Mr. Fox indicated that the incidents stemmed from a conflict between McIntyre and the head football coach, who were blaming each other for the problems with the recalcitrant black players. Mr. Fox indicated that he received the information from third parties, did not truly know who was responsible and had never blamed anyone for the dissension on the team. Mr. Fox felt that he had always had a good relationship with Mr. McIntyre and after the incident had spoken with him about it. Mr. Fox related that it was in the best interest of the players that they continue to play football, and Mr. McIntyre apparently agreed. The situation apparently resolved itself with the departure of the head football coach from the Franklin County School System. In any event, both McIntyre and Fox apparently discussed the matter at the time with no apparent conflict or animosity. These incidents occurred in September and November 1983, approximately eight months before McIntyre was terminated and thus Mr. McIntyre's contention that Mr. Fox recommended his firing because of the "football incidents" is not convincing. The Respondent's three witnesses, including Respondent, testified that on July 3, he mowed the grass as requested by Mr. Fox. The Petitioner's witnesses, including Mr. Fox, Mrs. Martina, and Ms. Diane Abel, testified that the grass was not mowed when they observed it on July 3. Mrs. Martina left the building at about 4:30 and Ms. Abel left about 4:00 in the afternoon, after the Respondent had given his keys to Mrs. Martina and taken annual leave. They testified that the grass was not mowed at that time and was quite long. Mrs. Martina testified that the grass at the front of the school had not been mowed at that time. It is possible that some of the school grounds were mowed that day. Be that as it may, whether the grass was mowed or not on July 3 is not material to resolution of the material issues in this case. The fact remains that on both July 3 and July 9, Mr. Fox told the Respondent that he simply needed to do his job and not worry about the alleged accusations, after explaining to Mr. McIntyre that he had not been accused of anything and that the matter had already been resolved. Mr. McIntyre, on both occasions, expressed his refusal to work in the front office, including unlocking the door of the office in the mornings, after Mr. Fox instructed him to continue performing those and his other duties, including cutting the grass.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Stanley McIntyre, be suspended without pay from his employment with the School Board of Franklin County, with such suspension without pay to terminate upon the Petitioner's entry of a Final Order herein, if on the date of that Final Order a similar and suitable position is available to which he may be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2601 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: a) Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. a) Rejected inasmuch as the various charging documents also notified Respondent that his prosecution involved neglect of his duties. Rejected inasmuch as the various charging documents also notified Respondent that his prosecution involved neglect of his duties. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as to the issue of unauthorized absence only. Accepted as to the issue of unauthorized absence only. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the findings made by the Hearing Officer on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the findings made by the Hearing Officer on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the findings made by the Hearing Officer on this subject matter. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not Findings of Fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not Findings of Fact. Accepted, but not dispositive. Rejected as not comporting with the weight of evidence adduced or the lack thereof. Rejected as a discussion of the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Rejected as a discussion of the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as immaterial and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as discussion of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. Rejected. Accepted. Rejected as not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not consonant with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. Rejected as to its overall import. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. Rejected as not consonant with the clear and convincing evidence adduced. COPIES FURNISHED: Van Russell, Esquire WATKINS RUSSELL 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Paolo G. Annino, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 822 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gloria Tucker Superintendent Franklin County School Board 155 Avenue E Apalachicola, Florida 32320
