The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Brown has been employed by the School Board since September 5, 2000, working in various maintenance positions. In 2004, he took the position of "night lead" at Fairmont Park Elementary School, in which he was responsible for supervising the night cleaning and maintenance crew at the school. On February 8, 2010, Mr. Brown was arrested by an officer with the St. Petersburg Police Department and charged with two felony counts, one for sale of cocaine and one for possession of cocaine. The same charges were set forth in a Felony Information filed by the state attorney for Pinellas County on March 17, 2010. Mr. Brown self-reported the arrest and charges to the OPS. Based on that information, he was transferred from his position at an elementary school setting to a similar position at a non-student site that was a warehouse, while the charges worked their way through the criminal justice system. However, after Respondent was called to a meeting at OPS and he refused to answer any questions regarding the investigation, the decision was made to proceed with disciplinary action, even though the criminal case was still pending. The superintendent issued a letter on October 19, 2010, notifying Respondent of the decision to recommend termination of his employment at the November 9, 2010, School Board meeting, unless Respondent requested an administrative hearing, in which case the recommendation would be to suspend Respondent without pay pending the conclusion of the administrative hearing process. As stated in the agenda item attached to the letter, which served as the administrative complaint, the basis for the recommended action was that Mr. Brown had been arrested and charged with sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine, both felonies. The OPS obtained copies of the police reports describing the circumstances of the arrest and made the determination that Mr. Brown violated the following provisions of School Board Policy 4140 (Policy 4140): A.2.a. (illegal possession or use of drugs, or being under the influence of illegal drugs, while on or off duty); A.2.b. (illegal sale of drugs whether on or off duty); A.2.c. (possession, use, or being under the influence of illegal drugs while off duty); A.3. (committing or conviction of a criminal act--felony); A.21 (conduct unbecoming a board employee that brings the district into disrepute or that disrupts the orderly process of the district); and A.22. (misconduct or misconduct in office). On November 9, 2010, the School Board adopted the superintendent's recommendation. Because of Mr. Brown's request for an administrative hearing, he was suspended without pay pending the outcome of this hearing process. The circumstances leading to Mr. Brown's arrest, as described in police reports considered by OPS in its investigation, were described, in large part, at the final hearing by Officer Doug Dilla. Officer Dilla is currently employed in the uniform service division of the St. Petersburg Police Department. However, from early 2008 until recently in 2011, he was in the narcotics and vice division. At some point in 2008, he began working as an undercover agent. He obtained information from a confidential informant, whom he believed to be reliable, that the confidential informant had purchased narcotics from Respondent. The confidential informant gave Officer Dilla Respondent's name and address. Officer Dilla conducted surveillance at Respondent's address, where he recorded the license tag numbers from cars parked there. His trace of those tag numbers identified members of Respondent's family, including a silver Nissan Altima registered in Respondent's mother's name. Officer Dilla also was able to retrieve a photograph of Respondent through drivers' license records and had the confidential informant positively identify Respondent as the person from whom he had purchased narcotics, whom he knew as "Quan." On August 4, 2008, Officer Dilla arranged for the confidential informant to join him and, while they were together, to contact Respondent and try to arrange a purchase of powder cocaine from Mr. Brown. Officer Dilla picked up the confidential informant and they parked at a gas station, where the confidential informant called Mr. Brown on his cell phone number. The cell phone number called by the confidential informant is admittedly Mr. Brown's; the number, in the police report prepared by Officer Dilla, is the same as Mr. Brown's phone number on file with the School Board. In the phone conversation, the confidential informant told the person on the line that he wanted two "sacks" or two "50s," to indicate two small bags of powder cocaine and to meet him and the person with him, who wanted to make the purchase, at a Hess station located a few blocks from where Mr. Brown lived. Within 20 minutes of that phone call, the silver Nissan Altima registered to Respondent's mother pulled into the station and parked over by the car vacuum machine. Officer Dilla and the confidential informant got out of the car and approached Respondent in the Nissan Altima. Respondent got out of his car and walked around to the passenger door, and Officer Dilla met Respondent by the passenger door. Respondent gestured to the front passenger seat and said, "go ahead and take it." There were two small zip-lock baggies of white powder which Officer Dilla believed to be powder cocaine. He reached in and got the two baggies and gave Respondent $100. Respondent got back in his car and drove away. Officer Dilla put the baggies in his pocket, then drove away with the confidential informant, dropped him off, and then proceeded back to the police department. Back at the police department, Officer Dilla performed a field test on the powder in the baggies. He identified the field test as the Scott Reagent Modified System Test Kit "G," and he described how the test was performed. The results were "presumptively positive" for powder cocaine. After conducting the field test, Officer Dilla weighed the baggies, deposited them in a heat-sealed evidence bag, and secured them in a locked evidence locker. According to Officer Dilla, the material was then sent off to a lab for further confirmatory testing. However, Officer Dilla did not testify that he personally removed the material from the evidence locker and delivered it to the lab. According to Officer Dilla's police report, after he deposited the evidence in an evidence locker, he took no further action. While a better predicate could have been laid for the extent of Officer Dilla's experience or training in administering field tests generally and the specific field test he used, there was no objection to Officer Dilla's testimony regarding the field test results, which he described with confidence and without hesitancy. Respondent denied many of the details to which Officer Dilla testified, but there were some details he could not deny. Respondent acknowledged that it was his cell phone number that was written in the police report, which was prepared by Officer Dilla two days after the purchase. Respondent testified that many people know his phone number and perhaps someone who had been "busted" by Officer Dilla gave the officer his phone number for some reason. Respondent then testified that it must have come from the confidential informant, but Respondent could not explain why the confidential informant would have given the officer Respondent's phone number. Respondent also admitted that he drove his mother's silver Nissan Altima. He claimed that the officer must have gotten the tag number and the car description because he goes to that Hess station "every day" and that he was probably there on the day in question to buy gas. Respondent, therefore, admitted two key components of Officer Dilla's testimony and police report: that the telephone number that Officer Dilla said was called by the confidential informant to arrange a drug purchase was Respondent's phone number; and that Respondent did drive the silver Nissan Altima to the Hess station on the day in question. Having admitted that much, Respondent failed to explain the rest of Officer Dilla's testimony. Respondent said that Officer Dilla made up the story, that it was a case of mistaken identity. Yet neither the phone number, nor the vehicle's presence was a case of mistaken identity. It would be necessary to conclude that Officer Dilla intentionally fabricated every detail, except for the phone number and the vehicle in order to falsely accuse Respondent of selling him cocaine. Respondent offered no reason, much less a credible reason, why Officer Dilla would fabricate the details of his report. The greater weight of the credible evidence does not support a finding of any fabrication. The undersigned accepts Officer Dilla's more credible version of the events of August 4, 2008. Respondent came quickly to the Hess station after receiving a telephone call from someone saying that he had someone who wanted to buy two "50s"--two baggies of powder cocaine. Respondent complied by selling two baggies of white powder for $50 each, for a total of $100. Based on the totality of the evidence, including Officer Dilla's clear, credible testimony regarding the details of the arrangements made for him to purchase cocaine from Respondent, his actual purchase of white powder from Respondent for $100 and the results of the field test that were presumptively positive for powder cocaine, the undersigned finds that it is more likely than not that the white powder that Respondent sold to Officer Dilla was, in fact, powder cocaine. The School Board sought to buttress its evidence regarding the substance that was sold to Officer Dilla by attempting to establish that the same two baggies of powder were later tested by the Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory and that the results confirmed that the substance was, in fact, cocaine. However, no chain of custody evidence was offered to establish that the substance tested by the lab was, in fact, the two baggies of white powder purchased from Respondent and secured by Officer Dilla in a locker after he completed his field test. The lab analysis evidence was even more attenuated from Officer Dilla's purchase because what purported to be the substance purchased from Respondent was tested once in 2008 at the lab, and then retested in 2010; however, only the 2010 reanalysis and results were sufficiently supported by testimony of the lab director who conducted reanalysis and prepared the lab report and back-up work papers admitted in evidence. The original 2008 test was done by a lab technician who moved out of state, and there was no witness who could testify from personal knowledge of what tests were done or how the report was prepared in 2008. Accordingly, as explained in Endnote 2, the 2008 lab report was not admitted in evidence. No chain of custody evidence was offered to trace the apparent movement of the two baggies of powder purchased by Officer Dilla from the evidence locker to the lab in 2008, from the lab in 2008 to one or more unidentified holding places for a two-year period, then back to lab in 2010 for reanalysis. The evidence established that the substance in two baggies delivered to the lab in 2010 for testing did, in fact, test conclusively positive for cocaine. The credentials and expertise of the lab director and the reliability of her methodologies used to test the substance three different ways, each test corroborating the other tests and increasing the reliability of the outcome, were established and accepted. However, the School Board failed to prove that the two baggies of powder tested in 2010 were, in fact, the same two baggies of powder that Officer Dilla purchased from Respondent two years earlier and locked in a locker after conducting the field test. Therefore, the undersigned cannot make a finding that the white powder purchased from Respondent was conclusively cocaine, beyond any reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of any other substance. However, the totality of the credible evidence meets a lower threshold of proof, establishing as explained above, that the white powder obtained from Respondent was more likely than not cocaine. Officer Dilla credibly explained the lapse in time between his purchase of cocaine from Respondent and Respondent's arrest. After making the purchase, Officer Dilla's intent was to try to make additional purchases to increase the total weight of the drugs purchased so as to reach a quantity that would constitute the more serious offense of trafficking. However, he was called off of that matter to work on a larger-scale investigation. Therefore, he prepared a probable cause packet on the case so that the results of his investigation could be utilized, alone or in conjunction with additional information, to bring charges against Respondent, because Officer Dilla believed that there was sufficient evidence to arrest Respondent and charge him. Respondent's criminal case was set for trial several different times with witnesses subpoenaed by the state, but Respondent's attorney successfully moved for continuances four times. In May 2011, the matter was finally resolved without a trial, by a plea agreement whereby Respondent pled guilty to two counts of possessing drugs without a prescription, second-degree misdemeanors, in exchange for the prosecution amending the information to drop the original charges of possession and sale of cocaine, both felonies, and change the charges to two misdemeanor counts of possessing drugs without a prescription. Respondent's employment record was summarized in the evidence. Apparently, up until 2008, his record with the School Board was unblemished. On March 5, 2008, Respondent received a "needs improvement" evaluation based on attendance. Respondent received another "needs improvement" evaluation the next year, this time based on quality of work. Also during this same timeframe, on November 14, 2008, Respondent received a reprimand from the principal of the elementary school for "misconduct in office." No details of this disciplinary incident were provided, but Respondent did not dispute that he had received the reprimand for misconduct in office that is noted in evidence in the summary of his employment record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent, Quan R. Brown. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Roland C. Foote, Respondent, holds Florida teaching certificate number 107445, Graduate, Rank II. He served as Principal of Webster Elementary School (formerly Webster Junior High), hereinafter called Webster, from 1968 until he was replaced in late 1978. He has been employed in the Florida school system for more than twenty-five years. On May 8, 1978, Respondent sent a letter (Exhibit 10) to the Sumter County School Superintendent recommending the suspension of James Constable, one of the teachers at Webster. This was referred to the PPC for investigation by the Superintendent. By letter dated May 16, 1978 (Exhibit 12) some 11 teachers at Webster signed a letter to Ms. Angela J. Peterson, an investigator for the PPC, requesting an audience to discuss several urgent matters relating to Webster. Constable was one of the signers of this letter. Some of those who signed were aware the purposes was to complain of the manner in which Respondent ran Webster; others thought the purpose was to assist Constable. The first meeting with the PPC representative was held on June 6, 1978. Some eight teachers attended this meeting, discussed with Ms. Peterson several situations of which they were aware involving possible improper conduct by Respondent, and agreed to provide PPC with testimony and facts necessary to prepare charges against Respondent. Numerous additional meetings were held by this group, some with PPC representatives and others without PPC representation, for the purpose of reconstructing the dates of the incidents complained of and to ascertain who had knowledge of the incidents. Prior to discussing the specific charges preferred against Respondent and the evidence relating thereto, additional background information gleaned from the testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence is first presented. Sumter County is predominantly a small-farm agricultural area as opposed to an urban society, with the socioeconomic level below that of most of the larger counties in Florida. In addition to those permanent residents who live and work on farms, there are migrant workers who appear at harvest time. The population mix is about 1/3 black and that is also the school population mix. Several of these students are classified as educationally mentally retarded and qualify for supplemental education programs. About 7 of the 25 teacher faculty at Webster are black and no evidence of any faculty racial tensions or frictions was presented. Friction has existed at Webster between some faculty members and Respondent for a long time. In school year 1974-75 a special workshop was conducted at Webster to improve the communications between the faculty and the administration. The workshop met with mixed success. Some of the teachers at Webster mad minor complaints to various supervisors over the years but none was ever willing to reduced a complaint to writing and present it to the Superintendent. As a result, the Superintendent on one occasion told the faculty at Webster that he was tired of hearing complaints about Webster and for them to work out their problems at the school. The principal at smaller schools, where assistant principals or deans are not provided, is the primary as well as final, authority in the discipline of students and in particular in the administering of corporal punishment. In addition to a wooden paddle or two, Respondent had provided himself with a leather strap which he also used to administer corporal punishment. The strap used by Respondent was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 20. At the time it was used, a metal slat was inserted between the two pieces of leather comprising the strap to provide additional stiffness. The addition of this metal slat did not make the strap a more sinister punishment tool. Straps similar to Exhibit 20 are sold in tack shops and are called bats. They are approximately 18 inches long and are comprised of two pieces of leather one-eight inch thick, sewed together. The bat is about one inch wide through the first foot of its length and then flares out to two inches wide at the end. The two pieces of leather at the flared end are not sewn and they clap together making a louder noise when something is struck with the bat than would occur with only a single piece of leather. It is this flared part of the bat that contacts the backside of a pupil who is administered corporal punishment. This strap or bat will cause less injury to a student than a wooden paddle if each is used with the same degree of force. While the immediate sting from the bat may be as great as the sting from a paddle, the former is much less likely to bruise a child than is the paddle. Some of the implications of the material allegations, as well as the opinions of some witnesses, are that the use of a leather strap for administering corporal punishment is itself cruel and unusual. So long as corporal punishment is authorized, these implications and opinions are without foundation. The material allegations preferred against Respondent will be discussed in chronological order. It is to be noted that the two earliest incidents were familiar to many people at the time they occurred, but no action was taken until 1978. Material Allegation 3 alleges that on or about March 1, 1972 at 8:30 a.m. Larry James, a ten-year old black student at Webster, received an eye injury resulting in the loss of sight in the injured eye when a nail he was attempting to drive was deflected by the hammer and became impaled in his right eye. James was attempting to repair a loose leg on a chair which his teacher had told him to get the custodian to fix. While the teacher was out of the room, James attempted to repair the chair and the accident ensued. James pulled the nail from his eye and ran to the bathroom. His teacher, Mrs. Batten, took him to the office. Respondent was not at school on March 1, 1972 and did not see James until after James returned to school several days later. Petitioner presented five witnesses, including James, the doctor who treated him, his mother, and Mr. and Mrs. Donahue, who were teachers at Webster to whom James was taken by the teacher, Mrs. Batte. None of these witnesses saw Respondent on the day of the accident. James was not sent to a doctor and spent most of the day in Mrs. Donahue's class until the school bus took him home, presumably after 2:45 p.m. His mother testified she had James taken to a doctor that day, which she identified as 2 March, two days after her youngest child was born on 28 February 1972. 1972 was a leap year and February that year contained 29 days. James was referred to the hospital in Ocala by his family doctor, Dr. Wiley. The medical records show James was admitted at 3:56 p.m. on March 2, 1972. It is doubtful James could have reached home on the bus before 3:15 p.m. or reached Dr. Wiley's office before 4:00 p.m. The only time and date certain was the date and time admission to the hospital. The parties stipulated that school records would show Larry James was absent from school on March 2, 3 and 4, 1972. Accordingly, the accident obviously occurred March 1, 1972. The evidence was undisputed that on March 1, 1972, Respondent Foote was in Leesburg attending the closing on the residence he was purchasing. Respondent's testimony to this effect was corroborated by the bank closing officer and documents executed at closing (Exhibit 43). Respondent testified that he first learned of James' injury the following day when he returned to school. Material Allegation 11 alleges that in school year 1971-72 or 1972-73 Respondent struck Louise Weddell, a student, in the face knocking her to the ground. The date of the incident was not established with any degree of certainty. Louise Weddell, now 20 years old, testified that she was 15 and in the seventh grade when the incident occurred. According to Louise, she was fighting with another girl outside the building when Respondent came out with a paddle in his hand to break up the fight. Louise testified that Respondent slapped her with his left hand, knocking her to the ground; that she got up, called him a black mother fucker and ran away. She denied spitting in Respondent's face. For running away she was suspended for 10 days. Several witnesses observed the incident. All except Respondent testified to the slapping and one saw Foote wipe his face with his handkerchief after Louise ran away. Respondent's testimony was that while he was stopping the fight Louise called him the name and spit in his face. He admitted only "pushing" her in the face with his left hand. Material Allegation 10 alleges that during the 1974-75 school year Respondent paddled Gralyn Dorsy numerous times on the buttocks, legs, sides and hips while calling him "a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare." The evidence is undisputed that Respondent paddled Dorsey several times during that school year (Exhibit 45). The incident leading to the allegation occurred on March 3 1975 when Dorsey was brought to Foote by Mrs. Jones for a discipline problem she did not know how to handle. It appears that the previous day while Foote was away from school Dorsey had committed some vulgar act, the nature of which was not disclosed at the hearing, with another boy in the bathroom. Mrs. Jones expected Respondent to counsel Dorsey. Instead, Dorsey was given a paddling. Mrs. Jones does not remember if James Constable was also present. She testified that she counted 13 licks. Exhibit 45, the paddle list, shows 5 licks given to Dorsey. James Constable testified he also observed the paddling of Dorsey and that after Dorsey had been given 2 or 3 hard licks he started to get up. Respondent pushed him back over the chair saying "I'm not through with you, boy", appeared to lose control and began flailing away while calling Dorsey a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare. According to Constable, Dorsey received 12 or 13 licks and, while squirming around, some of the blow landed on the side of Dorsey's hip and one landed on his hand. Mrs. Jones was upset over the severity of the paddling. Neither she nor Constable made a complaint until after May, 1978. The school secretary, Doris Brank, whose desk was just outside Foote's office, recalls two paddlings of Dorsey, one at which he was given 3 licks. She never heard Respondent make racial slurs to children while disciplining them. Material Allegation 2 alleges that in the spring of 1976 Herbert Brown, a student, injured his ankle on the playground before school and Respondent wouldn't allow Mrs. Miriam Jones, his teacher, to take him home or to the doctor but required he remain in school. On 2 February 1976 Herbert Brown, a twelve-year old black student, injured his ankle while playing before school. Mrs. Jones took roll call in Herbert's room and learned his ankle was hurting him. She took him to Respondent and asked permission to take him home. Respondent examined the ankle, saw it was slightly swollen and had his secretary, Mrs. Branch, call the phone number on Herbert's records. No answer was received. Respondent refused Mrs. Jones' request to take Herbert home. The ankle continued to swell. Mrs. Branch also called the doctor, whose office was closed. When school was out, Mrs. Jones drove Herbert home. His mother took him to Dr. Lehrer, who examined Herbert's ankle in the emergency room at the hospital and diagnosed the injury as a sprain. No medication was prescribed, as the pain did not appear sufficient to warrant treatment. The doctor has no independent recollection of the incident but, because he prescribed no medication, would assume the sprain was not severe. Material Allegation 9 alleges that on or about January 6, 1977 Respondent paddled Greg Christian while stating that people in the "subs" did not tell "this white man" what to do. When taken to Respondent for disciplining by his teacher, Molly Jo Teters, Greg told Respondent his brothers said Foote was not to paddle him any more and to run home if he did. Mrs. Teters testified that Respondent, while paddling Greg, told him "people in the subs don't tell this white man what to do." Greg's testimony was that following his remarks about Foote not paddling him, Foote held up a clenched fist saying, "This is black power", covered it with his right hand and said, "This is white supremacy." Daniel Lee Christian, Greg's father, recalled Greg telling him of the paddling and of Foote's gestures and remarks about white power over black power. Foote denied all allegations of using racial slurs to students while disciplining them or otherwise. Material allegation 7 alleges that on May 13, 1977 Respondent paddled Joanne Williams with a leather strap, hitting her on her bottom and later on the front of her body as she turned; and that, during the paddling called her a nigger and made comments about welfare, free lunches and food stamps. Mrs. Simpson, Joanne's teacher, took Joanne to Foote for discipline because she had stolen money from another student, spent it and failed to repay the money as directed by Mrs. Simpson. Foote had her bend over a chair and paddled her with the leather strap. After the first blow, Mrs. Simpson testified Joanne turned over and Foote continued to strike her on the front portion of her body while appearing to lose control. During this time, Mrs. Simpson testified, he said Joanne's family was on food stamps, free lunches and had everything given to them and when not given, they stole. Exhibit 45 shows 4 licks awarded to Joanne by Foote. Foote denies making the remarks and Mrs. Branch, who was immediately outside the office, heard no such remarks made. Mrs. Simpson was upset following the incident and vowed never to take another child to Foote for discipline. However, on April 25, 1978, she sent one of her students, James Jackson, to Foote for discipline after Jackson had been paddled by her and continued his misconduct. Material Allegation 8 alleges that in the fall of 1977 Respondent paddled Bobby Clemons with a leather strap and, while so doing, called him a "no-good nigger". Nancy Gridley took Bobby Clemons to Foote for authority to discipline him for being a "smart-mouth". While talking to Bobby, a ten-year old black student whose mother is a teacher at Webster, Mrs. Gridley testified Foote became angry, picked up his strap and gave Bobby three licks while yelling that Bobby was a nigger who would end up in prison if he kept getting into trouble. Bobby confirmed that he was called a nigger by Foote and told he would end up in jail if his conduct didn't improve. Mrs. Clemons was told of the incident by Mrs. Gridley and when she asked Bobby about it, he confirmed the incident. All witnesses agreed that Bobby was a discipline problem. Respondent acknowledged the paddling, denied the racial slur and testified he told Bobby he needn't expect to get away with misbehavior because his mother was a teacher. Mrs. Branch confirmed Foote's testimony. Material Allegation 6 alleges that Respondent on February 22, 1978 paddled Jeannie Barnes, a fifth grade student, with a leather strap in the library in front of students. James Constable witnessed the paddling, which consisted of three blows with the leather strap. The paddling took place in the library which was serving as the temporary office while the old offices were being renovated. Constable's testimony that a class was being held in the library at the time constituted the only testimony that classes were held in the library. Respondent recalled no other student being present when this punishment was administered. Material Allegation 5 was that during February or March, 1978, Respondent paddled one of the Roper twins in the workroom of the library without an adult witness present, striking the student on the sides, back and legs. Mrs. Newell testified she came into the room while Respondent was paddling Landis Roper with a paddle. Landis was lying on the floor, Foote had hold of his wrist and blows were landing on back, legs and arm. She also testified that Roper was screaming his head off and threatening to kill himself if Foote didn't stop. As Mrs. Newell walked in, Mrs. Stevens and Mrs. Hodges were exiting the room. Mrs. Newell is the only witness to testify the other Roper twin was also present. Mrs. Newell took Landis outside after the paddling. Mrs. Stevens was in the library when Foote came in, got his paddle and paddled Roper. She was in the room while the paddling was going on but didn't watch. She was upset because so many licks (about 10) were given to a special education child. Mrs. Hodges did not testify that she was in the library at any time during the Roper incident. Both Respondent and Mrs. Branch recalled the paddling of Roper and that three licks were given. Landis had been reported for fighting in the cafeteria that morning by Mrs. Carter, whose glasses he had accidentally knocked off while swinging at his opponent. Mrs. Carter inquired later if Mr. Foote had seen Landis and was advised no. After lunch Foote sent for Landis, and after talking to him a short while started to paddle Roper. When several children appeared in the hall, Foote then took Roper into the workroom, leaving the door open while the paddling took place. Mrs. Branch testified no other child was present. Foote's testimony was that he gave Roper three licks with the paddle just inside the workroom door and that no other child was present. Material Allegation 4 alleges that on May 16, 1978 Respondent administered corporal punishment to Kenny Robertson with a leather strap without an adult witness present. Kenny Robertson testified that he was paddled with a leather strap by Foote for fighting, that nobody else was in the room, and that Mrs. Branch was at her desk just outside the door. Molly Jo Teters testified she was in outer office, did not see Mrs. Branch, but heard Foote yell at Kenny that he was not to pull girls off bars and to keep his shirt tucked in. Shortly after the last blow she walked by the door, saw Foote returning the strap to his desk and saw only Foote and Robertson. Mrs. Sellers had bus duty May 16, 1978 and saw a boy whose name she didn't know push a girl off the monkey bars. She took him to Foote and observed the paddling. Mrs. Branch testified that Mrs. Sellers brought Kenny Robertson to Foote because of some problem on the playground and that both she and Mrs. Sellers witnessed the paddling given Robertson. Mrs. Branch didn't see Mrs. Teters in the office at that time. Material Allegation 12 alleges that in May 1978 Respondent paddled Ronald Hise, using excessive force, in the lunchroom in front of second and third grade classes. Frances Simpson witnessed Foote paddle Ronnie Hise in the lunch room in May 1978 after a teacher had told Foote Ronnie was misbehaving in the lunch line. Foote picked up his paddle, pulled Ronnie out of the line and gave him three "hard" licks. Theresa Lee, another teacher, also witnessed the Hise paddling. Her version was that another teacher brought Ronald to Foote for discipline because he misbehaved in the lunch line and Foote paddled him there. She thought the blows "too severe" for the "very thin, pale child." Foote acknowledged that from time to time he has paddled children in the lunchroom because he found that this procedure often had a therapeutic effect in calming down a noisy lunchroom. Material Allegation 1 alleges that in May 1978 Herschell Bellamy seriously injured his eye during physical education in the afternoon, that his mother was notified and was coming to pick him up, but Respondent instructed he be put on the school bus to go home at the end of the day. Herschell Bellamy fell on the monkey bars near the end of his physical ed period and cut his eyelid. His P.E. teacher, James Constable, took him to his office, cleaned and bandaged the eye using a large eye patch. Constable then went to the office with Herschell, who remained there, got Herschell's folder and called the phone number there listed for emergencies, which phone belonged to the next-door neighbor. The neighbor advised that she would tell Herschell's mother to come for him. The neighbor later called back to the school office to advise that Herschell's mother was enroute to pick him up. James Constable, Patricia Newell, and Dorothy Stevens all testified that shortly before time for the buses to leave they were in the office with Herschell Bellamy and Foote, from his inner office, asked what the commotion was about. Someone advised him that Bellamy had hurt his eye. Foote then asked if he was white or black and when told Herschell was black, said "Put him on the bus". Foote's testimony, corroborated by Mrs. Branch, was that he returned to school from a meeting in the county office just at the bell was ringing to end the school day. As he entered the building he passed a lady taking a small boy with a bandage over his eye out of the building. He denied making any comment regarding Herschell's race. Herschell and his mother both testified. When Herschell fell on the monkey bar and hurt his eye, Coach Constable put a bandage on it and took him to the office where he waited a long time before his mother came to pick him up. He didn't hear Mr. Foote say anything but testified Foote was in the office when his mother came to pick him up. Herschell's mother testified she came to school in response to the message that her son had been hurt and that she arrived just as the children were about ready to get on the bus to go home. She saw Foote, but he said nothing to her or look at Herschell. She took Herschell to Dr. Wiley, who treated Herschell for a lacerated upper eyelid, a minor injury. Wayne Ham, a supervisor in the Sumter County school system, acknowledged that he had received complaints from Mrs. Simpson, Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Teter regarding Foote's use of the leather strap to discipline children. They considered use of the strap constituted too severe punishment. Ham doesn't recall if he passed these complaints to his superior. He denied telling Mrs. Teter not to show to anyone a written complaint she had prepared. Bernard Shelnutt, the other Sumter County supervisor, who functions similar to Ham, had never heard a complaint against Foote of brutality, failure to get medical attention for children, or use of racial slurs. In addition to denying the allegations preferred against him, Respondent presented numerous witnesses who testified to Foote's good reputation in the community, to their satisfaction with the job Foote was doing as principal, to Foote's administrative capabilities, and to lack of knowledge of any irregularities at Webster until the charges here considered were published in the newspaper. Two principals of Orange County schools, for whom Respondent had worked before coming to Webster, attested to his capability and competence as well as to their conclusion that the job of principal is the most difficult in the field of education. The principal is the one primarily responsible for the discipline in the school and the manner in which punishment is administered. Corporal punishment policy is usually left to the sound judgment of the principal at each school, subject however to statutory restrictions, and prescribed school board policies. None of the four elected Sumter County school board members who testified on behalf of Respondent had ever received any complaints against Respondent, prior to the investigation by the PPC, involving medical neglect, severe punishment or racial slurs, nor had complaints been received from the black community. They considered Respondent a good administrator with a good reputation. The only complaints they had received involved minor administrative matters such as school bus schedules, and teacher complaints that Respondent worked them too hard. Several witnesses for Petitioner admitted that they were not happy with Respondent's requirement that all teachers attend PTA meetings unless they had a good excuse for being unable to do so. Eighteen teachers, former teachers, substitute teachers, and speech clinician called by Respondent had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, abuse, or use racial slurs to students at Webster. Most, if not all of these witnesses, had never hear of the complaints against Respondent before reading them in the newspapers shortly before the fir trial. The chiefs of police of Webster and Center Hill attested to Respondent's good reputation in their communities and that they had never received a complaint that Respondent had abused a student. Five parents whose children now attend or had attended Webster testified that Respondent had provided proper treatment to their children, their children had never complained of medical or physical mistreatment or abuse by Respondent, and that when children had been neglected by other teachers a call to Respondent corrected the situation. Two employees, other than Mrs. Branch, who had worked at Webster for many years had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, physically abuse, or direct racial slurs towards children at Webster. They first became aware of complaints when they read in the news that charges had been preferred against Respondent. No direct testimony was presented that the misconduct here alleged to have been committed by Respondent seriously reduced his effectiveness in the school system. It is perhaps significant that approximately one week in May 1978 (May 8- 16) provided one-third of the twelve material allegations preferred against Respondent. Coincidentally, Respondent's letter recommending James Constable for dismissal was dated 8 May 1978 and the letter to the PPC signed by eleven teachers was dated May 15, 1978. It is further noted that two of the material allegations involve incidents occurring 6 or 7 years ago.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.315, Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056 and 6A-10.081(1) through (5); and School Board Policies 6.30(2), (3)(b), and 6.301(2), as alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Termination (Petition); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for these violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the St. Lucie County School System. The authority to supervise the school system includes the hiring, discipline, and termination of employees within the school district. Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher at Fort Pierce Westwood High School. He worked for the School Board since at least September 2007, albeit originally at a different school. Respondent signed a professional services contract with the School Board on or about February 12, 2010. He is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie County Classroom Teachers’ Association (CBA), as stated in Article I, section A of the CBA. On October 28, 2011, Respondent was advised of a meeting to take place on November 1, 2011, regarding a School Board investigation into alleged inappropriate contact with students. There is no indication in the record whether Respondent attended the meeting or gave any information. There is also no indication whether the investigation referenced in the October 28, 2011, letter is the same investigation giving rise to these proceedings. On March 3, 2014, Maurice Bonner, the Director of Personnel for the School Board, provided to Respondent a Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment (Notice). The Notice advised that Respondent was being investigated regarding allegations of inappropriate contact with students, and that he was being placed on temporary duty assignment as assigned by the Personnel Office. Respondent signed the letter acknowledging its receipt on March 14, 2014. On April 1, 2014, Genelle Zoratti Yost, Superintendent of the School Board, wrote to Respondent with a reference line entitled Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment. The letter states, in pertinent part: On March 21, 2014 you were arrested for violating Section 800.04(6)(a)(b), Florida Statutes, “Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.”[1/] Pursuant to the Arrest Warrant issued on March 21, 2014 you are not to be within 100 feet of Fort Pierce Westwood High School or Harbor Branch. As a result, you are unavailable to work on campus so your temporary duty assignment outlined in the notice of Temporary Duty Assignment provided to you on March 3, 2014 shall remain in full force and effect until further notice. Furthermore, you have not reported your arrest to the Superintendent within 48 hours as required. . . . Based on the information available to the School District there is sufficient information to charge you with violating the following [list of State Board of Education rule violations and School Board Policy violations]. . . . The April 1, 2014, letter notified Respondent that the superintendent would be recommending to the School Board that it terminate his employment, and provided him with notice of how he could request a hearing on the proposed termination. The letter also advised that, should he seek a hearing, the superintendent would recommend that he be suspended without pay pending the outcome of the hearing. Respondent signed the letter acknowledging receipt of it on April 3, 2014. Respondent requested a hearing with respect to his termination and was notified by letter dated April 23, 2014, that he was suspended without pay. Respondent’s request for hearing was forwarded to the Division, and the case was docketed as Case No. 14-1978. Because of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against Respondent, at the request of the parties, on September 30, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Darren Schwartz entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction, which closed the file with leave to re-open. On a date that is not substantiated in this record,2/ Respondent was tried by jury and convicted of seven counts of lewd or lascivious conduct in violation of section 800.04(6)(a) and (b) and nine counts of lewd and lascivious molestation in violation of section 800.04(5)(c)2. All 16 counts were second- degree felonies. On July 29, 2016, counsel for the School Board wrote to then-counsel for Respondent, advising him that in light of the jury verdict, notice was being given that on August 9, 2016, the superintendent would be recommending Respondent’s termination from employment. The letter also provided Respondent notice of his rights to a hearing in accordance with section 1012.33(6)(a). Counsel for Respondent notified the superintendent that Respondent continued to request a hearing in accordance with the CBA. On October 31, 2016, a Judgment and Sentence was entered in the case of State of Florida v. Dan Allen Hussan, Case No. 562014CF000857A (19th Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County), adjudicating Respondent guilty of all 16 counts. Respondent was sentenced to 15 concurrent sentences of life in prison, with credit for 103 days served prior to sentencing. With respect to Count XVI, Respondent was sentenced to 15 years of sexual offender probation, consecutive to the sentence set forth in Count I. On November 7, 2016, Judge James McCann entered, nunc pro tunc to October 31, 2016, an Order of Sex Offender Probation with respect to Count XVI. The Order of Sex Offender Probation adjudicated Respondent guilty and set the terms for sexual offender probation following the life sentence. Respondent remains incarcerated. He also maintains that he is not guilty of the underlying charges. Petitioner contends that Respondent did not self-report his arrest as required by School Board policy. However, no competent, substantial evidence was presented to demonstrate Respondent’s failure to report. While a notice provided to him regarding this allegation was admitted into evidence, the accusation, standing alone, does not amount to evidence that the accusation is true.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment based on a finding of just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a teacher licensed in the State of Florida, holding a continuing contract of employment as a classroom teacher and assigned as a teacher at Boyd Anderson High School at times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is the School Board of Broward County, a local school district charged with employing teachers for instruction of students and regulating the conduct and practices of those teachers in the course and scope of their employment with authority to impose disciplinary action on those instructional employees who have been found to have engaged in various forms of misconduct in office within the mandates of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code. On July 21, 1982, an Information was filed by the State Attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, charging the Respondent with kidnapping and sexual battery. On August 25, 1982, a capias was issued by the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for the arrest of the Respondent for those charges. The Respondent has never been tried and no adjudication has been entered in that criminal proceeding as of the time of the hearing and the close of the evidence herein. The Respondent pled not guilty to those charges. John E. Aycock is the principal of Boyd Anderson High School. The Respondent was employed as one of his math teachers, having been so employed for two years at Boyd Anderson High School. He had a discussion with the Respondent concerning these charges and the Respondent acknowledged that he was charged with sexual battery and informed Mr. Aycock that he was innocent of those charges. The Respondent's evaluations as to his effectiveness as a teacher had all been satisfactory prior to the subject incident. Thomas J. Patterson is the Chief of the Internal Affairs Division of the Broward County School System and was so employed in July of 1982, at times pertinent hereto. The Respondent contacted him in a similar fashion regarding the subject charges and repeatedly denied them. Upon his recommendation, the Respondent was suspended from employment with the School Board, with pay, pending the outcome of the investigation of the subject charges. The remainder of Witness Patterson's testimony consisted totally of uncorroborated hearsay liened from prior police reports and what "others told him" regarding the Respondent's whereabouts on the date the conduct charged allegedly occurred and hearsay reports he received of the specifics of that conduct. No factual findings can be made herein regarding that hearsay testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the party, it is RECOMMENDED: That the petition filed against Joseph Brehmer in this proceeding be dismissed in its entirety and that his suspension be terminated. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1983, 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 30th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Brown, Esquire 200 South East 6th Street Courthouse Building Suite 600A Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Terrence J. McWilliams, Esquire 1999 South West 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33145 Joseph J. Brehmer 7824 North West 70th Court Tamarac, Florida William T. McFatter, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Gloria P. Adams, violated School Board rules regarding a drug-free workplace, and excessive absenteeism; whether she abandoned her position of employment; whether Respondent committed gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty; and if so, whether such violation(s) support termination of Respondent's employment with the School District.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner is the authority charged with the responsibility of operating, controlling, and supervising all public schools within the Miami-Dade County, Florida School District. As such, its duties also include the personnel decisions related to teachers employed by the School District. At all times material to the allegations of this matter, the Petitioner employed the Respondent pursuant to a professional services contract. The Respondent was assigned to serve as a teacher at Jan Mann Opportunity School. On December 21, 2001, the Respondent presented for work staggering (in fact she fell down) with a disheveled appearance. At that time Respondent spoke with slurred speech and used verbally aggressive words. Based upon her appearance and actions, together with what was perceived as a strong odor of alcohol, the Respondent's supervisor determined that she should complete a "reasonable suspicion form." The form is designated when an employee is suspected of drug and/or alcohol use on school property. Betty Major completed the form (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) and noted Respondent's unsteady gait as well as the other indicators of being under the influence. Moreover, the Respondent admitted she had been drinking alcohol the night before. During the interview conducted by Ms. Major, the Respondent exhibited marked irritability and expressed anger. As a result, the Respondent was relieved of duty. The Respondent subsequently refused to submit to a drug and alcohol screening. On January 10, 2002, the School Board's Office of Professional Standards held a conference-for-the-record (CFR) and informed the Respondent that the refusal to submit to drug and alcohol screening would be considered a positive test response. The details of the CFR are memorialized in Petitioner's Exhibit 2. At the CFR the Respondent was also advised that she had excessive absences. Although the Respondent maintained she was physically ill and unable to attend school, documentation from a treating physician to support the number of absences has not been provided. At the conclusion of the CFR, the Respondent was provided with a copy of the School Board rule regarding its policy for a drug-free workplace, a copy of the responsibilities and duties rule, and the code of ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. The CFR was concluded with an indication from Respondent that she would promptly address the issues raised therein. As part of the CFR the Respondent was advised of her opportunity to obtain assistance through the Employees' Assistance Program (EAP). Among its functions the EAP counsels School Board employees with substance or drug abuse concerns. Alcohol is considered a "drug" under the drug-free workplace policy. The Respondent initially agreed to complete the EAP requirements in order to return to the classroom. She did not fully cooperate with or complete the program. On April 15, 2002, a second CFR was conducted with the Respondent. This meeting again sought to address the Respondent's ability to return to duty and her noncompliance with the drug-free workplace policy. At the second CFR the Respondent again expressed a willingness to complete the EAP and to obtain appropriate help for her on-going problems. The Respondent was directed to comply with the recommendations made by the School District's EAP. The Respondent continued to be apologetic for her past behaviors. On August 13, 2002, a third CFR was held between the Respondent and the Office of Professional Standards. The agenda for that meeting was similar to the past CFRs. The Respondent had not complied with the EAP, had not explained the unauthorized excessive absences, and the issue of the presumptive positive response for the drug and alcohol screening still loomed large. Again, as in the past, the Respondent apologized for not completing the EAP. Additionally, the number of leave without pay (unauthorized) absences had by that time grown to The Respondent had also exhausted her sick/personal leave time. The absences were directly attributable to the Respondent's failure to complete the EAP. Basically, the Respondent was unable to be cleared to return to the classroom until she completed the EAP. She failed to complete the EAP so the number of unauthorized absences continued to grow. Eventually the Respondent was dropped from the EAP due to lack of participation. Her case was then closed. The Petitioner gave the Respondent numerous opportunities to demonstrate she was fit to return to the classroom. The Respondent did not offer any credible explanation for her actions. Regrettably, the Respondent demonstrated by her failure to comply with the EAP that she was unprepared to return to the classroom. The Respondent did not request medical leave (with appropriate documentation from a physician) if her condition were due to a physical illness. Moreover, the Respondent did not apply for any leave that might have protected her job. This lack of judgment in itself suggests the Respondent was impaired and therefore unable to perform her duties as a classroom teacher. At the minimum, had Respondent attended the EAP she could have received counseling and assistance that might have protected her future employment with the School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order confirming the initial decision to suspend without pay and to terminate the employment of the Respondent based upon just cause as set forth above. It is further recommended that, should the Respondent complete an accepted program for substance abuse and demonstrate fitness for Duty, that the School Board consider re-employment of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merrett R. Stierheim Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Gloria P. Adams 19511 Northwest 8th Avenue Miami, Florida 33169 Melinda L. McNichols, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact 1. William Long holds Florida Teaching Certificate number 241743, covering the area of elementary education; it is valid through June 30, 1993. 2. During the 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, and 1990-1991 school years, Mr. Long was employed as a teacher at Highland Oaks Elementary School by the School Board of Dade County. Mr. Long taught fifth grade with a team of four other teachers. The teachers worked together closely, as the team concept required them to teach their classes in a single large classroom and to instruct certain subjects to all of the students at the fifth grade level. The early portion of Mr. Long's employment at Highland Oaks was unmarkable. Beginning in the 1989-1990 school year, and continuing through the 1990-1991 school year, Mr. Long engaged in unprofessional behavior which was noticed by his fifth grade team members and by the administrative staff of Highland Oaks. Mr. Long was often absent from work. He also frequently arrived late for work in the morning and left school before the dismissal time for teachers. Although Mr. Long was advised by his principal to be punctual, he continued to arrive late to school. Mr. Long missed or was late for parent-teacher conferences because of his tardiness. Absenteeism prevented him from participating in several fifth grade team conferences and planning sessions. Mr. Long did not prepare adequate lesson plans. The absence of proper lesson plans caused difficulties for substitute teachers during his many absences. Mr. Long consistently neglected to maintain student records and student assignments, and failed to record grades in his grade book. He did not properly issue progress reports and report cards. Team members often had to evaluate his students in his absence, based upon inadequate information. Mr. Long's lack of record keeping violated Date County School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. Mr. Long left his class unattended and unsupervised on an almost daily basis. He usually failed to follow the procedure of notifying another teacher before leaving his class. As a result, his unsupervised students became noisy and disruptive to other classes. Mr. Long frequently fell asleep during the school day in his classroom. On occasions, his own students had to wake him up. Mr. Long fell asleep during staff meetings, most notably during a meeting concerning the district's Drug-Free Work Place policies on December 6, 1989. Parents made numerous complaints to teachers and administrators about Mr. Long. Parents often asked to have their children transferred out of his class. Mr. Long's behavior became widely known and was a serious cause for concern among parents. Mr. Long also engaged in bizarre and unusual conduct in front of his students. This conduct included: making guttural sounds and dancing in front of the class, putting a box over his head, hanging a lunch bag on his ear, "moonwalking" and singing in the cafeteria, putting a straw in his nose as if inhaling cocaine, and eating a candy cane with exaggerated movements. Student response to such actions caused a distraction to other classes and teachers. As a result of these deficiencies, members of the fifth grade teaching team frequently had to fulfill Mr. Long's duties, such as conducting parent conferences, planning, and evaluating and grading student work. Mr. Long's difficulties were first reported to the district on December 1, 1989, when Virginia Boone, Principal of Highland Oaks, referred him to the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Boone's referral followed several conferences with Mr. Long about his deficiencies. On January 18, 1990, James E. Monroe, Director for the Office of Professional Standards, held a conference for the record with Mr. Long. Mr. Long was told to submit his grade book with up-to-date student grades, report for a medical evaluation and drug screening, and to remain at home and be accessible by telephone. On January 19, 1990, Mr. Long tested positive for the presence of cocaine in his system. The test results were subsequently reported to the school district. The positive cocaine test constituted violation of the Dade County School Board's Drug Free Work Place policy in that test results, coupled with his behavior, show that he was under the influence of cocaine while on duty. Mr. Long did not report for his medical evaluation on two occasions, and did not remain at home in order to be reached by district personnel. On January 31, 1990, the Respondent was reassigned to the School Board's Region II Office. Mr. Long received a memorandum on February 5, 1990, from his principal and assistant principal which detailed his non-compliance with their directives concerning grading of his students, lesson plans, supervision of students, and participation in parent conferences. On February 5, 1990, district personnel met with Mr. Long in another conference for the record. He was placed upon medical leave to undergo substance abuse counseling. He was also warned of his violation of district policies and state rules, and was advised that failure to improve could lead to termination. Mr. Long first attended a 28 day inpatient drug abuse program at Mt. Sinai Hospital. Beginning April 26, 1990, he participated in the Concept House drug and rehabilitation program as a resident, and was subsequently transferred to an outpatient program. In August of 1990, Mr. Long was cleared to return to work and was assigned back to Highland Oaks Elementary. As a condition of his return, he was required to continue his participation in the after care portion of his drug treatment program. Upon his return to Highland Oaks, his unprofessional and inappropriate behavior became worse. He engaged in the same conduct as the previous school year and parents continued to complain about him and request transfers of their children from his class. On September 5, 1990, Mr. Long was arrested by police officers in Opa Locka, Florida, and charged with possession and purchase of cocaine. Mr. Long failed to follow administrative directives by not participating appropriately in his aftercare program. On December 3, 1990, the Concept House terminated him from its program and subsequently notified the district of its action on December 5 or 6, 1990. On December 17, 1990, Mr. Long fell asleep during class. At one point during the day, he was physically unable to stand to conduct his class. On that same day, a teacher observed Mr. Long eating a candy can in a strange and exaggerated manner, and believed that he was "out of it." The teacher called Assistant Principal Barbara Cobb to come to the classroom. Barbara Cobb observed the same behavior, and after watching Mr. Long for several minutes, asked him to accompany her to the school office. Mr. Long told Ms. Cobb a bizarre story about activities at his house. He repeated the story for the principal, who sent Mr. Long home for the day. On December 29, 1990, Mr. Long again was arrested by police officers in Miami upon suspicion of possession of cocaine. He was incarcerated in the Dade County Jail until January 17, 1991, in part due to a bench warrant issued as a result of his September 5, 1990 arrest. No adjudication was ever entered as to the charges resulting from the September 1990 or December 1990 arrests. On January 6, 1991, near the end of the winter vacation, Mr. Long telephoned Assistant Principal Cobb and informed her that he would be absent for an unspecified period of time because of his father-in-law's death. When Mr. Long placed the call to Ms. Cobb, he was still incarcerated in the Dade County Jail. District policy authorizes the use of sick leave in the event of the death of a relative, but not if an employee is in jail. Mr. Long's false statement concerning the purpose of his absence violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.02, and was a ruse to attempt to be paid using sick leave benefits, to which he was not entitled. On January 11, 1991, Mr. Long was assigned to the Region II Office. He returned to work on January 22, 1991. While at that location, he failed to follow directives concerning signing in and out and reporting absences. The district penalized Mr. Long a day and a half's pay for his unauthorized absences. Mr. Long did not receive an annual teaching evaluation for the 1989- 1990 and 1990-1991 school years, primarily because he was absent from classroom duty during the portion of the year when the evaluations were conducted. On March 20, 1991, the School Board of Dade County suspended Mr. Long from his position and initiated dismissal proceedings against him pursuant to Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. At Mr. Long's election, a formal Division of Administrative Hearings hearing was held before Hearing Officer Stuart M. Lerner on September 12, 1991, and October 6, 1992. On February 11, 1991, Hearing Officer Lerner issued a Recommended Order which found that Mr. Long should be dismissed from the school system on the grounds of gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty, immorality, misconduct in office and incompetency. On March 18, 1992, the School Board of Dade County adopted the Recommended Order and dismissed Mr. Long from his employment with the school system upon the grounds set forth in the Recommended Order. Mr. Long failed to provide a proper or even minimal education to his students during the 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 school years. School staff and parents in the community were well aware of Mr. Long's poor performance as a teacher. All of Mr. Long's fifth grade team members had little confidence in his performance, and did not want to work with him again. The School Board gave Mr. Long an opportunity for rehabilitation and a chance to return to the classroom, upon his return Mr. Long continued to engage in inappropriate behavior. Dr. Patrick Gray is qualified as an expert in performance appraisal, personnel management and professional ethics in the field of education. Based upon his experience, knowledge of Education Practices Commission precedent, and evaluation of the facts of the case, Dr. Gray recommended that Mr. Long's teaching certificate be suspended or revoked for a minimum of three years, followed by a probationary period with quarterly reporting, random drug testing, and coursework in the area of his deficiencies. The recommendation of revocation was supported by Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director for the Office of Professional Standards for the School Board of Dade County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, William Long, be found guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(c) and 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission revoke Mr. Long's teaching certificate for three (3) years, and that if he does re-enter the teaching profession as a licensed educator, that he shall be placed on an additional three (3) years of probation with the Education Practices Commission. The terms of the probation shall include the requirement that Mr. Long: shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the Education Practices Commission with quarterly reports of his performance, including, but not limited to, compliance with school district rules and other policies governing teacher conduct and of any disciplinary actions imposed upon him by the district; shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the Education Practices Commission with an accurate copy of each written performance evaluation prepared by his supervisor, within ten (10) days of its issuance; shall perform his assigned duties in a competent professional manner; shall violate no law and shall fully comply with all school board rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006; and shall successfully complete two (2) college level courses, each course being three (3) credit hours, in the areas of classroom management and teaching methods. During the probationary period, Mr. Long shall submit to random drug testing. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 29th day of June 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Angel Guzman, committed the violations alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 14, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Miami-Dade County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Angel Guzman was employed as a teacher by the School Board and assigned to Miami Edison Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Edison"). Mr. Guzman is and has been employed by the School Board pursuant to an annual service contract. Prior to his employment by the School Board, Mr. Guzman was employed by New York City as a teacher assistant for three years and as a teacher for four years. He has been employed as a graphic communications teacher by the School Board since 1998, approximately two and a half years. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. Guzman had never been the subject of a School Board personnel investigation. The February 16, 2001, Incident On February 16, 2001, Mr. Guzman was handing out reading logs in a FCAT preparation class at Edison. The students in the class were seventh graders. Sherwin JeanPierre, a student in the class, and another student asked their fellow student, Maurice Barnhill to get their reading logs from Mr. Guzman. Maurice picked up the logs, but was confronted by Mr. Guzman who, when he learned that Maurice was picking up logs for others, snatched the logs out of his hands and told him to return to his seat. An argument between Mr. Guzman and Maurice ensued. The teacher and student yelled at each other, Mr. Guzman forcefully pushed Maurice on the shoulder, and Mr. Guzman said "coño" to Maurice, which means "damn" in Spanish. Mr. Guzman eventually became so angry that he grabbed a wooden stool located between him and Maurice, swung it toward Maurice, and hit Maurice on the leg with the stool. While the stool hurt Maurice, he suffered no significant injury. The Second February 2001 Incident Following the February 16, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman and another student were involved in a verbal confrontation. The situation was defused by Theron Clark, an Assistant Principal at Edison, and a security monitor. Following the confrontation, Mr. Clark and Dr. Peggy Henderson Jones, another Assistant Principal, met with Mr. Guzman. At this meeting, Mr. Guzman indicated that he was very stressed and did not want to return to his class. Mr. Guzman was allowed to go home the day of the incident and was subsequently referred to the Employee Assistance Program. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the February 16, 2001, Incident A conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "conference") was held with Mr. Guzman on March 6, 2001, by Ronald D. Major, the Principal at Edison. The conference was attended by Mr. Major, Mr. Theron, Eduardo Sacarello, a United Teachers of Dade representative, and Mr. Guzman. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Mr. Guzman's non-compliance, during the February 16, 2001, incident with Maurice Barnhill, with school rules, School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07, dealing with corporal punishment, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, dealing with employee conduct, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. During the conference, Mr. Guzman was advised that a letter of reprimand would be issued, and he was directed to immediately implement procedures for the removal of disruptive students consistent with the faculty handbook. Mr. Guzman was also warned that any recurrence of the type of violation committed by him during the February 16, 2001, incident would result in further disciplinary action. A written reprimand to Mr. Guzman was issued on March 7, 2001, by Mr. Major. In the reprimand, Mr. Major again warned Mr. Guzman that any recurrence of the infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. The April 25, 2001, Incident On April 25, 2001, during a class under Mr. Guzman's supervision, Mr. Guzman caused a document to be printed from a class computer. A student took the paper and gave it to another student in the class, Ian Lightbourne, who asked for the paper. Ian placed the paper, even though it did not belong to him, in his book bag. When Mr. Guzman came to retrieve the paper he had printed, found it was gone, and asked if anyone knew what had happened to it. Although no one answered, Mr. Guzman suspected Ian and asked him to open his book bag. Ian complied and Mr. Guzman found the paper. Mr. Guzman became irate and began yelling at Ian to "not touch my things." Mr. Guzman then grabbed Ian by the arm and started to pull him toward the front of the classroom. Ian, who was sitting on a stool, lost his balance and fell to his knees. Mr. Guzman continued to pull Ian, who began to cry and yell, "Let me go," the length of the classroom on his knees. Mr. Guzman pulled Ian to a corner of the classroom where he banged Ian's arm against a metal darkroom door. Ian had previously broken the arm that Mr. Guzman grabbed and had only recently had the cast removed. Although the incident did not result in any serious injury to Ian, it was painful and caused his mother to seek medical attention for her son. On April 27, 2001, as a result of the April 25, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman was assigned to alternative work at his residence, with pay. Mr. Guzman was not allowed to have any contact in his assignment with students. On August 14, 2001, the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, entered a "Stay Away Order" in Case No. M0130143 requiring that Mr. Guzman stay away from, and have no contact with, Ian. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the April 25, 2001, Incident On August 29, 2001, another conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "second conference") was held. The second conference was attended by Julia F. Menendez, Regional Director, Region IV Operations of the School Board; Sharon D. Jackson, District Director; and Mr. Guzman. The second conference was held at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. The second conference was conducted to discuss Mr. Guzman's performance assessments, non-compliance with School Board policies and rules regarding violence in the workplace and corporal punishment, insubordination, noncompliance with site directives regarding appropriate use of discipline techniques, violation of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities, and Mr. Guzman's future employment with the School Board. At the conclusion of the second conference, Mr. Guzman was informed that his alternative work assignment would be continued, that his actions would be reviewed with the Superintendent of Region IV Operations, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, and Edison's principal, and he was directed to refrain from touching, grabbing, hitting, or dragging any student for any reason. Subsequent to the second conference, the School Board's Office of Professional Standards concluded that Mr. Guzman had violated School Board and state rules. Therefore, an agenda item recommending dismissal of Mr. Guzman was prepared for the School Board to consider. That agenda item was discussed with Mr. Guzman on October 16, 2001, and was considered at the School Board's meeting of October 24, 2001. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board suspended Mr. Guzman without pay and approved the initiation of dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, suspending Angel Guzman without pay be sustained and that his employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 27th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank E. Freeman, Esquire 666 Northeast 125th Street Suite 238 Miami, Florida 33161 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1 on or about January 8, 1976, by possession of marijuana on school grounds.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 16 year old, 11th grade high school student attending Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida. On January 8, 1976, Respondent was found in possession of 32 grams of marijuana on the grounds of Marathon High School. (Stipulation of the Parties) On April 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida, accepted Respondent's plea of guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana, withheld adjudication as a delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months under the supervision of a Youth Counselor, State of Florida Youth Services Division. Conditions of probation included a curfew, weekly meetings with the counselor and part-time employment while attending school. (Testimony of Seale) At the time of his apprehension, Respondent admitted possession of marijuana to authorities and cooperated with them by divulging its source. Respondent denies any prior arrests and, in the opinion of the Youth Counselor, he is not likely to commit an offense of this nature in the future. He has evidenced remorse and desires to continue attendance at the high school. The Youth Counselor feels that it would serve no useful purpose to prevent him from further attendance. (Testimony of Seale, Collins) Respondent is not a problem student nor is he considered to be incorrigible or a socially maladjusted child. An alternative to expulsion exists at Marathon High School in the form of a rehabilitative program for socially maladjusted children that is supervised by one instructor who exercises close supervision over the students in the program. A student who is expelled from high school may enter an evening adult education program whereby he can acquire necessary academic credits by attending evening classes. The principal of Marathon High School recommends that Respondent be expelled because of the seriousness of his offense as evidenced by the unusually large amount of marijuana. (Testimony of Gradick)
Recommendation That Respondent, Gordon Collins, be expelled from Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida, effective June 8, 1976, for violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1, by possession of marijuana on the school grounds on or about January 8, 1976. DONE and ENTERED 14th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn Archer, Jr. Assistant Superintendent Post Office Drawer 1430 Key West, Florida 33040 Peter Lenzi, Esquire Post Office Box 938 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Pinellas County Schools because of the misconduct alleged in the School Board's letter dated April 24, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Perry Hollis, was employed as a welding instructor at SPVOTEC, a facility operated by the School Board of Pinellas County. The Pinellas County School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the public schools in the county. Respondent began working for the Pinellas County School Board as a welding instructor approximately 15 years ago. As a part of his job, he was required to take certain college courses in teacher training and now has 15 credit hours beyond his Bachelor's degree. At this time, and at the time of the allegations involved herein, he taught welding to mostly adult students at SPVOTEC where he has been employed for 13 years, satisfactorily, without any prior disciplinary problems. The evening before the incident in question, Respondent had been out gun training his dog. Since it is virtually impossible to hold the dog's chain and fire a rifle at the same time, he was using a pistol, the one involved in this case. Neither Respondent nor his wife have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. After the training session was over, Respondent placed the pistol into the door pocket on the driver's side of his pickup truck, put his dog in the back, and started home. He does not remember putting the gun in the door but can think of no other way it could have gotten there. On the way home, the dog jumped out of the back of the truck while it was moving and injured itself. When Respondent got it, he started to provide care for the dog and forgot the gun was in the door of his truck. Since the truck had been acting up, pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Protomastro, the auto mechanics instructor, the following morning he took the vehicle to school and left it at the auto shop so that students could work on it as a part of their training. This is legitimate. The car was assigned to Robert Mertz and Phat Le to work on. Mr. Protomastro drove the car into the shop but did not see the gun in the door. When Mertz got into the car, he saw the weapon in the door pouch on top of some maps and papers and took it out to show to Mr. Le. Mr. Le took it and tried to fire it but because the safety was on, it would not fire. When Le removed the safety, the weapon discharged one round, injuring no one and causing no damage. When Mr. Protomastro heard the explosion, he thought it was a firecracker and advised Phat Le not to shoot them off at school. Le told showed him the gun and Protomastro told him to put it back in the truck. He then took the truck with the gun back to Respondent at the welding shop and advised Hollis to be sure the truck contained no weapons if he brought it in again. According to Protomastro, when he first mentioned it to Respondent, the latter seemed surprised, and he has no less confidence in Respondent's abilities as a teacher even though in this incident, Respondent showed poor judgement. Protomastro did not report the incident at that time. However, when Mertz got home from school that afternoon, he told his mother what had happened. The following morning, she called the school to express her concern over the fact that someone had brought a gun to school. In her opinion, Respondent was wrong to allow the weapon to remain unattended in his car since it is his responsibility to keep the weapon under control at all times. No action was taken then, however. The incident was subsequently brought to the attention of Pinellas County school officials by Mr. Laux, SPVOTEC Director, several months after the incident. Mr. Crosby, Director of Personnel for the Board, caused a formal investigation to be conducted. Based on the investigation and his own limited inquiry, he recommended Respondent's dismissal. In the conversation he had with him, Respondent frankly admitted the gun had been in his car and explained the circumstances of it's getting there. Crosby recommended dismissal because he concluded Respondent's effectiveness as an instructor in the Pinellas county schools had been diminished by the incident. He takes this position because, (1) the media publicity the incident received, (one article and one editorial), reduced Respondent's effectiveness, and (2) he believed Respondent's supervisors, "must feel his effectiveness was reduced due to his lack of judgement." Mr. Crosby did not, however, check with Respondent's supervisors other than Mr. Laux, the Director of SPVOTEC, who concurred in a disciplinary action far less severe than dismissal. Nonetheless, Crosby recommended dismissal rather than some lesser action which could have been taken because: The severity of the situation - teachers are to provide conditions not harmful to students and here, Respondent created a dangerous situation, Students are expelled for bringing weapons to campus and they can do no less to teachers, and Respondent's lack of judgement. Mr. Crosby admits that in his relationships with Respondent, he always found Respondent to be completely forthright and cooperative and he is aware that Hollis has taught in the public school system for more than 13 years. He is familiar with Respondent's performance ratings which were always good. Considering all this, Crosby ultimately agreed with the Superintendent's position that Respondent be dismissed even though no teachers or students indicated their loss of confidence in Respondent as a result of this incident. Even in response to questioning by the Hearing Officer, Mr. Crosby indicated no opinion as to whether the incident was intentional on the part of Respondent. From a thorough review of the evidence it is clear it was not. Ms. Betty W. Arrigo is an interpreter for the hearing impaired who previously worked with Respondent at SPVOTEC. She is aware of the incident with the gun as a result of seeing the report in the newspaper. As a fellow instructor, she has lost no confidence in him as a result of the incident and knows from her communications with seven or so other faculty members that they feel the same way. None of her contacts have any reservations about working with Respondent and she has heard nothing derogatory about him from any of them. Mr. Phares was a student at SPVOTEC and took a welding course from Respondent before the time in issue. He heard about this incident only though the newspaper and even as a result of his reading, based on his first hand knowledge of Respondent, his faith in him as an instructor has in no way been diminished. He would not be reluctant to have Respondent as an instructor again. Admitting he is not bound by the same restraints and considerations as the school administration, and agreeing that guns should not be allowed on the school grounds, he nonetheless believe that if, as it appears in the instant case, the infraction was inadvertent and was an isolated incident, leniency should be shown. Much the same approach is taken by Mr. Stanjeski, who knew Respondent as an instructor at the time of the incident. He, too, is aware of it only from the newspaper, and has not lost any confidence in Respondent's ability as an instructor. Respondent insured that his students learned to work safely and was very much involved with them from a safety standpoint. Mr. Stanjeski would have no reservations about having his 10 year old son take a class with Respondent. He does not condone children or adults bringing a loaded gun to school, but under the circumstances as they appear here, he feels confident with Respondent and his teaching and supervisory abilities. Dr. Rose, Superintendent of Schools, became aware of the Respondent when he received the complaint from Crosby with the recommendation for dismissal. School Board policies prohibit weapons from being brought onto a campus by students or faculty. The purpose of these policies is to insure, as much as is possible, against accidents, and to promote the safety of both students and staff. Prior to adoption of a policy, several public readings are required, after which it is adopted and placed in a policy book furnished to all teachers. Respondent was aware of the policies. Respondent's bringing a weapon to school constitutes a violation of this policy but, in Dr. Rose's opinion, even worse, Respondent did not demonstrate the care for his students expected of a teacher. This constitutes major carelessness on his part, and in the opinion of Dr. Rose, constitutes a violation of the Florida Teacher's Code of Ethics. Dr. Rose also feels that Respondent's actions herein jeopardizes the safety of students. Respondent's judgement in this situation was poor, and his conduct put a dangerous instrument into the hands of a youth whose judgement had not matured. Dr. Rose feels that a teacher would not, if he valued the worth and dignity of his students, do anything potentially dangerous to their welfare. According to Dr. Rose, Respondent's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in that the work site was compromised. The Board envisions that a work site within the school system will be a safe place and for that reason, guns are not allowed on campus. To bring a gun on campus shows a disregard for the needs of the students. Prior gun incidents have sensitized the public to weapons on campus. As a result, any incident involving a gun on campus is considered critical by the Board, and brings back fears of danger to the students. Whenever a teacher creates a potential hazard to his students, it adversely impacts on his effectiveness, according to Dr. Rose. As Superintendent, he receives feedback from students, parent and teacher organizations, his division heads, and the public, and in this case, though the incident was not widely known until the dismissal was publicized, public demand for action was satisfied by the dismissal. Dr. Rose contends that while the press reaction is considered to be important, school Board decisions, and his in particular, are not dictated by the press. Nonetheless, the issue of guns on campus is very important to the public sector and the Board is sensitive to public reaction. The subject comes up frequently at public meetings and Dr. Rose receives many letters and phone calls about what is being done to keep guns off the campuses. After the articles previously mentioned appeared in the press in this case, Dr. Rose received substantial favorable feedback regarding the dismissal action against the Respondent. The substantial hiatus between the occurrence and the subsequent dismissal action resulted from the fact that the incident was not reported for several months. When the report was received, immediate action was taken to investigate it and to take appropriate corrective action. Local school administrators are supposed to act on their independent judgement within Board set parameters. In this case, Mr. Hollis' actions caused a question as to his ability to make valid judgements on his own and requires him to be more closely supervised. Therefore, his effectiveness, in the opinion of Dr. Rose, has been diminished. Though lesser punishments were available, Dr. Rose recommended the harshest discipline be imposed here because of the severity of the incident. The decision to dismiss Respondent was based on the fact that he had a gun on campus, aggravated by the potential danger to the students. Before taking action, Dr. Rose considered the Respondent's contention that he had forgotten the gun was in the car and, in fact, he believes this is so. In addition, his investigation disclosed no facts which lead him to believe that the incident would be repeated if Respondent were to be allowed to continue to teach. He is satisfied this was an isolated case and he considered that in making his recommendation for dismissal. Dr. Rose admitted that Respondent could probably be properly disciplined by lesser action, but, if that lesser action were taken, there is, in his opinion, a substantial risk that others might not get the important message regarding the policy against guns in the schools. Dr. Rose has not received any letters from parents as a result of this incident demanding that Respondent be dismissed. Nonetheless, he believes that because of the circumstances involved and because of the policy letters of the school Board and their intent that firearms not be brought onto campus at all; and because any time an incident involves bringing a firearm onto a campus, there is the potential for the weapon to be used in a harmful way, either directly or accidentally; it is imperative the strongest possible message be sent out stating that weapons will not, under any circumstances, be tolerated on the campuses of institutions within the jurisdiction of the Pinellas County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the continuing suspension with pay be lifted but that Respondent be reprimanded and suspended without pay for ten (10) days. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 25th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2447 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. For the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. 7 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. For the Respondent: Respondent did not number his paragraphs in the Statement of the Facts, so the paragraphs will be addressed in turn as though they had been numbered. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney Post Office Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Mark Herdman, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1724 East 7th Ave. Tampa, Florida 33605 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
