The Issue The issue in this case is whether the district school board has just cause to dismiss the Respondent from employment, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first hired Respondent in January 1990 as a substitute teacher. In 1992, Petitioner changed Respondent's status to a permanent teacher. Respondent began teaching at Miami Coral Park Senior High School in January 1996, but left from 2000 to 2004 to teach in Collier County. Upon return to Petitioner's school system for the 2004-05 school year, Respondent was assigned to a different high school, but later transferred to Coral Park when this school needed a basketball coach. In addition to coaching basketball during the 2008-09 school year, Respondent co-taught a math class. One of Respondent's math students was J. V., who was born on April 10, 1991. She started attending Coral Park Senior High School mid-way through her sophomore year in 2008 after moving to Miami in August 2007. She turned 18 in the spring of her junior year and graduated from Coral Park on June 10, 2010. After graduating, J. V. enrolled in a local community college and published a novel that is sold by Barnes & Noble bookstores. During the 2008-09 school year, J. V.'s contact with Respondent involved typical student-teacher interactions in the classroom, hallways, and other school settings. They had exchanged cell phone numbers and spoke on the phone once or twice per month and texted each other with the same frequency. The record does not describe the nature of these communications, but the record fails to suggest any impropriety in the relationship during J. V.'s junior year. During the 2009-10 school year, J. V. was not assigned to any of Respondent's classes, but she began to visit him in his classroom in the morning before school started. The frequency of these visits varied from zero to three times per week. During these visits, J. V. and Respondent talked about her family, her social life, and some of her medical issues, including the fact that she was being treated for depression. J. V. also told Respondent that she might have ovarian cancer, although she later learned that she merely had a cyst. While attending Coral Park, J. V. was living with her aunt, who had become her legal guardian. J. V.'s relationship with her aunt was strained at times. J. V.'s mother was living in the Dominican Republic, and her father, with whom her mother did not wish her to live, resided in New York. During the 2009-10 school year, J. V. and Respondent exchanged numerous cell phone calls and texts, at nearly all hours of the day and night. Although J. V. initiated most of the calls and texts and Respondent did not respond to all of her calls and texts, Respondent never asked her to stop calling and texting him. Their relationship intensified in October or November of J. V.'s senior year. J. V. has testified that she and Respondent had sexual intercourse. Respondent testified that they did not. Neither witness is a model of veracity. J. V. embellished her story with dates that did not occur and was not perfectly clear in her recollection of the details of Respondent's condominium and tattoo. As noted below, Respondent repeatedly encouraged J. V. not to testify, to avoid being served with a subpoena, and, if served, to ignore the subpoena. Regardless whether sexual intercourse took place, the relationship between J. V. and Respondent, by the end of 2009, became excessively intimate for what is appropriate between a teacher and a student and included some form of sexual activity. A series of texts from Respondent to J. V. in late March or early April 2010 reveal the intimacy that had arisen between them: "I wanted 2 jump u," "2 many eyes!," "Muah," "Im in da gym if u can pass by," "It would have been hard," and “I'l b here." The time devoted to remote communications between Respondent and J. V. provides some basis for assessing the nature of their relationship: from October 2009 through November 2010, Respondent and J. V. exchanged over 1600 texts and consumed over ten hours in phone conversations. Without success, Respondent tried to explain the more incriminating of the texts sent in March or April 2010 from his cell phone. Respondent testified that these texts were sent by an unauthorized user of his phone, probably a member of his basketball team. It is difficult to understand why a player would risk the wrath of his coach, but the absence of any response from J. V.--either to the principal or Respondent-- following receipt of the first of these texts suggests that the relationship of Respondent and J. V. had already involved some form of sexual contact. One also finds indirect proof of an intimate relationship in the conduct of Respondent following Petitioner's decision to initiate dismissal proceedings against him. To credit Respondent's version of events, for the sake of discussion, he was confronted by a student's accusations of sexual intimacy that were a total fabrication. His response was to encourage her to engage in more dishonesty, rather than merely to tell the truth. Even if Respondent's version of events concerning the lack of intimacy were credited--and it is not--his subsequent conduct, as amply documented by numerous texts discussed in detail below, constitutes a startling lack of honesty in professional dealings and disregard for the mental health of a former student. Shortly after receiving an allegation that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with J. V., on April 9, 2010, Petitioner removed Respondent from Coral Park and placed him on alternative assignment in a district office. By letter dated April 9, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent of the nature of the charges, including the initials of the student, and ordered Respondent not to have any contact with the complainant or witnesses with an intent to interfere with the investigation. On April 10, 2010, Respondent and J. V. met at a club known as Mama Juana's; according to both of them, the meeting was by chance and little was said. However, ignoring the directive not to speak with witnesses, Respondent told J. V. that he was being investigated for having a relationship with her and showed her a letter from Petitioner that, supposedly, Respondent happened to have with him at the time of this chance meeting. There is insufficient evidence to find that Respondent and J. V. are lying about the circumstances leading up to the meeting or what was said during it. By letter dated June 4, 2010, which was delivered to Respondent during a conference-for-the-record held on that date, Petitioner again ordered Respondent not to contact any of the parties involved in the investigation. By letter dated August 25, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, during its meeting of September 7, 2010, that it suspend Respondent without pay and initiate dismissal proceedings against him. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent that the School Board had taken these actions. Upon receipt of the September 8 letter, Respondent testified that he resumed communicating with J. V. who, by this time, had graduated from high school. In fact, Respondent had received a call from J. V. on September 5 and had spoken with her for 70 minutes until nearly midnight that night. On October 5, J. V. again called him, and they talked for 41 minutes. Other lengthy calls--each about 15 minutes--were initiated by J. V. on October 16, 2010, and January 6, 2011. However, there were few, if any, communications between Respondent and J. V. for five months following their meeting at Mama Juana's on April 10. On September 11, 2010, Respondent texted J. V.: "I got suspended w/o pay. Basically fired!" J. V. replied, "Whoa! Wait, now what?! Hon?" After a couple of more exchanges, in which Respondent stated that he would have to go to trial, J. V. asked, "Is there anything that I can actually do to help you out?" Respondent's reply: "Of course. No matter what happens dont show up if they talk 2 u. Not even if they suebpena [sic] u. They cant do anything if [sic] 2 u dont go." J. V. replied, "Anything there is to do, I suppose, i'll do to help you out. I dont want you to stay in this mess. . . . I still care about you tons, I just wanted you to know that :p." This is a remarkable exchange of texts. Respondent baldly asked J. V. to ignore a subpoena. J. V. scrupulously conditioned her willingness to help with "I suppose." Here, Respondent was asking J. V. to behave dishonorably, and J. V., his former student, displayed some misgivings, as she apparently was wrestling with her loyalty to Respondent and her desire to behave honorably. This is a repulsive perversion of the role of the educator. Although J. V. was no longer a student in Respondent's school, Respondent was still a member of the education profession, and, in his dealings with J. V. and Petitioner, he was continuing to deal with a matter that involved the discharge of his professional duties. On September 18, 2010, Respondent initiated another series of texts, but these involved unremarkable matters, such as how J. V. liked college and a job that she had recently started. On September 24, 2010, J. V. initiated a series of texts with "Hello lost :p." Respondent answered, "Hey, me? Cabrona since now u have a bf [boyfriend] u dont have time 4 me!" When J. V. texted that she was "not afraid of the dark, im just afraid of staying alone, period," Respondent responded, "I m not offering any services any more." Respondent testified that he was referring to math services, but, given the circumstances, this explanation is impossible to credit. On the other hand, the services were as likely those of a trusted counselor as of a sexual partner. The text of J. V., however, displays the vulnerability of Respondent's former student, even though nearly one year had passed since the intensification of their relationship to inappropriate levels. The next day, Respondent renewed the texting exchange. J. V. texted that a certain singer "literally places you in my head." Respondent answered, "Thats a good place 2 b. I thought u didnt anymore." J. V. declaimed that she thinks too much, and Respondent answered, "Then why havent u let me c u [see you]?" J. V. replied, "Because i know that is all I am gonna be allowed to do, just see you. And I don't know if that's okay with you." Respondent responded, "It be nice 2 cu though. Even 4 a short while." J. V. agreed, and Respondent replied, "Since now u r da complicated 1 u let me know when." J. V. promised she would and quickly asked what Respondent was up to. Respondent texted, "Let me know if they try 2 get in cotact [sic] w/u? They should b setting a date 4 da hearing soon." Injecting the same element of doubt that she had raised when she offered, on September 11, to help Respondent, J. V. texted, "I seriously doubt that [they will get in contact with me]. But i'll let you know in case they do, i suppose (emphasis supplied)." These texts lend support to the finding that the relationship between Respondent and J. V. was inappropriately intimate during her senior year. It appears that one of them broke if off, possibly over the objection of the other. J. V.'s second use of "I suppose" revealed again her ambivalence about the situation in which Respondent had placed her in asking her not to cooperate with Petitioner's prosecution of its case against him. As J. V. continued to wrestle with her loyalty toward Respondent and unwillingness to behave dishonorably, Respondent steadfastly toyed with her emotions, such as by saying that it felt good to be in her thoughts, and he did not think she thought of him anymore. The next day, after midnight, Respondent renewed the text exchange again by texting, "143." He explained that this was beeper code for "i love you." J. V. replied with a beeper code consisting of the less-intense message, "thinking of you." Except for a congratulatory text, probably for the publication of J. V.'s novel, the next text exchange took place on October 13, 2010, in which J. V. apologized for calling so late, but wanted to know if Respondent could meet her the following night. They agreed to meet instead after lunch on the following day. The following day, they agreed to postpone the meeting until the following week. On October 15, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the final hearing for January 26, 2011. As noted above, a lengthy telephone conversation between Respondent and J. V. took place the next day. On October 26, 2010, Respondent texted J. V.: "My lawyer friend said that 4 da subpoena they have 2 give it in ur hand. So if y dont answer the door if they show up, they cant leave it there. Nd if someone asks y if y r [J. V.] simply say no." As they exchanged texts about a basketball game that was being played, J. V. texted that she preferred baseball, and Respondent replied, "Bat nd balls huh?" J. V. answered "Lol [laughing out loud] :p silly!" She accused him, in Spanish, of a bad thought, and Respondent disingenuously asked, "What did i say?" Then he texted, "Lol." This series of texts represent a remarkable confluence of Respondent's inducing J. V. to dishonesty and engaging in sexual teasing. The remark about a bat and ball was a reference to male genitalia. Surprisingly, Respondent did not deny the sexual connotation of this text, but somehow tried to dismiss it merely as a joking "sexual innuendo." The freedom that Respondent felt to engage in sexual innuendo with a former student betrayed the inappropriate intimacy of the relationship that they once shared--while she was still a student. J. V. initiated a text exchange of Halloween greetings on October 31. On November 8, 2010, J. V. initiated another text exchange by asking how Respondent was doing. He asked how school, work, and her boyfriend were. J. V. typed that all were fine, and Respondent replied, "I m happy 4 u!" However, J. V. texted that there "are certain things that i have to deal with." Respondent texted her to call him. On November 17, 2010, Respondent initiated another text exchange in which he again asked about work, school, and her boyfriend. J. V. replied that all was fine, but her father was in the hospital. The next day, J. V. texted Respondent: "I really have to speak to you but i'll do it after i get out of class:( im so sorry." When Respondent texted her to explain, J. V. responded, "Because im really placed against the wall." Respondent answered: "What do u mean. I m the 1 that has lost everything. Nothing could happen 2 u if u say nothing happened! What r u thinking about doing? Destroying my [rest of message lost]." J. V. replied, "Omg [Oh, my God]! Screw you for saying that as if you'd know me that little to ever think that's something i'd consider doing to you!" She added, "I'll call you once i get home, at 9." Respondent added that he was watching a football game in a bar and "This is killme though. Please let me know!" J. V. responded that, when Respondent had some time to call, he should do so. With this text of apology, J. V. was informing Respondent that she had resolved the dilemma in which Respondent had placed her, and she had decided to tell the truth, rather than behave dishonorably. Casting his professional obligations aside, Respondent tried to dissuade her from telling the truth by turning the focus to himself and his need for her to lie and cover up. Obviously, Respondent's plea for J. V. to say that nothing happened implies that something happened. And the something had to be substantial--i.e., sexual contact, rather than merely excessive texting between a teacher and student--for Respondent to have felt the need to have J. V. conceal the truth. The next day, Respondent initiated a text exchange by stating: "Sorry 4 my reaction but please put urself in my shoes 4 da past 7 mos. I've lost everything that i valued nr u r worried about ur fam finding out. Idk wh [sic]." J. V. did not respond to this text. Obviously, this text was not an apology for asking J. V. to behave dishonorably. Instead, Respondent asked J. V. to identify with his situation. He was sorry merely for having lost his composure and possibly alienating J. V. On November 26, 2010, J. V. initiated a text exchange about holiday shopping. The next day, evidently in response to a telephone call, Respondent texted: "I cant get mad at u. I m just scared out of my mind about what the outcome could be! Thank you 4 assuring me." Three days later, Respondent texted birthday wishes to J. V. On November 30, 2010, J. V. suggested that they get together and have lunch "one of these days." Respondent agreed, but no date was set. On December 1, 2010, J. V. texted Respondent, as well as a number of others, that her book was available for purchase, and he texted congratulations. On December 14, 2010, J. V. texted a friend: "I'm alright most of the times lol. Having a bf has helped me a lot. I'm not alone anymore missing the teacher :(" What this text lacks in detail it makes up for in candor. It is the most direct evidence of the emotionally vulnerable condition of J. V. immediately after Respondent insisted that they stopped seeing each other in April 2010. J. V. initiated the next text exchange on January 4, 2011, when she sent new year's greetings to Respondent. When she asked how he was doing, Respondent replied, "I m ok but getting very anxious over the hearing coming up soon!!" J. V. texted that no one had been in touch with her, but Respondent assured her that she would get something soon. He asked her, "Do you have any idea what you are going to do for the hearing?" J. V. answered, "I'm not gonna do anything." Respondent replied, "We'll talk before then." On January 5, J. V. called or texted Respondent, who replied for her to call him that night. She texted that she would, and he responded, evidently in reference to a phone message, "What are you fuzzy about?" J. V. answered: "The lawyer that always calls from the school board called me not too long ago, that's all." When it became apparent that J. V. could talk then on the phone, the texts ended, evidently so Respondent and J. V. could talk on the phone. As noted above, a lengthy telephone conversation took place between Respondent and J. V. the next day. Sometime during January 2011, J. V. and Respondent spoke by telephone, and Respondent warned her that the authorities would be able to retrieve her text messages. One may safely infer that Respondent was unaware previously of the availability of such data or the ability of Petitioner to supplement its pleadings to add as grounds for dismissal acts and omissions taking place after the initiation of the case against him.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment on the ground of misconduct in office. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850)488-9675 Fax Filing (850)921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Christopher La Piano, Esquire School Board Attorney’s Office School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Findings Of Fact In the summer of 1981, Christopher Max Grix (Chris), a tenth-grader, was one of some 1,100 students enrolled in the combined Miami Beach Senior High School-Nautilus Junior High School summer school program. On Monday, July 20, 1981, George Thompson, a security man at the school, took Chris, John DeBlasio, and a third youth to the school office. Mr. Thompson told Solomon Lichter, the principal, and Assistant Principal Nockow, that he had seen these three boys shoving one another. As a result, each student received a three-day suspension, ending with the opening of school on Thursday, July 23, 1981. At about 7:20 on the morning of July 27, 1981, Chris and John DeBlasio had another "confrontation." When it ended, Chris fled in his car to the principal's office. There he reported that some "niggers and spics" had jumped him on school grounds along 42nd Street, and complained that the principal had not done "a damn thing about it." Although Mr. Lichter asked Chris to remain seated, Chris jumped up and left the office after he had been there only two minutes. While Mr. Lichter summoned the police, Carlton Jenkins, Jr., another assistant principal who was in an office near Mr. Lichter's, followed Chris and watched him drive away recklessly, stop near some students, and emerge from the car with a tire iron. Chris asked John DeBlasio's brother Alfred where John had gone. Wielding a tire iron, Chris shoved Alfred and threatened to kill him. He made the identical threat to Mark Allen Uffner, and also shoved him. After the tire iron was back in Chris's car, and after Alfred and George Korakakos had subdued Chris in a fist fight, Uffner ran to meet Assistant Principal Jenkins and Principal Lichter as they approached from the school office, and gave them a full report. Chris was gone by the time the police arrived. Later on the morning of July 27, 1981, Messrs. Lichter and Nockow left the summer school grounds for the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School to look for some walkie-talkies. While they were there, Chris, his older brother, and a third young man arrived. When Chris's older brother asked what had happened, Chris gave his version in colorful language. Mr. Lichter told Chris he was going to suspend him from school if he did not calm down. After Chris continued complaining about "niggers, spics, and the school principal," Mr. Lichter announced that Chris was suspended and ordered him to stay off school grounds for ten days. The trio left the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School but later on, at midday on July 27, 1981, Alfred DeBlasio saw Chris and the others on the summer school (Nautilus Junior High School) campus near 42nd Street, with knives and crow bars. Chris and traveling companions were equipped with ax handles, and were threatening Uffner, among others. A security man told Mr. Jenkins that a gang of students was headed toward Chris's car behind the cafeteria. Mr. Jenkins called after Chris's car as it left, ordering Chris not to return to school for the rest of the day.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has just cause to dismiss Respondent for failing to attend work during duty hours and leaving his class unsupervised so as to constitute misconduct in office, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-6.056(2) and 6A-6.056(4).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner initially employed Respondent as a substitute teacher on February 26, 1990. From January 1991 through June 1991, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Petitioner's Braddock High School. From August 1991 through May 1993, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Petitioner's Coral Park Senior High School. From January 1994 through May 1994, Respondent worked as a substitute teacher at various of Petitioner's schools. From March 1994 through June 1994, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Petitioner's Miami Central Senior High School. Starting in August 1994, Petitioner employed Respondent as a teacher at Miami Coral Park Senior High School. He was continuously employed at this school, except for a suspension from March 13 through April 24, 2014, until Petitioner suspended him on April 13, 2016, for the acts and omissions that are the subject of this proceeding. Spring 2006 marked the first recorded instances of Respondent's attendance problems. On April 5, 2006, Petitioner issued warning memoranda due to Respondent's tardiness. On April 28, 2006, Petitioner summarized a Conference-for-the- Record (CFR) for Respondent's repeated tardiness in reporting for work. A few years later, attendance problems emerged again, evidently at a much greater volume. On March 6, 2013, Respondent failed to report to work at the required time and never called to advise the administration that he would be late. He had also been tardy and failed to call on the two preceding days, as well as on 13 other days during the 2012-13 school year. On March 6, 2013, Petitioner issued a Memorandum of Concern. Respondent was tardy three more days after receiving the memorandum, so, on May 22, 2013, Petitioner issued a CFR summary directing Respondent to report to work on time. On October 15, 2013, Petitioner issued a memorandum determining that Respondent had been selling candy to students without authorization. On November 6, 2013, Petitioner issued a CFR summary containing directives about attendance and selling candy to students. On January 13, 2014, Petitioner issued a CFR summary determining that Respondent had used vulgar language at students, thrown a toilet-paper roll at one student, and commanded the student to get the "fuck" out of his classroom. Petitioner's representatives asked for Respondent's resignation, but he declined to resign. Respondent countered that he was having a difficult year because the administration had "changed drastically" his schedule, and the science department chair had "bullied" him. Before Petitioner had determined the discipline for this offense, on January 28, 2014, Petitioner issued a CFR summary determining that Respondent had taken students off campus in his vehicle, often leaving students unsupervised to pick flowers from a garden for a lab experiment. In response to this charge, Respondent declared that "things have changed and [he] realize[d] that it is a new day." The CFR summary noted that Respondent also had often left his students in the classroom unsupervised; used disparaging language toward students, including calling one student, "retarded"; and kissed the top of the head of a female student. Petitioner's representative offered Respondent the option of resignation, which he again declined. On March 7, 2014, Respondent accepted an offer of a 30-day suspension, evidently for the offenses noted in the preceding paragraph, and he served this suspension from March 12 through April 23, 2014. After the calamitous 2013-14 school year, during which he was disciplined on four occasions, Respondent's offenses focused exclusively on attendance. On February 2, 2015, Petitioner issued an Absence and Tardiness from Worksite Directives Memorandum. This noted absences and tardies on 22 days of the still-ongoing 2014-15 school year. On February 11, 2015, Petitioner issued a CFR summary detailing Respondent's history of nonattendance, noting, in particular, that on January 9, 2015, at about 9:50 a.m., Respondent left his classroom unattended, and several students accessed his computer and changed their grades. Petitioner's representatives advised Respondent that his repeated failure to adhere to directives demanding that he adhere to basic attendance policies would result in gross insubordination upon recurrence. At the start of the 2015-16 school year, Petitioner issued a Absence/Tardiness Directives Reminder memorandum, advising Respondent that the February 11 CFR summary continued to apply. On September 22, 2015, Petitioner issued a Reminder of Absence from the Worksite Directives and a reminder of sign- in procedures. However, between September 22 and October 27, 2015, Respondent failed to sign in on 21 occasions. On October 27, 2015, Petitioner issued a Professional Responsibilities Memorandum covering these 21 violations of Petitioner's attendance policy, and, on November 4, 2015, Petitioner issued a CFR summary reprimanding Respondent for his failure to adhere to attendance policies following a meeting to which Respondent was 20 minutes late. For the preceding 19 months, Respondent had displayed repeated disregard for his basic professional responsibilities, including even attendance. Given the number of violations in a relative brief span, Respondent's compliance with policies would need to improve to rise to the point that it could be described as checkered. While facing discipline for the absences and tardies documented in the October 27 memorandum, two days later, Respondent left the school campus at about 10:00 a.m. to go home and sleep, not informing anyone that he was leaving the campus and not returning to teach his sixth-period class, which, unsupervised, was found milling around a hallway after Respondent had chosen to transform himself from a professional employee to a "no call/no show." The applicable collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the union of its instructional employees (CBA) "recognize[s] the principle of progressive discipline," but also requires that the "degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." CBA, Article XXI, Section 1.A.1. The CBA provides for the suspension or dismissal of instructional employees, as provided by Florida Statutes. Id. at Section 1.B.1.a.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding just cause for dismissing Respondent for gross insubordination in repeatedly refusing Petitioner's directives that he attend school and supervise his students. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Kim M. Lucas, Esquire Miami Dade County Public Schools School Board Attorney's Office 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano Miami Dade County Public Schools School Board Attorney's Office 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Leonel Marrero 1621 Southwest 93rd Court Miami, Florida 33165 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a noninstructional employee of Petitioner's, should be fired.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Jimmie Alvin ("Alvin") was a School Security Monitor in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District").1 From 1989 until September 2003, when Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Alvin worked at Miami Beach Senior High School. During the 2001-02 school year, Alvin failed to show up for work without authorization at least twice, and he was tardy some 28 times. Alvin was disciplined for this poor performance at a conference-for-the-record held on April 25, 2002. Alvin's attendance improved thereafter, and during the 2002-03 school year, he was late for work just six times. Other problems arose, however. In September 2002, a female student accused Alvin of having touched her arm inappropriately while, allegedly, simultaneously calling her a "whore" in front of others. Following the student's complaint, the District charged Alvin with violating the School Board Rule against improper employee- student relationships. School detectives investigated the charge and found it "substantiated" on conflicting evidence. At the final hearing in this case, however, Alvin credibly denied the allegations. For its part, the Board offered no persuasive, competent, nonhearsay evidence to prove that Alvin actually committed the acts of which the female student had accused him. Thus, it is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that the evidence fails to establish Alvin's guilt with regard to the charge of engaging in an improper employee- student relationship. On March 3, 2003, Alvin was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to sell. On April 24, 2003, Alvin pleaded "no contest" to the criminal charge and was sentenced to one year's probation. At a conference-for-the-record on May 6, 2003, Alvin was notified that the District would review information concerning his past attendance problems, the alleged improper relationship with a student, and his recent criminal conviction, to determine an appropriate disciplinary response. At its regularly scheduled meeting on September 10, 2003, the Board suspended Alvin without pay pending the termination of his employment for just cause. At all times material, Alvin was a member of United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"), a teachers' union. The conditions of Alvin's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement referred to in the record as the "UTD Contract."2 Ultimate Factual Determinations The undersigned is unable to determine whether, as a matter of ultimate fact, Alvin should be fired for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, because the UTD contract is not in the evidentiary record.3 Therefore, it is determined that the Board has failed to carry its burden of proving the alleged grounds for dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Alvin of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Alvin be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Alvin back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his position of employment as a School Monitor on the basis of conduct which is alleged to constitute conduct unbecoming an employee, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Hector Valdez, was employed by the School Board as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. At all times material to this case, Michael Bowers (who is not a party to this proceeding) was also employed as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. The Respondent and Michael Bowers were coworkers; neither was supervisor over the other. On September 25, 1991, for the first time ever, the Respondent gave Bowers a ride in the Respondent's car after work. First they went to the union office. Bowers' beeper went off and Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to Bowers' mother's house. The Respondent complied. While the two men were at the residence of Bowers' mother, Bowers' beeper went off again. Bowers told the Respondent that the last beeper call was from a runaway girl or from a girl who had been thrown out of the house by her mother. Bowers went on to explain that he needed to meet the girl to talk to her and try to convince her to go home. To that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to one of the Metro stations. The Respondent complied with Bowers' request. At the Metro station Bowers met two girls. The Respondent had never seen either of the two girls before. From their age and appearance, they looked like they might be students, but the Respondent did not know whether they were students. The oldest of the two girls appeared to be pregnant. Bowers explained to the Respondent that he (Bowers) needed to go somewhere to talk to the girls and try to convince them to go home. Purportedly to that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him and the two girls to a motel. The Respondent complied with the request. When they arrived at the motel, Bowers and the girls went into the motel and Bowers obtained a motel room. The Respondent remained in his automobile and played no part in obtaining the motel room. A few minutes later, Bowers asked the Respondent to take him to buy a pizza. The Respondent drove Bowers to a pizza shop and then drove Bowers and the pizza back to the motel. The Respondent left Bowers at the motel and did not see Bowers or the two girls again until the next morning at work. The Respondent did not know that Bowers intended to spend the night at the motel with the two girls, nor was he aware that Bowers intended to engage in any other form of improper conduct with either of the two girls. On September 26, 1991, when Bowers reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he brought with him the same two girls who had been with him at the motel the previous day. The Respondent did not play any role in transporting the two girls from the motel to the high school on September 26, 1991, and did not find out until several days later that Bower had spent the night at the motel with the two girls and had brought them to the school. 1/ On September 26, 1991, after the Respondent reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he saw the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel the previous evening. The girls were on the school campus and the Respondent knew they were not supposed to be there because they were not students at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. 2/ As soon as he saw the two girls on September 26, 1992, the Respondent went looking for Bowers. When the Respondent found Bowers he told him the girls were on campus, reminded him that the girls weren't supposed to be there, and told him that he (Bowers) needed to do something about it. Bowers assured the Respondent that he would so something to take care of the matter. Bowers did not do anything effective to take care of the matter, because the two girls remained at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School all day on September 26, 1991. The Respondent knew that Bowers had not taken care of the matter because he saw the two girls on the school campus several times during the day on September 26, 1991. On September 26, 1991, the Respondent did not report to the school administrators of Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School that the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel were on the school campus. The Respondent's duties as a School Monitor required that he make a report to the school administrators of any trespassers on the school campus. The Respondent was aware of his duty to report trespassers on the school campus. At the hearing the Respondent candidly admitted that he failed to follow proper procedure on September 26, 1991, by failing to report the presence on campus of the two girls who had been with Bowers the previous evening.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the School Board issue a Final Order in this proceeding to the following effect: Dismissing all charges against the Respondent and restoring him to his former position of employment with back pay from the date of his suspension. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of July 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July 1992.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Broward County, Florida, is an "agency" as defined in Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, and is charged by law with direction and control of grades Kindergarten through 12 for all public schools in Broward County, Florida. As of September, 1980, there were approximately 130,000 students enrolled in the Broward County School System, which makes that system one of the largest in the country. Respondent is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations that establish attendance zones for grades Kindergarten through 12. During late 1980 and early 1981 the School Board engaged in its annual review of existing attendance boundaries to determine whether changes should be made for the 1981- 82 school year. In performing such reviews and in making necessary recommendations, it is the School Board's policy to consider the following factors: existing overcrowded schools; proper utilization of existing physical facilities; maintaining a unitary school system; student safety; student feeder patterns; transportation costs; establishment of new schools; consolidation of small school attendance areas; and community involvement. The dispute in this proceeding arises from the School Board's rezoning decision as it relates to four north area high schools: Coral Springs; Ely; Pompano Beach; and J. P. Taravella. In reaching its rezoning decision for these four high schools, the School Board was concerned primarily with the existence of overcrowded schools, underutilized physical facilities and the problem of racial composition in the various schools. In order to fully understand the import of the School Board's ultimate decision, and the magnitude of the problem which the Board faced, some historical perspective is necessary. Prior to 1970, the school system in Broward County was operated on a dual, biracial basis, with separate school facilities for black and white students. In 1970 litigation was commenced in Federal District Court which resulted in the School Board being ordered to commence efforts to establish a "unitary" school system. The Board's proposal to close Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale and Ely High School in Pompano Beach, both of which were predominantly black, was rejected by the Federal Court. Instead, the School Board was ordered to redraw attendance zones in such a fashion as to assure the operation of these schools as racially integrated facilities. Although Ely High School was closed for a time due to inadequate physical facilities, it was later reopened. The Federal District Court subsequently relinquished jurisdiction in the desegregation litigation on July 31, 1979. In an attempt to continue compliance with the Federal Court directive to maintain a "unitary" school system, the School Board has prudently determined, to the maximum extent possible, to maintain approximately the same percentage of minority enrollment in its high schools as existed at the time the Federal Court relinquished jurisdiction in 1979. The School Board's policy in this regard is based on the assumption that the "unitary" status of the school system as it existed in 1979 met with Federal Court approval, as evidenced by the order relinquishing jurisdiction. The dynamic growth of Broward County over the last several years has, however, to some extent complicated the Board's efforts to maintain a "unitary" system. The primary problem in this regard has been a change in the demographic makeup of the school-age population in Broward County. Over the last several years the location of the high-school-age population in Broward County has shifted from the eastern portion of the county to the west. Because the bulk of the high-school-age population has historically resided in the eastern portion of the county, the majority of physical plant facilities had been constructed there. In recent years, however, the western portion of the county has developed rapidly to such an extent that those physical facilities located in that portion of the county are now seriously overcrowded, and the older facilities located in the eastern portion of the county have become "underenrolled," and, therefore, "underutilized." For example, Coral Springs High School, which is located in the western portion of the county, had a student enrollment of 2,168 for the 1976-77 school year; 2,994 students for the 1977-78 school year; 3,406 for the 1978-79 school year; 3,704 for the 1979-80 school year; and, 3,764 students for the 1980-81 school year. The physical plant at Coral Springs High School has a student capacity of 2,283, thereby requiring the School Board to operate Coral Springs High School on double sessions. As a result of overcrowding at Coral Springs High School, the School Board determined to build a new facility, J. P. Taravella High School, which opened in August, 1981. This new high school, with a student capacity of 1,829, opened in August, 1981, with a total enrollment of 1,228 students, all but seven of whom were reassigned from Coral Springs High School. Taravella High opened under its design capacity because the Board determined not to require students to change schools for their senior year, so that Taravella presently serves only grades 9 through 11. As a result of the construction and opening of J. P. Taravella High School, Coral Springs High School is no longer on double session. In addition, the percentage of black students attending Coral Springs High School as the result of the reassignment of students to J. P. Taravella High School will actually rise from six percent during the 1980-81 school year to nine percent during the 1981-82 school year. A complicating factor in the School Board's rezoning decision as it relates to these high schools was the problem of underenrollment at Ely High School and Pompano Beach High School. Ely High School has a physical plant capacity of 1,857, and Pompano Beach High School has a physical plant capacity of 1,921. During the 1979-80 school year, there were 1,172 students enrolled at Ely High School, and 1,793 enrolled at Pompano Beach High School. For the 1980- 81 school year there were 1,430 students enrolled at Ely and 1,634 students enrolled at Pompano Beach High School. During the 1980-81 school year, the student population of Ely High School was 53 percent black, and, under the rule being challenged in this cause, that percentage remained the same for the 1981-82 school year. Blacks comprised 14 percent of the student population at Pompano Beach High School during the 1980-81 school year, and that percentage fell only one percent under the school attendance zones being challenged in this proceeding. As previously indicated the population of the western portion of Broward County has markedly increased over the last several years. Most of the increase in school-age population in the western portion of the county is composed predominantly of white students. The black population in Broward County is concentrated in the eastern portion of Broward County. Consequently, in order to maintain the desired racial composition in the county schools, relieve overcrowded conditions in some of its schools, and, at the same time efficiently utilize the physical facilities of all its schools, it became necessary for the Board to make some extremely difficult policy choices. The choice ultimately made by the Board is reflected in the rule here being challenged. Petitioners Barton, Mascolo and Tripodi are each residents of the Sunflower-Heathgate section of the City of Tamarac, with children who, under the rule here in dispute, are assigned to Ely High School. Ely High School is located approximately 10-12 miles from the City of Tamarac, while the recently opened J. P. Taravella High School is approximately one and one-half to two miles away. Petitioners object to their children being assigned to Ely High School when they could more conveniently attend the newly opened J. P. Taravella High School, which is located much closer to their residences. Petitioners object to their children being subjected to a lengthy bus ride twice daily to and from Ely High School, and further assert that the children are unable to participate in after-school extracurricular activities because of the distances from their homes to their assigned schools. Although the School Board furnishes transportation in the form of an "activity bus," Petitioners assert that this mode of transportation is at best unreliable, and is, therefore, an unacceptable substitute for what they consider a more appropriate school assignment. The record reflects that the Tamarac area in which all Petitioners' residences are located has been zoned to attend Ely High School since approximately 1977. Consequently, the rule being challenged in this proceeding does not change the school assignments for these families from that which has been in existence for several years. However, J. P. Taravella High School has been in the planning stages for several years, and Petitioners' families had anticipated that upon completion of the new high school their children would no longer have to be bused to attend high school. In the process of adopting the rule challenged in this proceeding the Board conducted a series of public meetings which were well publicized and, as far as can be determined from the record, properly advertised in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioners submitted no evidence to indicate either any serious insufficiency in the notice procedures utilized by the Board, or any prejudice suffered by Petitioners in this regard. Finally, prior to adopting the challenged rule, the Board prepared an economic impact statement that, on its face, addressed all the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Although Petitioners disagree with the conclusions contained in the statute, there is no evidence in this record to ever suggest that the methodology used or the conclusions reached in the statement are in any way inaccurate.
