The Issue The issue presented is whether a rule establishing high school attendance zones is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the School Board of Orange County, Florida (School Board). The School Board is an educational unit and an agency defined in Subsections 120.52(1)(b)7. and (6), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent is the governing body of the Orange County School District (School District or District). In relevant part, Respondent has exclusive constitutional authority to "operate, control and supervise all free public schools" within the District pursuant to Article IX, Section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution (2004) (Florida Constitution). On January 11, 2005, Respondent adopted a rule establishing attendance zones for four high schools in western Orange County, Florida (Orange County). The rule modifies previously existing attendance zones for Apopka High School (Apopka), Olympia High School (Olympia), and West Orange High School (West Orange); and establishes a new attendance zone for Ocoee High School (the relief school). It is undisputed that the establishment and modification of school attendance zones involves rulemaking. The parties agree that the adoption of the relevant school attendance zones satisfies the definition of a rule in Subsection 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioners challenge the rule as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority defined in Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004). In relevant part, Petitioners allege that Respondent violated Subsections 120.52(8)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes (2004), by materially failing to follow applicable rulemaking requirements and by adopting a rule in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Before proceeding to the merits of the rule challenge, it is important from a jurisdictional and contextual perspective to note that this Final Order does not reach any matter that falls within the scope of Respondent's exercise of constitutional authority. For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent has exclusive constitutional authority to operate, control, and supervise public schools within the District (local control). The Legislature has constitutional authority over matters of statewide concern.2 The Legislature cannot statutorily delegate authority that is constitutionally vested in Respondent.3 For purposes of the rule challenge, the exercise of constitutional authority by Respondent is not the exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsections 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004). As a factual matter, the challenged rule involves local control of only those public schools within the District that are affected by the rule. The school attendance zones do not have application beyond the boundaries of the School District. The school attendance zones do not benefit or otherwise affect citizens of the state outside the District.4 The trier of fact has avoided findings concerning matters of local control, including the merits of the school attendance zones, the wisdom of the collective decision of the School Board, and the motives and intent of the individual members of the School Board. Jurisdiction to determine the invalidity of a rule involving matters of local control is the exclusive province of the courts.5 Legislative authority over matters of statewide concern includes the authority to ensure that local school attendance zones are drawn in a manner that complies with uniform requirements for fairness and procedural correctness. The Legislature delegated that authority to Respondent when it enacted Subsections 1001.41(6) and 1001.42(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). The trier of fact has made only those findings needed to determine whether the exercise of delegated legislative authority is invalid within the meaning of Subsections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (2004). The challenged rule affects the substantial interests of Petitioners within the meaning of Subsections 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner, Citrus Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc. (Citrus Oaks), is a Florida nonprofit corporation, organized as a homeowners' association pursuant to Chapters 617 and 720, Florida Statutes (2004). The members of Citrus Oaks own residences in the Citrus Oaks subdivision. A substantial number of the members of Citrus Oaks are substantially affected by the challenged rule. A substantial number of members have children who are students in a public school affected by the challenged rule. The challenged rule reassigns many of those students from the Olympia school zone to the West Orange school zone. The subject matter of the rule is within the general scope of interest and activity of Citrus Oaks. The relief requested is of a type that is appropriate for Citrus Oaks to receive on behalf of its members. Citrus Oaks has represented its members in previous litigation, although this is the first administrative proceeding for Citrus Oaks. More than a substantial majority of the members of Citrus Oaks expressly authorized Citrus Oaks to undertake this proceeding for their benefit. Petitioner, Joy Hutchison, is the mother of Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov. Mrs. Hutchinson and her children reside in Citrus Oaks in a neighborhood identified in the record as Gotha, Florida. At the time of the administrative hearing, Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov attended Gotha Middle School (Gotha). Jamie Petkov and Kirsta Petkov would have attended Olympia in the absence of the challenged rule. The challenged rule changes the attendance zone of each student to West Orange. The challenged rule splits feeder patterns intended to ensure that students in adjacent neighborhoods stay together through progressive grades. The challenged rule assigns some students from Gotha to the Olympia school zone and assigns other Gotha students to the West Orange school zone. Differences in West Orange and Olympia do not affect the substantial interests of Petitioners. The two schools offer comparable, but not identical, educational programs. Each school is accredited by the Southern Association of Accreditation. Each is a comprehensive high school with a full range of academic opportunities for students and Advanced Placement (AP) classes for college credit. Each school offers comparable student-teacher ratios, teachers with advanced degrees, and extracurricular activities. West Orange and Olympia are not identical. Homebuyers generally prefer Olympia to West Orange. Area realtors emphasize location within the Olympia school zone as a marketing feature for homes. Prospective homebuyers generally request homes within the Olympia school zone. Approximately 100 students residing outside the Olympia attendance zone have falsified their domicile information in order to enroll in Olympia. Disparities between West Orange and Olympia do not deny Petitioners a uniform system of education. A uniform system of education does not require uniformity among individual schools in physical plant, curricula, and educational programs.6 The rule development process that culminated in the challenged rule began sometime in March 2004. Three staff members in the District office of the Director of Pupil Assignment (the Director) were responsible for recommending school attendance zones to the Superintendent and his cabinet. The Director and her staff pursued negotiated rulemaking within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). In March 2004, the staff began to establish relevant time lines. In April and May of the same year, staff met with principals of schools potentially subject to rezoning. Staff requested each school principal to submit the names of three individuals to serve on a school rezoning committee to work with the staff. Each school rezoning committee was comprised of the "PTSA president, SAC chairperson, and another member." Each school rezoning committee was a negotiating committee within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). Each school rezoning committee was a balanced committee of interested persons who drafted complex rules in anticipation of public opposition. Each committee worked in good faith to develop group consensus for a mutually acceptable proposed rule. The Director and her staff provided packages to each school rezoning committee. The packages included information concerning time lines; rezoning criteria; maps; demographic information about neighborhoods; transfer policies; transportation; and school data such as demographics, enrollment, and original design capacity. Each committee developed proposed attendance zones based on eight rezoning criteria prescribed in the packages. The eight rezoning criteria are identified in the record as: operate under the current desegregation order; consider future planning and growth of attendance zones; equally distribute population to balance facility use of affected schools; consider reducing student transportation distances, when necessary; maximize the number of students walking to school; maximize the school feeder pattern structure; minimize the disruption of residential areas; and ensure demographic balance, when possible. Each committee was required to give overriding importance to the first three of the eight criteria. The school rezoning committees produced approximately 11 initial proposals. The Director and her staff scrutinize various proposals and received citizen input during three public meetings on August 25 and October 5 and 25, 2004. Each public meeting was a rule development workshop within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004). Approximately 600 members of the public attended the first workshop conducted on August 25, 2004. Many members of the public spoke at the meeting or provided written input concerning the various proposals. Staff and committee members considered the public input and scrutinized the proposals. Staff reduced the number of proposals to seven, identified in the record as options A through G, and conducted a second workshop on October 5, 2004. Between 400 and 500 members of the public attended the second workshop. As the meeting "wore on," the Director concluded that no consensus on a single proposal was attainable at that time and adjourned the meeting. After the second workshop on October 5, 2004, the staff developed one recommendation for rezoning and two best options identified in the record as the recommendation, option A, and option F. Staff presented the recommendation to the Superintendent at a cabinet meeting, but also included, for informational purposes, the two options. Attendees at the cabinet meeting included "area superintendents," the chief financial officer, the chief facilities officer, the chief operations officer, and the deputy superintendent for curriculum instruction. The Superintendent and his staff vetted the recommendation before the recommendation was presented to the public as the "Staff Proposal" during a third workshop conducted on October 26, 2004. Approximately 500 members of the public attended the third workshop. The Director presented the Staff Proposal and received public input. The Staff Proposal reassigns 435 students from Apopka to the relief school; 136 students from Olympia to West Orange; and 2,315 students from West Orange to the relief school. The Staff Proposal does not rezone students in Citrus Oaks from Olympia to West Orange. There was no discussion at the third workshop of rezoning options other than the Staff Proposal. It is undisputed that Respondent complied with applicable rulemaking procedures from the initiation of the rulemaking process, through the third workshop conducted on October 25, 2004, when staff presented the Staff Proposal. The alleged violations of applicable rulemaking procedures occurred from October 26, 2004, through January 11, 2005. During that interval, Respondent amended the Staff Proposal and adopted the challenged rule. From October 26 through November 29, 2004, Mrs. Karen Ardaman, a member of the School Board, conducted several non- public conferences with the Director and her staff. The non- public conferences were workshops conducted for the purpose of rule development within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004) (private workshops). The private workshops did not involve negotiated rulemaking within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). The private workshops were conducted between a member of the School Board and District staff for the official business of rule development. Mrs. Ardaman stated to the Director and her staff that the purpose of the private workshops was to "tweak" the Staff Proposal. Mrs. Ardaman expressed a specific goal of rezoning at least 300 students from Olympia and an optimal goal of reducing Olympia enrollment to design capacity, if possible. The workshops were extensive and produced four "work-up" proposals identified in the record as Petitioner's Exhibits 20 through 23. One of the work-up proposals was adopted by Respondent as the challenged rule on January 11, 2005.7 Each private workshop included "what-if" questions from Mrs. Ardaman to staff members intended to scrutinize alternative school rezoning scenarios. Each scenario involved specific neighborhoods, the demographic breakdown for the neighborhood, the actual number of students, and the number of students to be reassigned. One work-up extended the West Orange zone to an area north of State Road 50. Another work-up reduced the Apopka enrollment from 4,265 to 3,830, or approximately 650 students over design capacity of 3,187. The private workshops included conversations regarding the use of permanent modular classrooms to relieve overcrowding at Olympia. Mrs. Ardaman requested staff to explore the possibility of adding permanent modular classrooms. On November 30, 2004, the Superintendent published in an area newspaper of general circulation a Notice of School Board Meeting scheduled for December 6, 2004. In relevant part, the notice stated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss "West Orange Apopka Relief School Rezoning." The public meeting conducted on December 6, 2004, was a rule development workshop within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(2), Florida Statutes (2004). The School Board considered the Staff Proposal and the Ardaman alternative (the alternative proposal). The alternative proposal was circulated to the other members of the School Board. Two members left the workshop early. The remaining five members, including Mrs. Ardaman, reached consensus to reject the Staff Proposal and to advertise the alternative proposal as the proposed rule. On December 11, 2004, the Superintendent published a Notice of Proposed Action on High School Attendance Zones in The Orlando Sentinel. The public notice advertised a public hearing scheduled for January 11, 2005, to adopt the proposed rule. That portion of the public notice entitled, "Summary of Proposal" states, in relevant part, that the proposed rule reassigns students residing in Citrus Oaks from Olympia to West Orange. The meeting conducted on January 11, 2005, was a public hearing within the meaning of Subsection 120.54(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2004). Members of the School Board adopted the proposed rule by a vote of four to three. Mrs. Ardaman voted with the majority. The private rule development workshops between a school board member and District staff failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsections 120.54(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent provided no public notice of the private workshops. Respondent failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsections 120.54(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004), for the rule development workshop that Respondent conducted in public on December 6, 2004. The notice published on November 30, 2004, was less than 14 days before December 6, 2004. The published notice did not include an explanation of the purpose and effect of either the Staff Proposal or the alternative proposal. The published notice did not cite the specific legal authority for either proposal and did not include the preliminary text of each proposal. Respondent failed to comply with other rulemaking procedures prescribed in Subsection 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent precluded public participation during the rule development workshop on December 6, 2004. Therefore, the persons responsible for preparing the respective proposals did not explain either proposal to the public and were not available to answer questions from the public or to respond to public comments. The failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures is presumed to be material within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). § 120.56(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). The burden of proof shifts to Respondent to rebut the presumption. Id. Respondent did not rebut the presumption with evidence that the fairness of the proceeding was not impaired or that the proceeding was procedurally correct. Respondent did not show that it cured the materiality of the failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures (procedural errors) by satisfying other rulemaking requirements such as those in Subsection 120.54(3)(e), Florida Statutes (2004). After December 11, 2004, when Respondent published the notice of proposed agency action to adopt the proposed rule, Respondent did not show that it filed a certified copy of the proposed rule with the agency head, together with other relevant materials, for public inspection. For reasons stated hereinafter, the public hearing conducted on January 11, 2005, did not cure the materiality of prior procedural errors. A preponderance of evidence shows the failure to comply with applicable rulemaking procedures was material within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). The procedural errors impaired the fairness and procedural correctness of the development and adoption of the challenged rule. In relevant part, the failure to provide public notice of the private workshops deprived members of the School Board and the public from equal participation, an opportunity to scrutinize various scenarios, and an opportunity for input and comment. The private workshops circumvented six months of prior negotiated rulemaking and public workshops between District staff, rezoning committees, the public, and the Superintendent and his cabinet; and reduced the public process to a shell into which non-public decisions were later poured. The public notice advertised on November 30, 2004, was inadequate. The notice deprived interested members of the School Board and the public of prior notice that the scope of the workshop on December 6, 2004, would include rezoning proposals not addressed in previous public workshops. The procedural errors materially changed the Staff Proposal and materially affected some students not assigned to Olympia in the Staff Proposal. For example, the Staff Proposal decreases Olympia enrollment, through reassignment of students to West Orange, by 136 students; or approximately four percent of the 3,337 students enrolled in Olympia on October 15, 2004; and approximately three percent of the 3,410 students projected to be enrolled in Olympia in the next school year (the 2005-2006 school year). The challenged rule decreases Olympia enrollment by 285 students. That is more than twice the decrease in enrollment in the Staff Proposal. The challenged rule decreases enrollment at Olympia by approximately eight percent of the 3,332 students enrolled in Olympia on November 15, 2004; and approximately eight percent of the projected enrollment of 3,410 for the following school year. The procedural errors materially impact the original design capacities at Olympia and West Orange. The original design capacities at the respective schools are 2,781 and 3,195 students. The enrollment at Olympia on October 15, 2004, in the amount of 3,337 students, exceeded original design capacity by 556 students (overcrowding), or approximately 19.9 percent. The enrollment at West Orange on the same date, in the amount of 4,320 students, exceeded original design capacity by 1,035 students, or approximately 32.4 percent. The Staff Proposal reduced overcrowding at Olympia to 420 students, or approximately 15.1 percent of original design capacity; and added 136 students to West Orange enrollment, or approximately 4.2 percent of original design capacity at West Orange. Based on enrollment on October 15, 2004, the challenged rule decreases overcrowding at Olympia to 271 students, or approximately 9.7 percent of original design capacity; and adds 285 students to the West Orange enrollment, or approximately 8.9 percent of original design capacity.8 The materiality of the procedural errors is exacerbated by the scheduled loss of the Ninth Grade Center at West Orange in the 2005-2006 school year. That event will reduce actual capacity at West Orange from the original design of 3,195 students to 1,993 students. This is a capacity loss of 1,202 students. The challenged rule adds 285 students to West Orange enrollment next year, which is an increase of approximately 14.3 percent over actual capacity. The Staff Proposal adds 136 students to West Orange enrollment, which is an increase of approximately 6.8 percent over actual capacity. The Staff Proposal and challenged rule leave West Orange with 2,236 and 2,385 students, respectively, or approximately 243 and 392 students over next year's actual capacity of 1,993 students. Overcrowding at West Orange from the Staff Proposal is approximately 12.19 percent of actual capacity next year, and overcrowding from the challenged rule is approximately 19.66 percent of actual capacity. The Staff Proposal reduces overcrowding at Olympia next year from 19.99 percent to 15.1 percent over capacity and leaves overcrowding at West Orange over 12.19 percent. The challenged rule reduces overcrowding next year at Olympia from 19.99 percent to approximately 9.7 percent and leaves overcrowding at West Orange at 19.66 percent over actual capacity. The procedural errors facilitated a challenged rule that departs materially from recommendations by the Olympia rezoning committee. The rezoning committee recommended no change at the school. In relevant part, the committee wrote: While we recognize that Olympia remains overcrowded, aggressive, proactive measures should be taken to address overcrowding of Olympia in other ways. Specifically those measures include: Exploring the possibility of adding "permanent" modular structures; and Increasing efforts to remove students who attend Olympia illegally claiming an address in our zone but who actually live out of zone. West Orange is left with room for the growth they expect. Petitioner's Exhibit 14 (P-14). The Orange County Commission, in a decision entered on July 14, 1998, prohibited "portable" classrooms on the Olympia campus in the original design of the school. The decision, however, does not expressly prohibit "permanent" modular classroom structures. Sufficient property exists on the Olympia campus to accommodate permanent modular classroom structures. The procedural errors that occurred in adopting the challenged rule materially affected students in Citrus Oaks who are reassigned to West Orange. The challenged rule will interrupt feeder patterns at Gotha by reassigning some Gotha students to West Orange and allowing others to attend Olympia. The preceding findings concerning variations between the Staff Proposal and the challenged rule are made solely for examining the materiality of procedural errors. The findings do not examine the merits of the challenged rule or the wisdom of the decision of the School Board. Respondent maintains a stated agency policy that prohibits an individual member of the School Board from participating in any matter pending before the Board in which the member has a conflict of interest. In relevant part, the written policy provides: Board members are expected to avoid conflicts of interest involving any matter pending before the board. A conflict of interest is deemed to exist when the member is confronted with an issue in which the member has a personal . . . interest or . . . circumstance that could render the member unable to devote complete loyalty and singleness of purpose to the public interest. . . . The accountability to the whole district supersedes: * * * c. Conflicts based upon the personal interest of a board member who is a parent of a student in the district. P-6, at 001945. Mrs. Ardaman is a member of the School Board who is a parent of three students in the Olympia school zone. When District staff presented the Staff Proposal, one student was a senior at Olympia, another was a sophomore at Olympia, and the youngest was in the sixth grade at Gotha. Mrs. Ardaman did not have a conflict of interest concerning the Staff Proposal, option A, or option F. None of those proposals reassigned any of the Ardaman children from Olympia to West Orange. A deemed conflict of interest existed for Mrs. Ardaman during: the private workshops she conducted with District staff for the purpose of rule development; the public deliberations at the meeting conducted on December 6, 2004; and the vote of the School Board members that took place at the public hearing conducted on January 11, 2005. Courts have recognized that each concerned parent has an interest in his or her children, the educational program in which each is enrolled, the prevention of disruption in the educational progress of each child, and any unwarranted disruption in the child's educational experience.9 Mrs. Ardaman had a judicially recognized interest in developing and adopting a rule that minimized the foregoing impacts on her children. Citrus Oaks sits on the northern boundary of Old Winter Garden Road (Winter Garden). The Ardaman children reside in a neighborhood to the south of Winter Garden. Mrs. Ardaman chose to reassign Olympia students to West Orange from three neighborhoods north of Winter Garden, including students in Citrus Oaks, and to reassign Olympia students to West Orange from only one neighborhood south of Winter Garden. The challenged rule does not achieve the optimal goal sought by Mrs. Ardaman of reducing Olympia enrollment to the original design capacity. The challenged rule could have achieved that goal by increasing the number of reassignments to West Orange from the geographic area south of Winter Garden. Mrs. Ardaman declined that option. During the non-public workshops, Mrs. Ardaman asked District staff to analyze numerous school rezoning scenarios based on reassignments from specific neighborhoods. Although the various scenarios included neighborhoods south of Winter Garden, Mrs. Ardaman did not ask staff to analyze a scenario that would have reassigned students in her neighborhood from Olympia to West Orange. Reassignment of Olympia students in the neighborhood in which Mrs. Ardaman resides would have interrupted feeder patterns for Gotha students. At the time, Mrs. Ardaman had a child in the sixth grade at Gotha. The challenged rule interrupts feeder patterns at Gotha for students residing in neighborhoods north of Winter Garden. Respondent exercised agency discretion in adopting the challenged rule in a manner that was inconsistent with officially stated agency policy. Respondent permitted a member of the School Board with a personal interest deemed to be a conflict of interest to participate in a pending matter before the School Board. The deviation from agency policy was material. The members of the School Board voted on January 11, 2005, to adopt the proposed rule by a vote of four to three. Mrs. Ardaman cast the deciding vote. Without the vote of Mrs. Ardaman, the remaining tie vote would have been insufficient to adopt the proposed rule.10 The deviation from agency policy was material for other reasons previously stated in the discussion of procedural errors and not repeated here. Respondent did not explain the deviation from officially stated agency policy. The adoption of the challenged rule was neither arbitrary nor capricious within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes (2004). The agency action is supported by logic and essential facts. Respondent did not adopt the proposed rule without thought or reason, and the proposed rule is not irrational. Between December 6, 2004, and January 11, 2005, the members of the School Board received data sheets and impact assessments for the proposed rule. The members had already received the data supporting the Staff Proposal. The members had adequate time between December 6, 2004, and January 11, 2005, to evaluate the logic, essential facts, and rationality of the proposed rule. The members of the School Board were faced with a controversial issue and a difficult decision. Reasonable individuals arguably may have decided to draw the school attendance zones differently. However, it is not appropriate for the trier of fact to substitute his judgment for that of the members of the School Board or to examine the wisdom of the decision of the School Board. Even though Respondent did not adopt the challenged rule in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the procedural errors and deviations from officially stated agency policy were material. Each impaired the fairness of the proceedings and prevented the agency action from being procedurally correct.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve Petitioners' challenge, pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, of the proposed adoption by the School Board of school attendance boundaries and attendant policy changes for implementation beginning with the 1981-82 school year. Initially, Petitioners challenged both the proposed zones for high and elementary schools. However, during the pendency of this proceeding, Respondent withdrew the proposed attendance zone changes for elementary schools, thereby rendering issues related thereto moot, and leaving only the high school boundaries for further consideration. In summary, Petitioners claim that the proposed rule amendments, including maps prepared in conjunction therewith, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by virtue of the School Board's failure to comply with procedural and substantive requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioners allege that deficiencies exist in procedures utilized by the School Board prior to publication of its notice of intent to adopt the proposed rules, in the advertisements and economic impact statement prepared in conjunction with the proposed rule amendments, and in the allegedly arbitrary and capricious nature of the Proposed changes from current attendance boundaries. Petitioners further claim that the School Board's announced intention to utilize student race as a factor in drawing attendance zones is unconstitutional and beyond the School Board's delegated legislative authority. The Respondent contends that each of the Petitioners is without standing to maintain this rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes; that the preadvertisement procedures followed by the School Board are not jurisdictional insofar as this present proceeding is concerned; that any deficiencies in the legal notices or economic impact statement constitute harmless error; and that the proposed rules are a valid exercise of legislative authority delegated to it in Sections 230.23(4) and 230.232, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Leon 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 Leon County, Florida. Respondent is required by statute to promulgate rules and regulations establishing attendance zones for grades Kindergarten through 12, and has proposed for adoption certain amendments to its existing rules which will have the effect of changing attendance boundaries for middle and high schools located in Leon County, Florida. On May 5, 1981, the School Board withdrew previously advertised plans to adopt modified attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, but announced its intention to continue its rezoning efforts. The School Board held a workshop meeting to discuss rezoning on May 14, 1981. This meeting was noticed in the legal advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat on that same date. Action on rezoning was taken at the meeting, and the meeting was recessed until the evening of May 18, 1981. No formal notice of the recessing of the May 14 meeting or the reconvening of that meeting on May 18 was published in any newspaper. On May 18, the May 14 workshop was reconvened. At this meeting the public addressed questions to the School Board members and staff. The Board announced at this meeting that it would discuss the matter further at its regular meeting the following night, May 19, 1981, and that the general issue of rezoning was already on the agenda for the May 19 meeting. The School Board also directed the Superintendent to "take administrative steps as are necessary to schedule a special meeting of the Board pursuant to provisions of Section 230.16, Florida Statutes." This reconvened meeting held on the evening of May 18, 1981, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 1981, edition of the Tallahassee Democrat, which carried a news article reporting on rezoning under the headline, "The rezoners are feeling the pressure." This newspaper article included a special separated section entitled "Meeting is Monday," which directed the public's attention to the time and location of the workshop meeting that night. Toward the end of the regular School Board meeting on May 19, 1981, the School Board recessed and subsequently reconvened to discuss rezoning. The School Board held an extensive discussion on various topics related to rezoning, and responded to questions from the public. Two subsequent meetings were then scheduled. The first was a workshop meeting on rezoning to be held on May 25, 1981, and the second was a meeting scheduled for May 26, 1981, to direct the Superintendent to advertise the proposed modified school attendance boundaries. On May 20, 1981, in the Special Notice section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special meeting" of the School Board at Belle Vue Middle School on May 26, 1981, beginning at 7:00 p.m., to discuss rezoning. On May 21, 1981, in the Legal Advertisement section of the Tallahassee Democrat, an ad appeared noticing a "special emergency meeting" at Bond Elementary School beginning at 5:00 p.m. on May 26, 1981, to deal with rezoning, which notice indicated that the meeting time and place was a rescheduling of the meeting previously set for Belle Vue Middle School. The May 25, 1981, workshop meeting was noticed in a legal advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat on May 22, 1981. In a news article on rezoning published on Sunday, May 24, 1981, in the Tallahassee Democrat, which article was entitled "Rezoners can't find all the answers," the purpose, times and locations for both the May 25 workshop and the May 26 special emergency meeting were contained in a special section set off from the remainder of the article. The Petitioners challenging the modification of the high school attendance boundaries in this proceeding testified that they were each present at the May 26 meeting. At the School Board meeting on May 26, 1981, there were approximately forty to fifty members of the public in attendance. Members of the public addressed the School Board during the meeting. Several modifications were made to the maps and the language of the proposed rule amendments at this meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Superintendent was directed to initiate in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the adoption of modified school attendance boundaries and associated language changes in as expeditious a fashion as possible. On June 3, 1981, four legal advertisements pertinent to this proceeding, each entitled "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Rule," appeared in the Legal Notices section of the Tallahassee Democrat. These notices were titled 6GX37-3.02(1) High School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Middle School; 6GX37-3.02(1) Elementary School; and 6GX37-3.02 Assignment of Pupils. Under the economic impact portion of the four advertisements is the phrase, ". . . [p]arents of students who elect to be grandfathered are responsible for transportation and the costs associated with that responsibility." The maps containing the proposed high school attendance boundaries are Respondent's Exhibits 8(d) High School City Map, and 8(e) High School County Map. The two high school maps were referenced in the legal advertisement denominated 6GX37-3.02(1) High Schools. By its actions, the School Board proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(1) to read as follows: The Establishment of Schools. All public schools operated by the School Board of Leon County, Florida, shall be for its residents and for such other students as may be authorized by the Board and shall be fully desegregated. The School Board shall from time to time promulgate atten- dance zones so that each school will serve those students residing in each such zone. The Board shall also establish student capacities for, and grades served by, each school in the county, which may be modified by the Board as required. Maps showing the attendance zones applicable to each school, including grades served by each school, shall be maintained in the Office of Student Services and shall be available for public inspection. The School Board also proposes to amend Rule 6GX37-3.02(2) to add the following provision: Grandfathering. The following standards shall be for grandfathering certain students, provided that their residence remains unchanged, in order to preserve educational continuity. Once a student has indicated his or her choice, in writing, changes may be made through application to the Board Reassignment Subcommittee. The Board shall, upon request, allow students who were enrolled in a high school during the 1980-81 school year to remain at that same high school if the new zones for the 1981-82 school year put them in the attendance zone of a different high school so long as the parents shall be responsible for all necessary transportation. (Emphasis added). The School Board is not presently under any federal or state mandate to rezone the school system in Leon County. The School Board is, therefore, performing a purely discretionary function in undertaking its current rezoning effort. Respondent's express purpose in rezoning Leon County high schools for the 1981-82 school year is . . . to make more effective use of school facilities and to seek greater racial balance among the four high schools." In the preparation of school attendance boundaries the School Board, for statistical purposes, divided Leon County into a large number of small geographical areas called "study areas" or "study zones." The number of students residing in each study area was determined by both race and grade level, and this information was then placed in a computer to establish an accurate baseline of current attendance data for making various enrollment projections. In connection with the proposed zoning changes, the School Board administrative staff attempted to bring current and make as accurate as possible the data used in the rezoing process. Current enrollment figures at the high school level were updated through April 8, 1981. In making the various projections based upon available data, the School Board, through its consultant, used "cohort survival rates," a student projection technique developed by the Florida Department of Education for use throughout the state by school districts considering modification of school attendance boundaries. It is recognized that, although this projection technique is commonly accepted, it is subject to the normal errors inherent in any such predictive technique. On February 3, 1981, the School Board adopted five of eight criteria recommended by the Superintendent to be considered in drawing new attendance boundaries. These criteria, although never formally adopted as "rules," were used by community volunteers, staff, consultants, and ultimately the School Board itself in the development of the maps delineating the proposed new attendance boundaries. These criteria are as follows: * * * That the concept of neighborhood schools be adhered to in the revision of the attendance areas, but that non-contiguous attendance areas be allowed where necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. That natural boundaries be used to define attendance areas insofar as it is possible, avoiding duplicate transportation service on individual roadways. That the minority enrollment in any school be not more than 10 percent above or 10 percent below the percent of minority enrollment in that school level in the county as a whole, excluding Chaires, Concord, Fort Braden and Woodville Elementary Schools. That rising 5th, 8th and 12th grade students, on request, be permitted to continue in attendance if their resi- dence is placed in another school attendance area, with any needed transportation being provided by the parent and not the School Board (an exception to this rule should be made for students whose school of atten- dance was changed by the School Board in August, 1980, and transportation be provided at district expense in the event that the attendance areas affecting them are changed this year and the parents desire to have their children continue to attend the school they are attending in 1980-81). That the transportation needed to accomplish the desired racial compo- sition of each school be provided in as efficient and cost effective manner as possible, consistent with Florida Laws and Regulations, and School Board policy on hazardous areas. (Emphasis added). There are four high schools in Leon County: Leon, Godby, Rickards and Lincoln. Enrollment figures for the four high schools, as of April 8, 1981, are as follows: Leon, 1,690; Godby, 1,430; Lincoln, 1,664; and Rickards, 928. White students attending each of the four high schools comprise the following percentages of the total student body: Leon, 78 percent; Godby, 64 percent; Lincoln, 73 percent; and Rickards, 49 percent. The recommended capacities for the high schools in Leon County, based upon the School Plant Survey of Leon District Schools conducted by the Florida Department of Education, are: Leon, 1,644; Godby, 1,556; Lincoln, 1,704; and Rickards, 1,465. In designing the proposed attendance boundaries for the 1981-82 school year, the School Board's consultant used a recommended enrollment figure supplied to him by the School Board staff. This recommended enrollment figure was not the same as the physical plant capacity figure. These recommended enrollment figures were, however, closely related to plant capacities, any differences between the two figures being reflective of various other program considerations. The most reliable prediction of future enrollments at the various high schools, which takes into account the estimated effect of grandfathering under the proposed amendments, reveals that for the first three years in which the proposed school boundaries are to be in effect, anticipated enrollments will be within the physical plant capacities of the various high schools. In addition, under the proposed zone changes, the racial composition of the student populations at each of the four high schools is projected to be within the 10 percent criteria established by the School Board by March of 1984. Rickards is the only high school in Leon County which does not presently meet the plus-or- minus 10 percent racial composition criteria. However, as indicated above, according to the School Board's projections, Rickards should meet that criteria during the 1983-84 school year. The greater number of students assigned to Rickards under the proposed zoning changes will make use of available and currently unused space, and, because of increased student enrollment, the diversity of course offerings should also increase. This is so because the amount of funds allocated to a given school is directly related to the number of students enrolled. Thus, for an under-enrolled school such as Rickards, fewer funds are generated under the statewide funding formula for that facility, which, in turn, may result in fewer programs being offered to students. There are, in fact, some courses not presently offered at Rickards that are available in other county high schools, due, at least in part, to under-enrollment at Rickards. The record in this proceeding does not establish with absolute certainty the total number of students either eligible for or expected to exercise the grandfathering option for the 1981-82 school year. However, a poll conducted by the School Board indicates that from 90 percent to 100 percent of students eligible for grandfathering will exercise that option, and estimates of potential school enrollments are partially based on that assumption. In fact, all student petitioners in this proceeding eligible for grandfathering testified that they would take advantage of that option. The reasons for this choice generally dealt with current school activities and friendships, and was consistent with the policy expressed by the School Board "to preserve educational continuity." The economic impact of the grandfathering provision on parents required to furnish transportation as a result of electing that option was not addressed quantitatively in the School Board's Economic Impact Statement. With regard to this cost factor, the Economic Impact Statement provided that: Current Board policy provides that bus transportation will be provided by the district if the residence of the parent is more than two miles from the assigned school. None of the proposed rule amendments modify this basic policy; however, the policy changes in 3.02 allow for the "grandfather- ing" of students in certain grade levels subject to the requirement that the parents provide all necessary transportation. To the extent that a parent voluntarily chooses to assume that responsibility, that parent may incur associated costs such as gas and oil. There is no indication in this record that the School Board considered the potential cost and feasibility of providing transportation at School Board expense to those students choosing the grandfather option who live two or more miles from the "grandfathered" school. Testimony at the final hearing estimated transportation costs of $367.20 based upon an average driving distance between a student's home and school of 5.1 miles (based on the length of the average bus route), full attendance for the full 180 student school days, and a 20 cents- per-mile cost, which is the current state reimbursement rate for travel by automobile. Naturally, actual transportation costs would vary substantially, depending upon the type of vehicle driven, the number of students transported, the student's actual attendance pattern, carpooling, travel routes, and other associated factors. The parents' responsibility to assume these transportation costs in the event of electing tee grandfathering option is pointed out both in the rule advertisements and the Economic Impact Statement. The School Board has other existing policies which allow a student to attend a school different from that to which he is assigned based upon the location of his residence. These include the School Board's majority/minority transfer policy and instances in which a student requests to attend a special program at another school which is not available at his assigned school. In all such cases, the School Board requires that the student or his parents provide transportation at their own expense. The Economic Impact Statement prepared by the School Board in conjunction with the rule adoption process was based upon materials developed by the School Board staff on impact costs associated with rezoning in their areas of administrative responsibility. The Economic Impact Statement itself was based ". . . upon the premise that only those incremental, out-of-pocket costs attributable to the policy revision and rezoning process are included." Previously committed, or "sunk," costs such as salaries and related employee benefits were explicitly excluded from the analysis, although such costs were significant since the rezoning process absorbed a great deal of staff time. Similarly, "opportunity" costs, in the form of benefits foregone by directing district resources to rezoning rather than other goals were specifically excluded from consideration in the Economic Impact Statement. These base assumptions were described in the Economic Impact Statement itself. Petitioners, Joseph and Piercie Ehrlich, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their two daughters, Stephanie and Betty, who presently attend Lincoln High School. Under the proposed rezoning plan, the Ehrlichs' daughters would be required to attend Rickards High School, unless they choose the grandfather option in order to remain at Lincoln High School. Lincoln High School is located 1.58 miles from the Ehrlich home, and it is approximately 5 miles to Rickards High School from their residence. In the event that the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones are adopted, both of the Ehrlichs' daughters testified that they will exercise the grandfather option in order to continue to attend Lincoln High School. Petitioners, Robert and Joni McDermott, reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Dana, who is presently a student at Lincoln High School. The McDermotts' daughter will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless, as she testified, she exercises the grandfather option, should the proposed school attendance zones be adopted. The McDermott residence is located 2 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 3.5 to 4 miles from Rickards High School. Curt and Linda McKenzie reside in Leon County, Florida, with their daughter, Kris, who is a student at Lincoln High School. If the proposed rezoning amendments are adopted, Kris will be required to attend Rickards High School, unless she chooses to remain at Lincoln under the grand fathering provision. The McKenzie residence is located 1.6 miles from Lincoln High School, and approximately 4 miles from Rickards. A. P. and Judy Floyd reside in Leon County, Florida, with their child, Tracy, who would be entering the 9th grade at Lincoln High School, absent the proposed amendments to the school attendance zones. However, under the proposed plan, Tracy will be required to attend Rickards High School for the 1981-82 school year. Lincoln High School is located 1.6 miles from the Floyd residence, and Rickards High School is located 4.4 miles from their home. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been adopted in this Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, more particularly a Title One teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School during the 1981-1982 school year. On May 6, 1982, John Cohn was a student in Respondent's fourth period class. Arnold Coats was a substitute teacher working with Respondent in Respondent's classroom on that day. After Respondent had given the students an assignment, Cohn requested and received permission to leave the classroom to go to the bathroom. While absent from the classroom, Cohn decided he wished to speak with Ronald Golemhieski, another teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School. Cohn returned to Respondent's classroom to request permission. Coats came to the door and gave Cohn permission to go talk to Golembieski, but Cohn decided he should get permission from Respondent since Respondent was the teacher of the class. Cohn waited in the doorway of Respondent's classroom. When he finally got Respondent's attention, he beckoned with his finger, requesting Respondent to come to the doorway. Respondent went to the doorway, and Cohn requested Respondent's permission to go talk to Golembieski. Respondent grabbed Cohn, pulling him forcefully into the classroom. Commotion broke out in the classroom, and someone yelled for assistance. Golembieski heard the commotion, as did Victoria Bell, the hall monitor. When they arrived at Respondent's classroom, Respondent and Cohn were struggling with each other. They were face to face, and Respondent had his arm around Cohn's neck with his hand on Cohn's throat in a choking manner. Golembieski grabbed Cohn away from Respondent and, after separating them, took Cohn to his classroom to calm him down. Bell and Coats pushed the rest of the students back into their seats and restored order in Respondent's classroom. When the altercation ended, Cohn's shirt was torn and he had scratches on his chest. Just prior to Respondent's outburst, Cohn did nothing to provoke Respondent in any way and was not disrespectful to Respondent. When Cohn got Respondent's attention, Respondent both looked at Cohn and walked to the doorway in a normal manner, thereby giving no warning that he intended to touch Cohn in any way. Respondent interpreted Cohn's beckoning with his finger as an invitation to fight, although Respondent admits that Cohn said nothing to him indicating that he wished to fight.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, approving Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, and denying any claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause to terminate the employment of Charles Willis (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a drama teacher employed by the Petitioner to work at BRHS pursuant to a professional services contract. During 2010, the Respondent had an account on Facebook, a social networking internet website. Facebook allows an individual user to create and maintain a personal "page" including text and photographs, which can be viewed by other users. Users can also provide links to content posted elsewhere on the internet, and viewers can access the linked information. Facebook allows users to establish privacy settings that restrict access to various types of content. Such privacy options include the identification of other Facebook users as "friends." Privacy settings can be established that prevent users from posting comments to content posted by a user, or from viewing comments posted by other users. Social networking websites are used by some teachers to communicate classroom assignments or other educational information to students. Social networking websites are widely used by students and, at least based on the testimony presented at the hearing, by parents and other adults as well. Prior to the allegations underlying this dispute, the Respondent's privacy settings permitted his Facebook "friends" to view all content posted by the Respondent. The Respondent had in excess of 100 BRHS students identified as friends on his Facebook account. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner had no policy, written or otherwise, that restricted an employee from having an account on a social networking website, or regulated the use of any social networking website by an employee. At various times during 2010, the Respondent posted remarks on his Facebook page that included certain acronyms. Such acronyms, and their commonly understood meaning, included the following: WTF (What the Fuck) OMFG (Oh My Fucking God) F'n (Fucking) LMAO (Laughing My Ass Off) ROTFLMFAO (Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off) At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that he intended the "F" in the above acronyms to be understood as "fricking." There was no credible evidence that any student or parent who read the Respondent's Facebook remarks understood the "F" to mean anything other than "fucking." On his Facebook page dated July 31, 2010, the Respondent posted a remark that stated "[I]t's not who you know, it's who you blow," in an apparently derogatory reference to the judging of a student competition. On his Facebook page dated March 30, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph of a bumper sticker that read "[F]uck the man, become the man" that was taken by a student on a trip to New York. The Respondent explained his posting of the photo by claiming that the people on the trip had agreed that all photos taken on the trip would be posted without censorship and that he had posted several hundred trip photos onto Facebook. On his Facebook page dated August 7, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph (titled "Accidental Porn") that he obtained from another Facebook user's page. The photograph displayed a television weatherman standing in front of a map showing an elongated weather system. Based on the location of the weatherman and the weather system, the image was perceived by some viewers as depicting the broadcaster holding his penis in a sexually-suggestive position. Comments on the Respondent's Facebook page made it apparent that his viewers were aware of the perception. On his Facebook page dated August 20, 2010, the Respondent posted a link to content titled "[I]t's a great day to whoop somebody's ass." On his Facebook page dated June 26, 2010, the Respondent, apparently intoxicated, posted remarks indicating that he'd consumed excessive alcohol one evening and then posted remarks on the next day indicating that he had a headache related to the consumption. Although the Respondent asserted that some of the posts referenced herein occurred during summer months when he was not "on contract" as a teacher, his students, past and future, were able to freely access the Respondent's Facebook pages during the summer. The Respondent also had an account on Formspring, another social networking internet website. Formspring presents user content in a "questions and answer" format. In an undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, a student commented "[T]hanks for letting me skip your class today." The Respondent wrote in response, "[Y]ou're welcome, but now you owe me....LOL....just do an amazing job at the encore show." The Respondent acknowledged that he allowed the student to miss his class in order to attend a rehearsal. While the Respondent may have failed to comply with school attendance policy by permitting the student to miss class, the Petitioner's assertion that the posting created the impression of an inappropriate arrangement between a teacher and a student was not supported by credible evidence. In another undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, an unidentified Formspring user asked "what happened with the whole UP dvd thing," apparently in reference to an incident wherein the Respondent played a movie in class. The Respondent replied, "I got areprimand [sic] for showing an unauthorized video and not following the counties [sic] video policy." The Petitioner's assertion that the Respondent's response was an inappropriate discussion of an employer/employee disciplinary matter with a student was not supported by credible evidence. The reprimand was public record. The identity of the person posting the question was unknown. Upon the initiation of this disciplinary action, the Respondent altered his privacy settings on the social networking sites to limit access of personal content to adults. There was no evidence that social networking internet websites cannot be used for appropriate educational purposes. On more than a few occasions, the Respondent was known in the classroom to use "spoonerisms" in speech, wherein letters in various words were deliberately switched to alter a verbalization of a phrase. While in class and in the presence of students, the Respondent used phrases such as "nucking futs" or "doggammit." The school received a complaint about the practice. On one occasion in the classroom, the Respondent referred to his former wife as a "bitch." On at least one occasion, the Respondent used a hand gesture in the presence of students to signify the word "bullshit." On April 30, 2010, the BRHS principal directed the Respondent to refrain from making such statements and gestures. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent continued to engage in such verbal or physical communication after the April 30, 2010, directive. At the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the Respondent approached the BRHS principal to inquire about organizing a theatre trip to New York for some of his drama students. The principal declined to authorize the travel as a school-sponsored event. The Respondent thereafter organized the trip on a private basis. Eight students expressed interest in going on the trip, and the trip ultimately occurred with a number of parents traveling as chaperones. At times, the Respondent discussed the proposed trip in his classes. The announcement of an organizational meeting occurred during class. The meeting was conducted on the school grounds at a time and place where play rehearsals were occurring, which had been previously arranged by the Respondent. There was no evidence that the Respondent mislead any participant to incorrectly presume that the trip was sponsored by the school. The participants in the trip were aware that the travel was not a school-sponsored event. There was no credible evidence that any participant or parent believed that the trip was a school-sanctioned event. The Respondent failed to comply with the school procedure for private use of the facility, which requires application and approval by school administration. Although execution of a facility lease may be required for larger groups, there was no evidence that such a lease would have been required for this meeting. There was no evidence that there was any adverse consequence to the Respondent's failure to seek permission to hold the organizational meeting in the previously-approved play rehearsal space. The time and location of the organizational meeting was not unreasonable, given the nature of the trip and the expected participants. Teachers who need to leave BRHS grounds during the workday are directed to obtain permission from a school administrator and then document the early departure in a log book maintained in the school office. The school administrators are the principal and the assistant principals, who are identified as such during formal meetings at the beginning of the school year. On September 2, 2010, the Respondent needed to go home on his lunch break and switch cars with his wife. The Respondent testified that he could not locate an administrator and that he thereafter went to the office of Bob McCabe, the BHRS "administrative parent liaison" and advised Mr. McCabe that the Respondent was leaving campus early. Mr. McCabe is not a school administrator and has no authority to approve a request to leave school grounds. Mr. McCabe works with parents and on student disciplinary matters. Mr. McCabe told the Respondent that he would tell the administrators, and the Respondent left the school. Mr. McCabe testified that shortly after the Respondent left, an assistant principal inquired as to whether the Respondent had left the grounds. Mr. McCabe also testified that the assistant principal had told him that she was present in her office at the time the Respondent claimed to be unable to find her, but the hearsay testimony was not otherwise corroborated. The evidence establishes that, had the Respondent requested to leave campus, the request would have most likely been granted, as such authorization, absent use of leave, was routinely granted by school administrators. There was no credible evidence that other teachers who have left school grounds without prior administrative approval have been subjected to discipline for the infraction. The Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Terry Osborn, dean of the University of South Florida College of Education, Sarasota-Manatee campus, who opined that some of the Respondent's social networking interactions could have had negative effects on the learning environment, could cause anxiety for some students, and potentially result in a loss of credibility by the educator. Mr. Osborne essentially based his opinion on very limited literature. There was no credible evidence that any of the adverse impacts identified by the witness has occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Charles E. Willis. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Martin, Esquire Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue West, Second Floor Bradenton, Florida 34205 Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Tim McGonegal, Superintendent Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 34206-9069
Findings Of Fact Respondent has for twelve years been an instructional employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida. She currently holds a continuing contract as a classroom teacher, and is assigned to Perry Elementary School in Miramar, Florida. During the same time period, Harold McKahand, Respondent's husband, and Peggy Freeman were instructional employees of the Broward County School Board assigned to Perry Middle School, adjacent to Perry Elementary where Respondent taught. From as early as 1979, Respondent had suspected that her husband and Mrs. Freeman were having a love affair. These suspicions were a frequent topic of conversation between Respondent and her husband. In fact, Respondent had indicated to her husband her intention to seek a divorce. Notwithstanding Mr. McKahand's assurances that he did not want a divorce and would no longer see Mrs. Freeman, he continued to do so, and Mrs. Freeman on many occasions made telephone calls to the McKahand residence, which Respondent apparently considered harassing in nature. All of this culminated in a discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman in August of 1981 in which Respondent requested that Mrs. Freeman cease making telephone calls to her home because they disturbed her and her two children. After this discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman, there was little or no personal contact between them until the act which gave rise to this proceeding. On December 12, 1981, Respondent, her husband and two children attended a racquetball tournament. After the tournament, they returned to their home and Respondent busied herself with work around the home. Respondent's husband, unbeknownst to Respondent, took the family car and proceeded to Perry Middle School to obtain some work folders from his office. Upon arriving at Perry Middle School, Mr. McKahand discovered Mrs. Freeman conducting a Saturday afternoon basketball practice with the school's girls basketball team, which she served as coach. Mr. McKahand and Mrs. Freeman conversed briefly, and Mr. McKahand departed the school and returned home. Meanwhile, Respondent's oldest son had left the family home without performing certain chores which had been assigned to him by Respondent. Upon discovering her son's absence, Respondent took her bicycle and began to search the neighborhood for him. Her search carried her ultimately to the gymnasium at Perry Middle School. Respondent had no knowledge that her husband had gone to his office at Perry Middle School, nor did she know that Mrs. Freeman was conducting a basketball practice at the school. When Respondent arrived at the school, she walked into the gymnasium to see if her son was there. Upon entering the gym, she saw the basketball practice in session, and noticed Mrs. Freeman. When she did not see her son, Respondent started walking from the gym. A member of the girls basketball team advised Mrs. Freeman that Mrs. McKahand was at the door. Although there is some conflict in the testimony on this point, it appears that Mrs. McKahand did not beckon to Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gym, but that one of the team players told Mrs. Freeman of Respondent's presence, and indicated to Mrs. Freeman that Respondent wanted to talk to her. Upon being advised of this, Mrs. Freeman walked across the basketball court, picked up her purse from a table, and proceeded to the gym door through which Respondent had exited. By this time Respondent was outside the gym. Mrs. Freeman forcefully opened the gymnasium door behind which Respondent was standing, striking Respondent on the arm. As Mrs. Freeman exited the door, she and Respondent grabbed one another and a fight ensued. The girls basketball team members were at various positions inside the gymnasium at the time the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman started. It is clear from the record, however, that each of the students were located behind Mrs. Freeman and, therefore, were not in the best of positions to observe the precise manner in which the conflict started. It is also equally clear that the physical confrontation between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman occurred quickly and spontaneously, and, as a result, the various eye-witness accounts contained in this record predictably contain varying and conflicting versions of the events leading up to and culminating in the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman. During the course of their physical confrontation, Mrs. Freeman placed one of her hands on Respondent's throat and the other in Respondent's hair, and Respondent reciprocated, pushing Mrs. Freeman against the gymnasium wall. Several blows were exchanged between the two women. Although the gymnasium door had closed behind Mrs. Freeman, several of the basketball team members followed the two teachers out the door and attempted to separate them. After the fight began, there is no evidence that Respondent acted other than in defense of the actions of Mrs. Freeman. When the students were finally successful in separating the two combatants, Respondent began looking for her sunglasses, which had fallen off, and Mrs. Freeman retrieved her purse, which she had dropped during the altercation. Upon finding her purse, Mrs. Freeman called to several of the students to stand back, whereupon she removed a .22 calibre pistol from her purse, and fired at least two shots. Respondent, upon observing Mrs. Freeman to be armed, began to run from the school premises, retrieved her bicycle, and retreated to her home. Apparently unsatisfied with these results, Mrs. Freeman incredibly loaded several of the team members, including some of the students who testified in this proceeding, into her car, where she reloaded her weapon. Mrs. Freeman then proceeded to drive in a reckless manner, including running several stop signs, to Respondent's home. Upon arriving at Respondent's home, Mrs. Freeman pulled her car into the driveway, took her pistol, got out of her car, and again confronted the Respondent who was standing in her driveway with her two children. Respondent picked up a broom in her garage and got her two children to stand behind her in an attempt to shield them from Mrs. Freeman. Mr. McKahand, who was inside the home during this time, came outside, and ultimately was able to get Respondent inside their home. Mrs. Freeman then departed the McKahand residence, but shortly thereafter began making harassing telephone calls to the McKahand home. Later that afternoon, Mr. McKahand attempted to take Respondent to her part-time job in a local department store, but was prevented from doing so when Mrs. Freeman attempted to run the McKahand car off the street with her vehicle, and further fired upon the McKahands with her pistol. As previously indicated, Petitioner has charged Respondent with referring to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" during the course of their fight. Respondent denies making such a statement, and the only testimony in the record which would establish a finding that such a statement was made is contained in the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Freeman and Rachel Geathers, one of the student basketball players. Mrs. Freeman's testimony in this regard, which the Hearing Officer hereby finds unworthy of belief, was that Respondent referred to her as a "filthy bitch" as Mrs. Freeman exited the gymnasium door. Ms. Geathers' testimony was that Respondent referred to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" after the two combatants had exited the gym and enough time had passed to allow all of the basketball players to run through the door and outside the gym. Ms. Geathers' testimony in this regard is also rejected, in that several of the other students who were in a better position to observe and hear Respondent and Mrs. Freeman testified that they heard no such statement made. Accordingly, it is specifically concluded that the evidence in this case fails to establish Respondent's use of profanity in the presence of students as alleged in the Petition. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding to indicate the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Broward County School System has in any way been adversely affected by the above-described events. In fact, Respondent's principal and grade chairman both testified that Respondent is a good teacher, and they would welcome her back on the faculty of Perry Elementary School should she be absolved of the allegations involved in this proceeding. Even a cursory review of the record in this case will reveal sharp divergencies and conflicts in the testimony of several witnesses. In attempting to resolve these conflicts, the Hearing officer has observed the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, their interest, if any, in the outcome of this proceeding, together with any motive, bias or prejudice which might affect their credibility. Further, the Hearing Officer has also taken into account the conditions existing at the time of the incident observed by the witnesses in weighing the credibility to be attached to the various accounts contained in this record. In so doing, the Hearing Officer has concluded that Respondent did not go to the Perry Middle School gymnasium seeking a confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Indeed, the record clearly establishes that Respondent did not know Mrs. Freeman was even at the gymnasium on the date in question. Further, it is concluded, despite some evidence to the contrary, that Respondent did not summon Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gymnasium, but that Mrs. Freeman was induced to do so as a result of a student telling her that someone was outside the gym to see her. Finally, the quality as opposed to the quantity of the evidence in this case does not support a factual conclusion that Respondent, in fact, initiated the physical confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Because of her conduct at the time of the incident, and further because of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Mrs. Freeman's testimony at the final hearing in this cause, her testimony, in its entirety, is worthy of little credibility. Because of this, her testimony that Respondent initiated the fight has been found unworthy of belief. The testimony of Mrs. Freeman's students, several of whom testified that the first aggressive gesture they saw was made by Respondent, is tainted both by their admitted allegiance to their teacher, Mrs. Freeman, and by their physical positioning which would not admit a particularly clear view of the incident. Conversely, the factual version of this incident given by Respondent in her testimony was, in every particular, more plausible than that contained in the testimony of either the students or Mrs. Freeman. At the time of the above- described incident, almost three and one-half months had passed since Respondent had last spoken in person with Mrs. Freeman. The Respondent did not know that Mrs. Freeman was at the gymnasium when she arrived there looking for her son. As a result, there could not have been any premeditated design on the part of Respondent to assault Mrs. Freeman and, due to the passage of time since her last contact with Mrs. Freeman, there is no apparent motive of record to explain a spontaneous assault. As a result, the only way to resolve the conflict in the testimony concerning how this altercation originated is to weigh the credibility of the various participants. Making such a choice is perhaps the most difficult task a finder of fact must face in a proceeding such as this, but by applying the aforementioned factors, the Hearing Officer has determined that in the areas of conflict, the testimony of the Respondent is more credible than that of either Mrs. Freeman or her students.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein concerns the appeal of the Board's assignment of Jesus Valladares to Youth Opportunity School South, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Jesus Valladares, date of birth April 11, 1970, is an eighth grader who was enrolled at Rockway Junior High School during the 1983-84 school year in the Dade County School System. By letter dated March 14, 1983, Respondent was advised by the Director, Alternative Education Placement, William Perry, Jr., that in lieu of expulsion, Jesus was being administratively assigned to the opportunity school program. The basis of that administrative assignment stems from an incident on February 16, 1984 wherein Respondent carried a knife on his person while attending school at Rockway Junior High School. On February 14, 1984, Respondent displayed the knife to several students and threatened one student with the knife. On February 16, 1984, Lewis Plate, Principal of Rockway Junior High, took the knife from Respondent's person. As noted herein above, Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear to contest or otherwise refute the basis upon which the Petitioner administratively assigned him to Youth Opportunity School South.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of of law, it is hereby recommended: 1. That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order of assignment of Respondent, Jesus Valladares, to Youth Opportunity School South, an alternative school placement. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1984.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's employment with the School Board of Dade County should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Dade County School Board is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising all public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (1997). Ms. Scott is employed by the School Board as a custodian. She began working for the School Board in 1990 as a part-time food service worker at South Dade, and, in early 1992, she began working at South Dade as a full-time custodian. Custodians are classified by the School Board as maintenance workers, and Ms. Scott was a member of AFSCME at all times material to this action. The school's head custodian is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day performance of the custodians, which includes assigning duties to each custodian and developing a schedule for each custodian identifying the tasks that must be accomplished during specified blocks of time. The schedule is approved by the principal of the school. John Alexander is, and was at all material times, the head custodian at South Dade and Ms. Scott's immediate supervisor. Ms. Scott's job responsibilities and duties included "policing" 2/ all ten girls' restrooms after each class change; policing the girls' locker room; policing certain other areas, including designated corridors, the auditorium lobby, the clinic, and the band area; cleaning five girls' restrooms after 2:00 p.m.; cleaning designated cafeteria windows; removing graffiti from walls, mirrors, and corridors as needed; cleaning and disinfecting the drinking fountains in all corridors; cleaning graffiti off walls and doors in the ten girls' restrooms; and cleaning, dusting, and mopping the audio-visual room. Ms. Scott was also expected to respond to emergencies. These duties were the same as those assigned to the female custodian whom Ms. Scott replaced and as those currently being performed by the woman who replaced Ms. Scott at South Dade. Ms. Scott's training consisted, first, of working for several weeks with the female custodian she was hired to replace. Then, after Ms. Scott's predecessor retired, Mr. Alexander worked with her for approximately two weeks. Mr. Alexander noticed problems in her job performance shortly after Ms. Scott began working as a custodian. In a memorandum dated May 12, 1992, Mr. Alexander identified two specific incidents when Ms. Scott refused to follow his instructions. He notified Ms. Scott in the memorandum that he would recommend her termination as of May 19, 1992, during her probationary period, for lack of motivation and failure to perform her job responsibilities. As a result of this memorandum, on May 19, 1992, Ms. Scott, Mr. Alexander and Dr. Paul Redlhammer, the principal of South Dade at that time, met to discuss Ms. Scott's job performance. After this meeting, Dr. Redlhammer sent Ms. Scott a "Memo of Understanding: Job Performance," in which he summarized the reasons for the concern about her job performance and notified her that Mr. Alexander would work with her for two weeks to help her improve her job performance. Mr. Alexander did not notice any improvement in Ms. Scott's work during the two-week period or thereafter. On February 3, 1993, Mr. Alexander had a discussion with Ms. Scott about leaving work early, failing to empty the trash cans in her areas, and failing to clean the floor in the audio- visual room. On May 21, 1993, Mr. Alexander issued a Notification of Written Warning to Ms. Scott regarding her unsatisfactory performance, which included insubordination, disrespect, and improper behavior. Mr. Alexander proposed that Ms. Scott's file be reviewed and that she be given an opportunity to explain her performance. Mr. Alexander intended to recommend her termination from employment. From September 24, 1993, through October 27, 1993, Mr. Alexander kept a log of the time Ms. Scott reported for work and left work each day. The log reflected that Ms. Scott left work thirty to forty-five minutes early on fifteen days during that period, that she took a forty-minute morning break one day, and that she reported for work between one hour and forty minutes and two and one-half hours late on three days. In Ms. Scott's November 15, 1993, annual evaluation, Mr. Alexander rated Ms. Scott poor in the categories of taking lunch and breaks at the proper times, cleaning bathrooms, washing windows, following orders, following work schedules, and working well with other custodians. Mr. Alexander discussed the evaluation and her deficiencies with Ms. Scott, and she acknowledged by her signature that she had seen the written evaluation. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve during the 1994-1995 school year. Despite being told repeatedly not to do so, Ms. Scott spent inordinate amounts of time talking with school security monitors in the school's corridors and in the school's north parking lot, sometimes spending an hour or more a day in these conversations. During most of that time, Ms. Scott was not on authorized breaks or lunch period. At the same time, Ms. Scott often did not properly police the girls' bathrooms or clean the areas for which she was responsible, and, on several occasions, she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander. In September 1994, Orlando Gonzalez, the assistant principal at South Dade, scheduled an informal conference with Ms. Scott to discuss the deficiencies in her work performance, including an incident in which Mr. Gonzalez observed Ms. Scott watching television at 9:30 a.m. in the audio visual room. Ms. Scott left the school before the scheduled conference without permission. As a result of this behavior, Mr. Gonzalez requested that Donald Hoecherl, the new principal at South Dade, schedule a formal conference for the record to discuss "serious deficiencies in her job performance." Mr. Gonzalez later withdrew the request for the conference on the record because he thought he could accomplish more by counseling with Ms. Scott informally to help her improve her job performance. Nonetheless, a conference for the record was held by Mr. Hoecherl in November 1994 for the stated purpose of addressing "continuous incidents of insubordination, failure to complete assigned work, and leaving work early." Ms. Scott was advised by Mr. Hoecherl that, if the problems were not resolved, another conference for the record would be held and that he would formally request her dismissal. Ms. Scott refused to sign the conference summary. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the November 1994 conference for the record. Mr. Hoecherl tried to work with Ms. Scott on an informal basis, but his efforts to improve her job performance were not successful. In April 1995, Mr. Gonzalez received complaints from two parents about the lack of cleanliness in the ladies' restroom in an area which Ms. Scott was responsible for cleaning. Mr. Gonzalez told Mr. Alexander to direct Ms. Scott to clean that restroom. The next day, Mr. Gonzalez found that the restroom had not been cleaned. Mr. Gonzalez prepared a memorandum to Ms. Scott directing her to clean the restroom. In June 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was directed to Ms. Scott because she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander. Ms. Scott's job performance deteriorated during the 1995-1996 school year. On October 5, 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was issued for "[f]ailure to follow and complete assigned work." On November 8, 1995, a conference for the record was held and was attended by Ms. Scott and two representatives of AFSCME, as well as by Mr. Hoecherl, and Mr. Gonzalez. Three issues were discussed: Ms. Scott's direct and implied insubordination when she refused an order by Mr. Alexander to clean up the clinic area after a student became ill and when she twice refused to comply with Mr. Hoecherl's request that she step into his office to discuss the incident; Ms. Scott's pattern of failing to complete her job assignments; and her pattern of loitering on the job by talking to the security monitors in the corridors and in the north parking lot. The written summary of the conference for the record, dated November 13, 1996, included the following: In an effort to resolve these issues the following directives were outlined: Comply with all requests and directives issued by your immediate supervisor or administrator. . . . In regard to this issue failure to comply with the direction of an administrator or immediate supervisor constitutes insubordination and will result in additional disciplinary action. Follow your job assignments as given to you prior to this conference and again at this conference. The cleaning must be performed in a satisfactory manner meeting the requirements to maintain a clean and healthy school setting. Failure to complete your job assignments will result in additional disciplinary action. Refrain from loitering while on the job. You are reminded that you may spend your break and lunch time in dialog with others if you wish. You are not entitled to spend an inordinate amount of time talking and not performing your job assignments. Failure to meet this condition will result in additional disciplinary action. Ms. Scott refused to sign the written summary of the conference. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the conference, and she did not follow the directives outlined for her. She continued to talk with other employees at times when she had no scheduled break; she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned tasks; and she engaged in a pattern of arriving at work late without authorization, taking time off during her shift without authorization, and leaving work before the end of her shift without authorization. On or about February 16, 1996, Mr. Alexander attempted to discuss these problems with Ms. Scott. She became angry and belligerent. Mr. Alexander stood in front of his office door to prevent Ms. Scott from going out into the corridor because the students were changing classes and he felt it would not be appropriate for them to see her in that frame of mind, but she left his office anyway. Ms. Scott was immediately summoned for a meeting with Mr. Hoecherl and Mr. Alexander. During the meeting, a school police officer arrived in response to a 911 call, which Ms. Scott had made, accusing Mr. Alexander of restraining her against her will. The police officer determined that there was no basis for this charge, and Ms. Scott left the meeting in an angry and belligerent manner. Mr. Hoecherl referred this incident to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. An administrative review was ordered, and Mr. Hoecherl was assigned to investigate the February 16 incident. On March 25, 1996, at Mr. Hoecherl's request, he and Ms. Scott met in his office. Mr. Hoecherl explained to Ms. Scott that he was trying to learn what had happened and wanted her to tell him her version of the incident. Ms. Scott became very agitated and left Mr. Hoecherl's office, slamming the door behind her. Her behavior as she left his office was very disruptive, but he nonetheless followed her to her car and asked that she return to his office to discuss the February 16 incident. Her response was belligerent and defiant, and Mr. Hoecherl told her to go home and not return to South Dade for the rest of the day. On the morning of March 26, Ms. Scott reported to work at South Dade. She was told that she had been reassigned to the Region VI administrative office and that she was not to return to the South Dade campus. In accordance with directions he received from the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl instructed Ms. Scott to report to the personnel director at the Region VI office. At approximately 8:00 a.m. on March 27, Ms. Scott appeared at the custodial office at South Dade. Mr. Hoecherl again told her to report to the Region VI office and provided her with written notification of her reassignment. Ms. Scott reported to the Region VI office, but, a short time later, she left and returned to South Dade. Ms. Scott was again told to leave the school grounds and informed that failure to do so would be considered gross insubordination; she refused to leave South Dade despite repeated orders from Mr. Hoecherl and the school police. Ms. Scott was belligerent and disruptive, and she was placed under arrest by the School Board police. She was escorted out of the school building in handcuffs; Mr. Hoecherl covered her shoulders with a jacket to hide the handcuffs from the students, but Ms. Scott attempted to shrug it off. In a memorandum dated March 28, 1996, to the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl detailed Ms. Scott's poor job performance from January 12, 1996, through March 25, 1996. A conference for the record was scheduled for March 29 at 2:00 p.m. by James Monroe, the Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Ms. Scott failed to report for the conference even though she was contacted at her home by telephone shortly after 2:00 p.m. and told that they would wait for her for one hour. The conference for the record was rescheduled for April 4, 1996, and the topics to be discussed were identified in the notice as follows: "[Y]our failure to report for a conference on March 29, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., as previously directed . . .; failure to comply with site directives; unauthorized departure from the work site; attendance/performance related issues; medical fitness for continued employment and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." During the conference, Ms. Scott was advised that her employment status would be reviewed in light of the facts discussed at the conference, and she was directed to report to the Region VI office pending formal notification of the decision of the Superintendent of Schools and to perform all tasks and duties assigned to her. During the time she was assigned to the Region VI office, from April 1996 until September 1996, Ms. Scott disregarded instructions and directives from her supervisors, she failed to perform her job responsibilities or performed them inadequately, and she was absent from work a number of times without authorization. From September 1995 to September 1996, Ms. Scott was absent from her job without authorization for 20 days. She was absent from her job without authorization for three consecutive workdays from March 28 through April 1, August 23 through September 5, 1996. 3/ Ms. Scott was suspended by the School Board at its September 11, 1996, meeting. Mr. Alexander, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Hoecherl tried for several years, through numerous informal memoranda and discussions, to help Ms. Scott bring her job performance up to an acceptable level. Ms. Scott was given several formal written notifications and warnings about the deficiencies in her job performance, and three formal conferences for the record were held to put Ms. Scott on notice of the perceived job deficiencies and of the complaints about her work and to allow her to explain the situation from her perspective. Ms. Scott did not comply with the directives for corrective action developed during the conferences for the record, and her attitude and job performance generally deteriorated from 1992 until September 1996, when she was suspended and dismissal proceedings instituted. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that Ms. Scott's job performance was deficient in that she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned job responsibilities; that on numerous occasions she refused to comply with requests and direct orders from the head custodian, from the assistant principal, and from the principal of South Dade; that she accumulated excessive unauthorized absences; and that she abandoned her position with the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County issue a final order terminating Gale Scott's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Except for the matters at issue, the Petitioner is full qualified for licensure as an agent and to obtain an agency license. The Petitioner served twenty (20) years in the US Army, retiring as a sergeant-major in 1973. His last ten (10) years in service were involved directly with work which the agency concedes is the equivalent of the work done by an employment clerk. The Petitioner, since retiring from the US Army, has been employed as a teacher/career counselor in the Detroit school system at the high school level. There he instructed high school ROTC six (6) to seven (7) hours per week. The remainder of his time was spent in counseling and duties associated with administration of the ROTC department of which he was head. The Petitioner has counseled more than 200 students regarding careers to include helping them fill out applications, helping to place them in programs, and encouraging them to develop job skills. He held this position until applying for this license. The petitioner also served for more than three (3) years immediately preceding his application on the Harper Woods School Board. As a member of the school board he had to approve the hiring, firing and granting of tenure to school board employees, and review negotiated contracts for employees of the school board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Ralph E. Young for an employment agency/agent license be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ralph E. Young 2117 South East Erwin Road Port St. Lucie, Florida
