Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Teacher's Certificate #123157 (Petitioners' Exhibit #1). In 1980-1981, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher at Cove Elementary School ("Cove") in Belle Glade, Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent had been employed at Cove for approximately ten years and in 1980-1981 taught second grade. In 1976-1977, Respondent had been cautioned for inflicting corporal punishment on students without following the statutory guidelines and school board policies. At the beginning of the 1980-1981 school year, Respondent was accused of inflicting corporal punishment on her second grade students. Respondent was cautioned by her principal, who restated the policies of the Palm Beach School System to the Respondent. These policies were consistent with Section 232.27, Florida Statutes. On or about February 10, 1980, Respondent struck Buster Brockman, an eight-year-old second grade student, in the head with an automobile fan belt. This caused an injury to the child's face about his left eye. The Respondent also threw Brockman against a table, bruising his ribs. Brockman was treated at the emergency room and released. This incident occurred in Respondent's classroom without an adult witness and without the prior permission of her principal. Respondent was severely cautioned by her principal. In March of 1981, Respondent stuck Tony Aunspaugh, Jr., an eight-year- old second grade student, with an automobile fan belt across the right thigh. The blow left a dark welt/bruise on the boy's thigh. Respondent struck Aunspaugh in her classroom without an adult witness and without her principal's permission. Respondent was again cautioned by her principal. On or about May 29, 1981, the Respondent struck Reyes Reyes and another boy, both students in her second grade class, several times on the back with an automobile fan belt. The blows left dark welts/bruises on their backs. Respondent was suspended on this occasion, pending the school board's action. At all times during the 1980-1981 school year, the West Palm Beach School Board's policy regarding corporal punishment was that before corporal punishment could be administered to a student, the principal was to be advised and was to give permission, and the punishment was to be administered by the principal or the principal's designee before an adult witness who was a member of the staff. On none of the several occasions Respondent struck students did she adhere to this policy. The investigation which followed the Respondent's suspension brought to light other incidents of Respondent having struck children which had not been known to the school administration previously. Various students of Respondent testified about being struck by her during the 1980-1981 school year. Their collective testimony was that Respondent had engaged in inflicting corporal punishment during the entire school year in a manner contrary to the school board's rules and the statutory requirements. Notice of the subject hearing was provided the parties as required by the statutes and rules. The Education Practices Commission introduced Petitioner's Exhibits #1 through #5, which were received in evidence.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Education Practices Commission revoke Respondent's teaching certificate and, further, that recertification be considered only upon a demonstration by Respondent that she is fully rehabilitated. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Woods, Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Audrey Clark 1213 Vaughn Circle Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 231.3605(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), by engaging in alleged harassment, inappropriate interactions with colleagues, or misconduct. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 2000, the School Board employed Respondent as a Plant Operator at Seminole High School. The School Board transferred Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School on May 22, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Respondent earned a satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that he is a "hard worker," a "good team worker," and "he works well with others." On February 15, 2001, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "good team worker" and is "always willing to help others." On September 17, 2001, the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods Elementary School (Cypress Woods). The two individuals who had previously served as Night Foremen were Barbara Moore (Moore) and Kevin Miller (Miller). At Cypress Woods, Sharon Sisco (Sisco) was the Principal, Marilyn Cromwell (Cromwell) was the Assistant Principal, and Candace Faull (Faull) was the Head Plant Operator. As Head Plant Operator, Faull supervised Respondent as well as Moore and Miller. Each Night Foreman had "poor communication problems" with Faull. Between the fall of 2000 and the spring of 2002, Respondent, Moore, and Miller each supervised individual Plant Operators at Cypress Woods, including Alice Mertz (Mertz). Mertz had problems with taking instructions from each Night Foreman and with taking complaints "over their head[s]" directly to Faull. Faull attempted to "set up" both Miller and Moore for disciplinary action by the School Board. During the fall of 2000, the School Board received numerous complaints from Miller and Moore about the abuse they suffered at Cypress Woods. On October 10, 2000, Sisco issued specific directives to Faull, instructing her "not to make or engage in negative conversation [with] . . . the crew (or other staff) regarding the Night Foreman." On March 14, 2001, Sisco reprimanded Faull and again counseled her "not to make or engage in negative conversation made by the night crew (or other staff) about the night foreman." On March 20, 2001, Cromwell instituted a Success Plan. The Plan instructed the Plant Operations crew to "refrain from gossip and negative comments about each other." The Plan required the Plant Operations crew to maintain a Communications Log. During the spring of 2001, Cromwell monitored the behavior of the Plant Operations staff through regular meetings. The Plant Operations crew continued its historical behavior after the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods in the fall of 2001. On February 1, 2002, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from Sisco. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "great team worker" who "gets along with staff." On February 28, 2002, Respondent touched Mertz on her buttocks in the break room at Cypress Woods in the presence of at least two other people in the room. The physical contact occurred when Mertz walked past Respondent on her way out of the break room. Respondent admits that his hand made contact with the buttocks of Mertz. However, Respondent claims that the contact was incidental, not intentional, not inappropriate, and did not satisfy the definition of sexual harassment. Mertz did not confront Respondent but left the room. However, Mertz later filed a sexual harassment complaint with her employer. Campus police investigated the matter on March 1, 2002. The investigation included statements from Mertz, Respondent, and Mr. Todd Hayes (Hayes), one of the individuals who was present in the break room at the time of the incident. All three testified at the administrative hearing and provided written statements during the investigation. Mertz and Respondent also provided deposition testimony during pre- hearing discovery. Respondent also provided an additional statement on March 5, 2002, during an interview with Michael Bissette (Bissette), Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). On March 18, 2002, Bissette determined that Respondent had committed harassment, inappropriate interaction, and misconduct in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v) authorizes disciplinary action for each offense that ranges from a caution to dismissal. Bissette recommended to the Superintendent of the School Board that the School Board dismiss Respondent from his employment. By letter dated March 18, 2002, the Superintendent notified Respondent that Respondent was suspended with pay from March 13, 2002, until the next meeting of the School Board on April 16, 2002. If the School Board were to adopt the recommendation of dismissal, the effective date of dismissal would be April 17, 2002. Respondent requested an administrative hearing, and the School Board suspended Respondent without pay on April 17, 2002, pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Some inconsistencies exist in the accounts provided by Mertz. For example, Mertz claims in her testimony that the incident occurred "around 2:30 p.m." The investigation report by the campus police shows that Mertz claimed the incident occurred around 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. Other inconsistencies exist between the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. For example, Mertz testified that five people were in the break room at the time of the incident and that she did not confront Respondent or say anything to Respondent. Hayes recalls that only four people were in the room and that Mertz did turn and say something to Respondent such as, "Oh stop it." Inconsistencies regarding the time of the incident, the number of people in the break room, and whether Mertz said anything to Respondent at the time are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The material issues are whether the physical contact by Respondent was intentional, sexual, and offensive, whether it was inappropriate, and whether it constituted misconduct within the meaning of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. Respondent claims that he touched Mertz accidentally while he was putting his keys into a pocket at the particular time that Mertz walked in front of Respondent. Mertz walked between Respondent and Hayes in a manner that prevented Hayes from observing the actual contact by Respondent. However, Hayes did observe Respondent's movements up to the time of the actual contact. When Respondent was approximately a foot away from Mertz, Respondent moved his left hand from his side in an upward direction with his palm up and fingers extended to a point within an inch or so of the right buttock of Mertz. Respondent's arm was always extended and did not move in a sideways direction that would have occurred if Respondent had been putting keys into his pocket or reaching for keys in his pocket or on his belt. Respondent had a smirk on his face and laughed. The testimony of Hayes at the administrative hearing concerning Respondent's hand and arm movements was consistent with the accounts by Hayes in two written statements provided during the investigation. Mertz felt Respondent grab her right buttock. She felt Respondent's hand tighten on her buttocks. Mertz did not feel Respondent inadvertently touch her. The physical contact Mertz felt on her buttocks was consistent with the observations by Hayes. The testimony of Mertz at the administrative hearing concerning the physical contact is consistent with accounts by Mertz in three written statements provided during the investigation and in her pre-hearing deposition. Respondent's testimony concerning his hand movements in the break room does not possess the consistency present in the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. When asked on direct examination what happened, Respondent testified: I was walking towards the cabinet to get the flags after we'd had a meeting, to leave; she walked by me -- I -- walked behind her. I had my keys clipped to my right side of my belt and they were flopping against my leg. I wasn't going to need my keys so I started to reach over with my left hand to open my pocket because I had my keys in my right hand to put them in, because my pants were tight and there was a top pocket to put them in and as my hand came up and around that's when I hit her, I brushed against her. Transcript (TR) at 284. On cross-examination, counsel for Petitioner asked questions that provided Respondent with an opportunity to reconcile his testimony with ostensibly divergent accounts during the investigation. Q. The day after the incident you wrote a statement for the police officer, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And in the statement you said Ms. Mertz asked you to grab her can, didn't you? * * * A. Yes, this is what I wrote but I misquoted it. She said that she was going to grab her can. Q. But you wrote in the statement that Alice said, grab my can? Is that what you wrote? A. That's what I wrote but that "my" is her, not me. * * * Q. Let me ask you . . . Did you write in your statement, "and with my left hand I whacked at her to say, hey"? A. Yes. But I was using that as a description on the type of motion it was. It was like a, you know, a hey, type of motion that I came across. TR at 285-286. In Respondent's initial written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with his "open" left hand as if to say hey but did not know where contact was made. In a second written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with the "back" of his left hand. In an interview with Sisco, Respondent claimed that he and Mertz were just joking. During direct examination, Respondent did not testify that he whacked at Mertz as if to say "hey." Rather, Respondent testified that his left hand inadvertently came in contact with Mertz as a result of Respondent reaching for his keys. The account provided by Respondent during direct examination at the hearing is consistent only with Respondent's testimony in his pre-hearing deposition. The statements given during the investigation are closer in time to the actual event. The actions of Hayes and Mertz immediately following the incident are consistent with their testimony that Respondent intentionally grabbed the buttocks of Mertz in a sexual manner. Hayes asked another individual in the break room if she had observed the incident. He later reported the incident to Faull before speaking to Mertz. Mertz was initially shocked and left the break room; she later reported the incident to her employer. The physical contact by Respondent created an offensive environment for Mertz. Mertz was initially completely in shock. She then became angry and eventually became so angry she "wanted to strangle" Respondent. Mertz cried and was very upset when she completed a written statement for Sisco. She did not tell her husband immediately because she did not want to upset him. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz constituted sexual harassment within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24 and 8.241. The physical contact was "unwanted sexual attention," "unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature," and "physical contact" that had the purpose of creating an "offensive environment" within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24(2)(a), (2)(b)4, and 8.241(2)(a)1, respectively. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz violated the prohibitions in School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v). The physical contact was harassment that created an offensive environment in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m). It was an inappropriate interaction that violated Policy 8.25(1)(p). It was misconduct that violated Policy 8.25(1)(v). Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. The physical contact engaged in by Respondent is his first offense and is a single isolated violation of applicable School Board policy. Respondent has never asked Mertz on a date, never seen her outside work, never made any sexual comments either to her or about her, and has never touched her when they were working alone together on the night shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three charged offenses, suspending Respondent without pay from April 17 through September 17, 2002, and reinstating Respondent to his former position on September 18, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Spoto Bircher, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Ted E. Karatinos, Esquire Seeley & Karatinos, P.A. 3924 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Dr. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for Broward County School Board to suspend Lula Faison for 10 days without pay based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint filed on October 11, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Broward County. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Faison was hired by the School Board on February 10, 2004. She started her employment with the School Board at Sunset Center School, an off-campus program at Smith Community Health, where she taught for approximately four years. She was employed pursuant to a professional services contract with Broward County. Faison is a certified Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") and English for Speakers of Other Languages ("ESOL") teacher. She has worked with Emotional/Behavioral Disability ("EBD")1/ students her whole career with Broward County. She started working for Pompano Beach Elementary School ("Pompano") during the 2010-2011 school year as an ESE teacher for EBD students. During her first two years at Pompano, she had fourth- and fifth-grade EBD students. During the 2015-2016 school year, Faison's classroom was mixed with 10 EBD students in grades kindergarten, first, second, and third, with ages ranging from six to 10 or 11. The younger kids mimicked the older students' behavior, and it was challenging for Faison to control the classroom. Faison's classroom had the highest rate of incidents compared to the other EBD classrooms in the cluster at Pompano. Faison had both a paraprofessional, Hunt, and a substitute teacher, Popov, to assist in her classroom to help bring order. Hunt was assigned to assist Faison in her classroom with point sheets, monitoring the children, helping isolate behaviors, as well as manage and teach students. A.J. was approximately nine years old when he joined the EBD program during the 2015-2016 school year. A.J. was an enjoyable kid, but had numerous behavioral episodes. He was very explosive and lacked a concern for safety. He had various home issues going on. Additionally, A.J. was also a runner2/ and he had nine elopements3/ from January to April 2016. Pompano's protocol for if a student elopes was that administration was notified; the elopement was communicated over the school walkie-talkie system to notify staff to be aware to look out for the student; once the student was located, the locator was to keep eyes on the student; and typically a separate individual went after the student while the other watched. Safety is always the priority in any elopement. Faison was trained in the elopement protocol and was familiar with its process. While at Pompano, Faison never had any difficulty implementing or dealing with elopement protocols. On April 18, 2017, Faison reported to work late. Upon her arrival, Hunt had written the morning activities on the board and was instructing her classroom. Soon thereafter, Popov arrived and Faison took her class out to the playground. Popov assisted Faison taking the students outside, but she only remained about five minutes and then left Faison alone with the students. When no one came out to assist Faison with the students on the playground, she decided to take the students back inside. At the time, A.J. was playing with sticks. Faison instructed A.J. to put the sticks down because he could not bring them inside. She encouraged him to put them under the bench to retrieve and play with later. A.J. refused to put the sticks down and wanted to bring them inside. Faison told A.J. to walk with her and he did. Faison walked the students inside from off the playground headed to her classroom and ran into Popov. Faison had Popov walk the kids the remainder of the way into Faison's classroom so that Faison could deal with A.J. and the sticks. Faison had been trained in Professional Crisis Management ("PCM"). She evaluated the situation with A.J. and she determined that the best behavioral technique and de- escalation strategy to get A.J. to comply and put the sticks down, was to ask Felix to assist with A.J. Felix had a good relationship with A.J. Previously, A.J. had responded well to Felix and Felix had been able to calm A.J. down. Faison did not want A.J. to hurt anyone with the sticks. Faison went to the TAB room4/ where Felix was assigned. A.J. still had the sticks and was behind Faison in the hallway when she approached Felix's classroom.5/ Faison opened the door to the TAB room and observed that Felix had several students in his room that he was supervising when Faison arrived and that Felix was the only adult present. Faison stood in the doorway and explained to Felix that A.J. was not listening to her. She wanted to see if Felix could assist her and get him to come inside the classroom without the sticks. Faison requested that Felix help her out and speak to A.J. Faison held the conversation with Felix at the TAB room door with her body halfway in the door and Felix standing in the doorway on the TAB room side. When Faison turned around to address A.J. in the hallway, he was not there. Felix never saw A.J. in the hallway. When Faison discovered A.J. was no longer in the hallway, she thought A.J. was outside of Felix's classroom and she made a reasonable request that Felix call him in through the side door of the TAB classroom. Felix did not indicate to Faison that he either agreed to or refused to assist with or go after A.J. Faison left the TAB room believing that Felix was going to get A.J., which was a mistake because Felix did not follow up with A.J., unbeknownst to Faison. Faison's actions of not following up and believing Felix had followed up with A.J. were an isolated incident of misjudgment. After their discussion, Faison returned to her classroom. Later that morning, Pompano's secretary put out an elopement call on the Pompano walkie-talkie system. Faison did not receive the call because she did not have a walkie-talkie on April 18, 2016. Felix heard the elopement call and walked outside of the door towards the parking lot and emerged near the entrance of the school. There, Felix saw A.J. with a stick by the school marquee near the outer boundary of the school on the far end of the school property. Hunt also heard the elopement call on the walkie- talkie and went outside to follow the Pompano elopement protocol. Felix and Hunt worked together. Felix went to the left and Hunt went to the right to encircle A.J. When A.J. noticed them, he took off running toward 13th Avenue. Hunt and Felix caught A.J. approximately a block away from the school at the intersection of Northeast 8th Street and Northeast 13th Avenue near the baseball field. Following elopement protocol, Felix and Hunt let the administration know by walkie-talkie that they had caught up to A.J. The resource officer arrived and put A.J. in the patrol car because A.J. was combative. Principal Larson also appeared at the scene to check and see if everything was fine. Afterwards, Larson discussed A.J.'s elopement with Felix and decided he needed to follow up with Faison to determine what happened with A.J. When A.J. was returned to campus, he went to the TAB room to cool down and to determine why he eloped. Faison was not aware that A.J. had eloped. She was taking her students to lunch alone,6/ midway through the hallway about to lead the kids into the cafeteria, when Larson caught up with her and made the reasonable request that she come to him to have a discussion. He wanted to discuss the A.J. incident. Faison told Larson no when he told her to step aside and talk with him. Larson addressed Faison twice more and requested that she come to him. Faison refused to approach or talk to Larson. The third time Larson requested that Faison come to him, he informed her that she was being insubordinate. Faison felt she should not have left the kids and responded by telling Larson "I've been insubordinate all year." She finished walking the kids to the cafeteria following Larson's instructions. Broward County School Board's Police Special Investigative Unit and Broward Sheriff's Child Protective Investigations Services investigated A.J.'s April 18, 2016, off- campus elopement. Onagoruwa investigated the incident within 24 hours, including interviewing A.J. and closed her case as non-substantiated because no physical harm occurred to A.J. While at Pompano, Faison's previous discipline included: a summary memo dated May 2, 2014, regarding IEP deadlines; a second summary memo for failure to complete IEPs on time dated May 2, 2015; a disciplinary memo dated October 27, 2015, for failure to adhere to IEP deadlines and verbal reprimand of November 3, 2015; a February 1, 2016, written reprimand following a pre-disciplinary hearing meeting for failure to submit lesson plans and a comprehensive behavior plan; and a second written reprimand dated March 16, 2016, for failing to complete third grade portfolios and insubordinate behavior of hanging up the phone on Larson and refusing to meet with him in his office. The March 16, 2016, written reprimand specifically warned Faison about insubordination and stated: [Y]ou received notification regarding your insubordinate behavior on February 22, 2016, when you hung up the pone on me after I asked you to come to my office for a meeting and on March 2, 2016 for refusing to meet with me for non-disciplinary reasons. * * * [Y]our gross insubordination [is] a serious breach of conduct that cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am issuing you a written reprimand that is consistent with School Board Policy 4.9. Please be advised that any further failure on your part to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of your job duties as a teacher will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of your employment. Petitioner ultimately filed charges against Faison by Administrative Complaint dated October 11, 2017, that included charges of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of School Board Policy 4008. On November 7, 2017, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent for 10 days without pay. Respondent contested the reasons for suspension.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 10-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 6th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the competent substantial evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Broward County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Broward County pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by the District as a physical education teacher since 2004. His last teaching assignment was as a physical education teacher at Crystal Lakes Middle School in Pompano Beach, Florida. Administrative Charges The alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred on or about May 18, 2018. The Administrative Complaint alleges that on that day, Respondent did not fully cover his early morning duty in the school cafeteria, did not fully attend his assigned homeroom, and did not attend his first period class, thereby leaving his students unsupervised for part of those periods; and reported to work under the influence of controlled substances——specifically, alcohol and cocaine. As a result of this alleged conduct, Petitioner has charged Respondent, in the Administrative Complaint, with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), (3), (4), and (5), and specified provisions of school board policies 2400, 4008, and 4.9, discussed in greater detail below. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding On the morning of May 18, 2018, Respondent reported to work under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, both of which are defined as "controlled substances" by school board policy. As a result, Respondent did not fully cover his early morning cafeteria duty, did not fully attend his assigned homeroom, and did not attend his first period class. A fellow physical education teacher, Cindi Ancona, was forced to cover Respondent's first period class. During the portions of the periods in which Respondent was not present in his classroom and in which Ancona was not covering his class, his students were left unsupervised. Ancona saw Respondent at the beginning of second period. When she questioned Respondent regarding his whereabouts during first period, she noticed that he appeared confused and off— balance and that his eyes were glassy, so she sent a text message to Sabine Phillips, the Principal at Crystal Lake Middle School, regarding Respondent's demeanor and appearance. Phillips and Assistant Principal Ben Reeves responded to Ancona's text message. Reeves entered the boys' locker room and found Respondent lying down in his office outside of the locker room. Phillips then entered the locker room and told Respondent that he needed to go to the office with her and Reeves. In the course of questioning Respondent about where he had been during his first period class, Phillips surmised, and informed Respondent that she had reasonable suspicion, that he was under the influence of controlled substances. Phillips contacted the District's Special Investigative Unit to request that Respondent be subjected to testing to determine whether he was under the influence of controlled substances. Phillips followed the designated procedures, which entailed completing and transmitting a completed Incident Report Form to the designated District personnel. The Risk Management Department determined that the requested testing was warranted and transmitted an Anti—Drug Program Passport to Phillips, who delivered it to Respondent. The Anti—Drug Passport informed Respondent that he would be subjected to controlled substances testing, and that the testing would be performed at Crystal Lakes Middle School. Respondent consented to the drug and alcohol testing. The Risk Management Department sent an employee health testing collector to Crystal Lake Middle School, where she conducted a breath alcohol and urine test on Respondent. The breath alcohol testing indicated that Respondent had blood alcohol levels of .101 and .095, both of which exceed the blood alcohol level of .04 that Petitioner has adopted as the threshold for being under the influence of alcohol. Petitioner's third—party contractor confirmed that Respondent had a blood alcohol level of .095 at the time he was tested. Julianne Gilmore, an environmental health testing specialist with the District's Risk Management Department, contacted Phillips and Respondent, notifying them both that Respondent was being placed on Administrative Reassignment and was to remain at home——i.e., not report to work——pending the result of the drug testing. This informal contact was followed by a letter dated May 21, 2018, confirming that Respondent had been placed on Administrative Reassignment and directing him to stay home pending further notice.1/ Gilmore also advised Respondent of the availability of the District's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), participation in which was not mandatory.2/ The results of Respondent's drug test were received by the Risk Management Department on or about June 1, 2018. Respondent tested positive for cocaine. Respondent does not dispute that he was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine while at school on May 18, 2018, and also does not dispute accuracy of the results of the blood alcohol and drug tests. Upon receiving the results of Respondent's drug test, it was determined3/ that Respondent's employment with the District should be terminated, notwithstanding that the next step in sequential progressive disciplinary process ordinarily would be suspension. A significant consideration in this decision was that Respondent had left his students unsupervised, placing their safety at risk. No evidence was presented that the students in Respondent's class were actually physically or psychologically injured or harmed as a result of Respondent being absent from his classroom on May 18, 2018. Prior Discipline Petitioner has a policy (Policy 4.9, discussed below) of imposing discipline in a progressive manner, which means that discipline typically is imposed in sequential steps in order to afford the employee the opportunity to correct his/her conduct and performance before he/she is suspended or terminated. The progressive discipline policy authorizes sequential disciplinary steps to be skipped for sufficiently severe misconduct. Petitioner previously has disciplined Respondent. On April 21, 2016, Petitioner issued a Summary of Conference memo, memorializing a conference in which Respondent was verbally admonished for having briefly left the students in his class unattended while he took an injured student to the physical education office to tend to his injury, during which time some of the students physically assaulted other students in the class. On February 10, 2017, Petitioner issued a Verbal Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for being tardy to, and absent from, work without following the proper protocol for entering an absence. On December 1, 2017, Petitioner issued a Written Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for continuing to be tardy to, and absent from, work without following the proper protocol for entering an absence. On February 14, 2018, Petitioner issued another Written Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for consistently failing to follow absence/tardy—reporting procedures, resulting in his students being left unsupervised. He was informed that if he again failed to adhere to the appropriate procedure, he would be subject to further discipline, including possible termination of his employment. Other Key Considerations in this Proceeding Respondent was forthright in admitting that he suffers from a substance abuse problem. In 2016, Respondent sought help for his substance abuse issue through the District's EAP program at Phillips' suggestion, but did not complete the program——in part because he did not find its methods helpful in dealing with his problem, and in part because he believed that he could overcome his problem on his own as he always had done in his life. Respondent has come to realize that he cannot overcome his substance abuse problem on his own and that there is no shame in asking others for help in dealing with his problem. To that end, Respondent participated in, and has completed, the Evolution substance abuse program, which consisted of counseling sessions three to four days a week, for a three—to— four—month period, and attending therapy classes and meetings each week. As a condition of participation in Evolution, Respondent was subject to random substance abuse testing. He did not test positive for alcohol or drug use during his participation in the program. The spiritual counseling and substance abuse trigger counseling that Respondent received in the Evolution program have resonated with him and have helped him successfully address his substance abuse problem.4/ In order to avoid backsliding, Respondent remains in weekly contact with one of his therapists at Evolution, and attends meetings three to four times a week, to place himself in an environment that enables and fosters his success in fighting his substance abuse problem. Since commencing Evolution, Respondent has not engaged in alcohol or drug use. Respondent expressed remorse at his behavior and poor judgment at having reported to work under the influence of controlled substances on May 18, 2018. He testified that he did so because he previously had been reprimanded for being absent, and was concerned about missing more school. He recognized that his choice to go to school in that condition was "bad thinking at the time." Respondent credibly testified that he greatly enjoys teaching and that he chose teaching as a career because he loves working with kids, relates well to them, and believes he can help them. His colleague, Tyrell Dozier, testified that Respondent gets along well with his students and is a caring, effective teacher. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated State Department of Education rules and specified school board policies. Specifically, Petitioner has charged Respondent, pursuant to rule 6A—5.056, with misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating school board policies 2400(1) and (3); 4008 B.1., 3., and 8. and certain provisions of Policy 4.9. Whether the charged offenses constitute violations of the applicable rules and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1985)(whether there was a deviation from the standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but instead is an ultimate fact); McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether a particular action constitutes a violation of a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact). Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent violated some, but not all, of the rules and school board policies charged in the Administrative Complaint. By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent committed misconduct in office under rule 6A—5.056(2), which includes violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A— 10.081(2)(a), by having left his students unsupervised. By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting incompetency under rule 6A—5.056(3). By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting gross insubordination under rule 6A—5.056(4). By engaging in the conduct discussed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting willful neglect of duty under rule 6A—5.056(5). Respondent violated Policy 2400(1) by reporting to work while under the influence of controlled substances. However, no evidence was presented that Respondent was in possession of, or used, a controlled substance while on school board property or at a school—sponsored activity. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent consumed alcohol and used cocaine in a social setting the night before he reported to school on May 18, 2018. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Policy 2400(3), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. Policy 4008, subsections (B)1. and 8., requires school board employees to comply with State Board of Education rules and school board policies. As discussed above, the evidence shows that Respondent violated rule 6A—5.056(2), (3), (4), and (5), and rule 6A—10.081(2)(a). In violating these rules, Respondent violated Policy 4008, subsections (B)1. and 8. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Policy 4008B, subsection 3., as charged in the Administrative Complaint. This policy imposes on instructional personnel the duty to "Infuse in the classroom, the District's adopted Character Education Traits of Respect, Honesty, Kindness, Self—control, Tolerance, Cooperation, Responsibility and Citizenship." While Respondent's conduct in reporting to school under the influence of controlled substances on May 18, 2018, may not have constituted self—control or respect for his duties as a teacher on that specific day, no evidence was presented regarding Respondent's behavior in the classroom—— whether on that day or on any other day. To the contrary, as discussed above, the evidence established that Respondent is a caring and effective teacher in dealing with his students. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent did not violate Policy 4008, subsection B.3. The evidence establishes that Respondent violated Policy 4008(C), which requires instructional personnel to be on duty for a minimum of 7.5 hours on an instructional day. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated the provision in Policy 4008, "Miscellaneous" section, which states that "all members of the instructional staff shall be expected to teach a full schedule of classes, unless prior approval from the area superintendent or superintendent is obtained." Policy 4008 establishes the overarching responsibilities and duties of Principals and instructional personnel in the context of performing their employment contracts. In this context, the "full schedule of classes" provision refers to a teacher's instructional schedule assignment for the school year rather than a specific per—hour requirement. In fact, to read this provision as urged in the Administrative Complaint would render it redundant to the statement (also in the "Miscellaneous" section) that "instructional personnel must be on duty a minimum of seven and one—half hours (7 1/2) hours daily. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with having violated the District's progressive discipline policy, Policy 4.9. As more fully discussed below, it is found that Respondent that did not violate this policy. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as an ultimate fact, that although Respondent violated the rule and many of the school board policies charged in the Administrative Complaint, under the progressive discipline policy set forth in Policy 4.9, the appropriate penalty that should be imposed on Respondent in this case is suspension without pay for the entire period during which he has been reassigned from the classroom. Additionally, Respondent should be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, at his personal expense, as a condition of his continued employment by Petitioner.5/ This penalty is appropriate based on the fact that Respondent has not previously been subject to suspension without pay under the progressive discipline policy, and takes into account several relevant considerations: specifically, that Respondent has a substance abuse problem for which he actively sought——and finally has been able to obtain——real, effective help in overcoming; that he has an approximately 14—year employment history with Petitioner that only, in the last two years, entailed discipline as the result of conduct that was caused by his substance abuse problem; that he is remorseful, understands that he made poor choices, and has obtained the counseling and therapy he needs in order to correct his performance problems through overcoming his substance abuse problem; that he is a caring and effective teacher who loves children and enjoys his teaching job; and, importantly, that no students were injured or otherwise harmed by Respondent's conduct on May 18, 2018. This penalty also is sufficiently severe to deter Respondent from committing future violations of rules and school board policies, and sends the message that this is truly his last chance.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Douglas G. Griffin, Esquire Broward County School Board Office of the General Counsel 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 For Respondent: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order suspending Respondent from his teaching position without pay commencing on the date on which he was reassigned from the classroom; reinstating Respondent to his teaching position; and requiring Respondent to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, at his personal expense, as a condition of his continued employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 17th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Did Respondent, Volusia County Schools (School Board), decline to renew the contract of Petitioner, Glen Collins (Mr. Collins), because of his age? Did the School Board unlawfully retaliate against Mr. Collins for protected activity?
Findings Of Fact The School Board is an employer as defined by section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ the Florida Civil Rights Act. The School Board had policies and procedures in place during Collins' employment that prohibited the discrimination or harassment of any employee "on the basis of [that employee's] race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, marital status, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or age." The School Board provided these policies and procedures to all employees in the new employee briefing. The School Board also provided employees periodic training on the policies. Additionally, the policies and procedures were available to employees on the School Board's website and in employee handbooks. The School Board also operated a human resources department to help enforce the policies and answer employee questions or concerns about the policies. The School Board's anti-discrimination policy encouraged any employee who believed he or she had been subject to harassment on the basis of age to notify the equity officer, through use of a report form or orally, within 60 days of the alleged harassment. The School Board policies commit to promptly investigate any complaint(s) of harassment, whether formal or informal, verbal or written, and take appropriate action to prevent further harassment, including disciplining the employee violating its policy. The School Board also prohibited retaliation against any employee for reporting allegations of harassment or participating in an investigation, proceeding or hearing related to the alleged harassment. The School Board would take the appropriate disciplinary or other action against any employee found to be in violation of the policy. Mr. Collins worked for the School Board from August 28, 2006, until June 30, 2010. He began employment in the maintenance unit for the school system. The maintenance unit employees were responsible for repair and other maintenance of the School Board facilities throughout Volusia County. Russell Tysinger (Mr. Tysinger) hired Mr. Collins. In 2006, the School Board operated separate construction and maintenance departments. The maintenance department consisted of employees at two district offices, one in Daytona Beach and one in Deltona. Mr. Collins began work at the Daytona office. Mr. Collins was a skilled, diligent, and committed employee. Over the years he worked in several positions including Electrical Maintenance Supervisor for the East Side (of the County), Facility Mechanical Technician (FMT) Supervisor, and Trade Supervisor (Electric). In addition to performing all the duties of his various positions during his years of employment, Mr. Collins volunteered for additional duties and actively sought to identify and solve problems at the schools for which he was responsible. For instance, when a plumbing supervisor retired, Mr. Collins volunteered to assume the duties of that position. This permitted the School Board to save money by eliminating the position. The School Board recognized Mr. Collins' skills and dedication. It gave him additional duties and pay increases. The School Board does not claim that Mr. Collins' termination was for discipline or unsatisfactory work. In 2008, and in every year since, the School Board's revenue has declined. This has caused a decrease each year in the budget of the maintenance and construction department and other departments. When the School Board hired Mr. Collins, he knew that it faced financial difficulties and was likely to downsize. Mr. Tysinger, the maintenance unit's head, had to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and economize in both the materials and labor components of his budget. In 2008, he eliminated several vacant positions and did not fill positions created by retirements. In 2009, when the head of the construction unit resigned, the School Board consolidated the maintenance and construction units to save money. Mr. Tysinger became the head of the consolidated unit. The School Board eliminated the position filled by the former head of construction. In 2009, Mr. Tysinger faced a greater need to reduce costs, including labor costs. This year there were not enough retirements and vacancies to achieve the needed personnel cost savings simply by eliminating vacant positions. Mr. Tysinger laid off 12 employees from the newly consolidated unit, including five in supervisory positions. He reduced capital and material expenditures also. And he reinvigorated an energy conservation program to reduce utility costs. During the 2009-2010 time period, Mr. Tysinger also changed the maintenance shop locations from two (one on the east side of the county and one on the west side) to five distributed around the county. He did this to reduce the costs of the various tradesmen driving to the schools where they performed their tasks and to improve efficiency by having less driving time and more working time. These changes saved the financial equivalent of 33-full time equivalent positions and doubled the department's productivity. In July of 2009, Mr. Collins became an FMT supervisor, responsible for overseeing and assisting 11 FMTs. These duties were in addition to his duties as an electrical maintenance supervisor. On December 3, 2009, Mr. Collins executed an annual contract with the School Board for the 2009-2010 school year. The contract specifically provided that "[a]n Employee may be dismissed where the School Board through financial necessity for good cause shown deems it necessary to decrease the number of employees of the particular kind of service in which the affected Employee was engaged." The contract expired on June 30, 2010. In 2010, the School Board required Mr. Tysinger to cut approximately 1.8 million dollars from his personnel budget and four to five percent from his materials and supplies budgets. These further budget reductions required Mr. Tysinger to lay off 38 employees in the construction and maintenance division and take other cost-cutting measures. Mr. Tysinger conducted a rational analysis of employees and their skill sets to determine which employees he would have to let go in 2010. First, Mr. Tysinger identified all of the skill sets that he needed to have in the maintenance and construction unit. This included plumbing, electrical, and heating and cooling. He also determined how many employees with each skill set he needed. Then he identified the employees with the needed skills. After that, Mr. Tysinger reviewed the seniority of each employee in each group determined by the skill set groupings. He then determined who would be laid off by seniority, while ensuring that he maintained the skill sets needed and the number of employees he required with those skills. Using seniority as a factor helped ensure that the School Board retained the employees with the most experience with the School Board facilities and systems. Mr. Collins was one of the individuals let go. Mr. Tysinger advised Mr. Collins on May 27, 2010, that the School Board would not renew his contract in June when it expired. Mr. Collins was 52-years-old. The School Board's Maintenance and Construction unit retained employees older than Mr. Collins. For example, the School Board retained Mr. Ken Blom and Mr. Rick Jones, both of whom were older than Mr. Collins. During the period between May 27, 2010, and the end of the contract period, Mr. Collins' supervisor asked him to train Antonio Gutierrez in the job duties that Mr. Collins performed and inform Mr. Guiterrez about projects and activities underway. Mr. Gutierrez is younger than Mr. Collins. His age does not appear in the record. Mr. Tysinger retained Mr. Gutierrez because of his expertise with air conditioning units, because air conditioning was one of the largest problem areas, and because of his seniority. During the time period when he reduced the number of staff, Mr. Tysinger also reassigned employees to different locations and units to provide the needed distribution of skill sets at each location and in each unit. This process took several months. In this process, as an interim measure, Mr. Tysinger assigned Mr. Gutierrez to perform many of Mr. Collins' functions. Mr. Gutierrez did not replace Mr. Collins or permanently assume his duties. Mr. Tysinger reassigned the majority of Mr. Collins' duties to Mr. Blom. This included his electrical duties and supervision of some of Mr. Collins' former FMTs. He assigned Mr. Collins' plumbing responsibilities and some of his FMTs to Mr. Ford. And he assigned some of Mr. Collins' electrical responsibilities to Mr. McKinnon. The ages of Mr. Ford and Mr. McKinnon do not appear in the record. Mr. Collins' claim of age discrimination rests solely on his belief that Mr. Gutierrez assumed his job responsibilities. During his employment with the School Board, Mr. Collins identified maintenance problems at different schools, including Pine Ridge High School, over the years and reported them. Mr. Collins also discovered sealant was being improperly applied and raised concerns about this. Mr. Collins thinks that his identification of the problems embarrassed the supervisors responsible for the schools and that his termination was retaliation for identifying the problems. There is no persuasive evidence to support Mr. Collins' belief. There is no evidence that Mr. Collins opposed any practice that is unlawful under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (chapter 760, Florida Statutes), or that he made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Civil Rights Act. Budget reductions required the School Board to reduce the number of employees in the construction and maintenance unit where Mr. Collins worked. Mr. Tysinger and the School Board did not consider Mr. Collins' age in deciding to end his employment. They also did not act because of any dissatisfaction with his good work identifying problems with the maintenance of the schools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny Mr. Collins' Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 11th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should enter into a new professional service contract with Respondent and whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated, due to Respondent's failure to correct his teaching deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact John Kent (Respondent) was employed with the Palm Beach County School Board (Petitioner) as a social studies teacher since 1980 at Palm Beach Lakes High School (PBL High) and its predecessor school, Twin Lakes High School (TL High). During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent held a professional service contract. Respondent has been a teacher for over 30 years, having taught in both the Illinois and Florida school systems. In the latter part of 1996, concerns regarding Respondent's performance, as a teacher, were first raised in Petitioner's school system. Prior to that time, his teaching performance was evaluated as being satisfactory. From 1992 to 1996, PBL High's principal, Nat Collins, evaluated Respondent's teaching performance as satisfactory, with no record of incidents. Principal Collins is a certified Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) observer. FPMS is the system adopted by Florida's Department of Education for measuring the performance of teachers, using domains and concepts for each domain. Principal Collins had specifically praised Respondent's planning abilities and lesson delivery skills in three evaluations. Principal Collins' last evaluation of Respondent was in May 1996, in which he specifically praised Respondent for Respondent's lesson delivery skills. In August 1996, PBL High was assigned a new assistant principal, Thomas Carroll. Assistant Principal Carroll notified the teaching staff at PBL High in his first faculty meeting in August 1996 that he would be performing more critical observations of them. Assistant Principal Carroll is a certified FPMS observer. Principal Collins considered Assistant Principal Carroll's remark to be of poor judgment and chastised Assistant Principal Carroll for making such a comment. For the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the assessment instrument used by Petitioner to evaluate its teachers was the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). Using CTAS, teachers received a rating of either a one (a concern) or a two (acceptable) in 16 areas of teacher performance. A satisfactory evaluation of a teacher was one in which the teacher received a rating of 28 or above, out of a maximum of 32, or of 5 concerns or less. School-site improvement efforts may accompany a rating in which one concern is noted. During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the CTAS required a teacher at PBL High, whose performance was rated unsatisfactory at the end of the school year, to be placed in a District-Level Professional Development Plan (District-Level Plan) during the entire following year of improvement. If the teacher failed to sufficiently improve during the subsequent year, as determined by the principal, the teacher would be dismissed. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent received a CTAS mid-year evaluation dated December 9, 1996. He received a score of 27 and was rated as unsatisfactory, with five concerns, also referred to as deficiencies. The concerns listed were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively; and Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instructional Needs. Subsequently, during the same school year, on April 16, 1997, a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent was conducted. Respondent received a score of 28 and was rated as satisfactory on the annual evaluation. Four areas of concern were listed: Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent was not pleased with Assistant Principal Carroll's assessment of his teaching performances as inadequate. Respondent expressed his displeasure to Principal Collins regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's assessments. During the 1997-98 school year, on November 21, 1997, Assistant Principal Carroll observed Respondent. He determined that Respondent failed to teach any concepts during the class period. Subsequently, Principal Collins conducted a CTAS mid- year evaluation of Respondent on December 4, 1997. Assistant Principal Carroll provided input to Principal Collins regarding Respondent's mid-year evaluation. Respondent received a score of 30 and was rated satisfactory, with two concerns being listed. The concerns were Instructional Organization and Development; and Presentation of Subject Matter. Principal Collins was concerned that Respondent's last annual evaluation, which was performed on April 16, 1997, identified four concerns. As a result, on December 4, 1997, a School-Site Assistance Plan (School-Site Plan) was developed for Respondent. The School-Site Plan included professional standards seminars. Assistant Principal Carroll notified Respondent that the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program was also available to provide assistance. The PAR Program is a master teacher assistance program. Both the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (Union) and Petitioner developed the PAR Program to assist teachers with the correction of deficiencies. As Respondent had raised concerns regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's observations of him, Principal Collins requested that an outside observer from Petitioner's district school staff observe Respondent. By memo dated February 27, 1998, Principal Collins noticed Respondent of the observation by the outside observer. The outside observation was to take place on March 10, 1998. As a result of the satisfactory mid-year evaluation, Respondent could not understand why he was being observed again and, this time, by an outside observer. In March 1998, Respondent expressed his concern in a memo to Principal Collins regarding the observation by the outside observer. Prior to the observation, Respondent's wife learned that Respondent was going to be evaluated by one of Petitioner's district staff persons. By letter dated March 4, 1998, to the General Counsel of the Florida Department of Education (DOE), Respondent's wife made allegations of ethical violations by Assistant Principal Carroll, regarding Respondent's observations, and requested an ethics inquiry by DOE. She copied the letter to Petitioner's chief personnel officer (Dr. Joanne Kaiser); Principal Collins; one of Petitioner's members; Petitioner's superintendent; and the Union's Executive Director. On March 9, 1998, Principal Collins completed a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent. Respondent received a score of 29 and was rated satisfactory, with three concerns being noted. The concerns listed were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; and Presentation of Subject Matter. Principal Collins did not recommend placement of Respondent in a District-Level Professional Development Plan. On March 10, 1998, Dr. Jeanne Burdsall, manager of Petitioner's Professional Standards, observed Respondent. She developed both the instructional and non-instructional evaluation and assistance plans. Dr. Burdsall's duties include monitoring the evaluation system. She is a certified FPMS observer. Dr. Burdsall had no knowledge of Respondent's prior evaluations. She noted six areas of deficiencies or concerns in Respondent's teaching and provided him with recommendations for improvement. The deficiencies were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Classroom Climate; and Planning. Dr. Burdsall determined that Respondent had conducted an ineffective lesson. On April 21, 1998, Respondent experienced a classroom management problem. Unidentified students in Respondent's classroom had covered his clothing with ketchup. Dr. Burdsall met with Respondent subsequent to the observation. She discussed the observation with Respondent and provided him with suggestions for improvement, employing a behavior management system and teaching a lesson. Dr. Burdsall urged Respondent to become involved in the PAR program. The Union filed a grievance challenging Respondent's observation of March 10, 1998. The grievance was denied at Step II of the process and was not pursued any further. Respondent was entitled to request a deficiency hearing and he did so. A deficiency hearing was held and Respondent's deficiencies were reviewed with him. On May 18, 1998, Patricia Kaupe, Petitioner's Instructional Support Team Member, Area 3 Administration, observed Respondent. Her duties include observing and assisting teachers with teaching performance deficiencies. Ms. Kaupe is a certified FPMS observer. She determined that Respondent had an ineffective lesson. Ms. Kaupe met with Respondent subsequent to the observation and provided him with feedback regarding more effective teaching practices. She concluded that Respondent was an incompetent teacher. At his discretion, on May 29, 1998, Principal Collins completed a second CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent. Assistant Principal Carroll provided input and expressed his concern that classroom management remained a concern and that Respondent continued to need improvement in that area. Principal Collins considered input by Assistant Principal Carroll, prior observations, including the observations of Dr. Burdsall, and the ketchup incident in April 1998. Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory, with six deficiencies. The deficiencies were Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins had further concerns regarding the safety of students and of Respondent and regarding the instruction level being provided by Respondent. This second CTAS annual evaluation, which rated Respondent unsatisfactory, was less than "6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference period." 4/ Respondent had requested a transfer and on July 17, 1998, he met with Petitioner's chief personnel officer, Dr. Joanne Kaiser. Those in attendance included Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Carroll, and Respondent's union representative. Respondent's request for transfer was denied in that Dr. Kaiser determined that Respondent's main concern was Assistant Principal Carroll, which concern was resolved; that Respondent's needs could be met at PBL High; and that Respondent was not on a District Plan as statutorily required. The granting or denial of the transfer was within the complete discretion of Dr. Kaiser. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Dr. Kaiser abused her discretion in denying the transfer. In addition to Respondent's transfer request, the discussion at the meeting on July 17, 1998, included Respondent's concern regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's being on Respondent's review team. Principal Collins recommended and it was agreed that Assistant Principal Marjorie Lesser would replace Assistant Principal Carroll. It was further agreed that Respondent would be placed on a 30-day School-Site Plan at the upcoming Fall term of school. Assistant Principal Lesser developed a 30-day School- Site Assistance Plan for Respondent. She met with Respondent on August 31, 1998, and reviewed the plan with him. Respondent's union representative did not attend the meeting and his presence was not a requirement. The focus of the School-Site Plan was to address Respondent's six teaching deficiencies listed on Respondent's CTAS annual evaluation of May 29, 1998, and to structure activities to assist him, which included reading materials; viewing professional development video tapes, regarding the deficient teaching domains; observing other teachers; being assisted by peer teachers; having other professionals observe his teaching; and meeting with Respondent and providing feedback on his teaching behaviors. Additionally, Assistant Principal Lesser arranged several seminars and workshops for Respondent. Respondent was also recommended for the PAR Program but he declined. On September 1, 1998, Assistant Principal Lesser observed Respondent. She is a certified FPMS observer. During the observation, Assistant Principal Lesser observed Respondent's efforts in complying with her suggestions; however, he was not successful. Assistant Principal Lesser determined that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and six deficiencies or concerns were identified. The deficiencies were as follows: Domain 3--inadequate directions provided to the students; Domain 3--too many students off-task; Domains 3 and 5--students sent mixed communication message; Domain 5--used a monotone voice; and Domain 2--a lack of consistency in management of student conduct. Periodically, during the implementation of the School- Site Plan, Assistant Principal Lesser met with Respondent, his union representative, and Principal Collins to review Respondent's progress and to discuss continuing concerns and the direction needed to be taken between meetings. The contents of each meeting were recorded and signed off by everyone. At no time did Respondent or his union representative raise a concern as to the timing or the appropriateness of the School-Site Plan. On September 16, 1998, Ms. Kaupe observed Respondent again. She determined that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and concluded that his lesson was ineffective. Ms. Kaupe offered Respondent suggested strategies for improvement. On October 12, 1998, Assistant Principal Lesser again observed Respondent. She determined that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and that the same six deficiencies remained. Assistant Principal Lesser provided recommendations for improvement to Respondent. Safety concerns arose regarding Respondent's management of student conduct in his classroom because problems erupted into incidents involving students. To ensure safety in Respondent's classroom, Principal Collins implemented a physical change in Respondent's classroom. Principal Collins directed the removal of the light switch in Respondent's classroom, so that it could not be manually turned on and off, and the placement of a device which required a key to turn the light on and off. To further ensure safety in Respondent's classroom, not for behavior management or teaching, Principal Collins placed a teacher's aide in Respondent's classroom at the recommendation of Dr. Kaiser. In October 1998, Principal Collins' concern for safety heightened after a student was injured in Respondent's classroom. After the incident, Dr. Kaiser met with Principal Collins and others, regarding the student injury, and recommended the placement of a teacher's aide in Respondent's classroom for safety reasons, not for behavior management of the students, which was Respondent's responsibility, or for teaching of the students. On November 3, 1998, which was near the end of the 30- day School-Site Plan, Principal Collins observed Respondent. Principal Collins determined that a sufficient number of deficiencies were not corrected but remained. The deficiencies were as follows: Domain 1--Planning; Domain 2--off-track behavior; Domain 3--instructional organization; and Domain 5-- communication verbal and nonverbal. Principal Collins provided recommendations for improvement to Respondent. Respondent agreed, after encouragement, to participate in the PAR Program and to have a PAR teacher. Principal Collins referred Respondent to the PAR Program. At the end of the 30-day School-Site Plan, Respondent was given a CTAS mid-year evaluation by Principal Collins on November 10, 1998. Principal Collins considered the observation that he conducted on November 3, 1998, and Respondent's past observations on September 1, 1998, September 16, 1998, and October 12, 1998. 5/ Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory, with six deficiencies. The deficiencies were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins recommended the placement of Respondent on a 90-day District Level Professional Development Plan (District Plan). The purpose of the 90-day District Plan was to assist in the remediation of the deficiencies. On November 16, 1988, Dr. Jeanne Burdsall met with Respondent and his union representative to review the 90-day District Plan. The meeting was also attended by Principal Collins and Assistant Principal Lesser. Neither Respondent nor his union representative raised an objection to the applicability of the 90-day District Plan to Respondent. At that meeting, among other things, Respondent's union representative requested a transfer of Respondent and a deficiency hearing. Petitioner's Superintendent noticed Respondent that he was being placed on a 90-day District Plan. Respondent's 90-day District Plan was the first teacher assistance District Plan implemented by Petitioner under the change in Florida Law which Petitioner interpreted as now requiring 90 days of assistance. As interpreted by Petitioner, the 90-day District Plan was effective beginning the 1997-98 school year. The 90-day District Plan consisted of an additional 30-day School-Site Plan followed by the now statutorily required 90 days of assistance. Under the new and revised 90-day District Plan, a new evaluation instrument was used, which required only three teaching deficiencies versus the five teaching deficiencies that were required under the former District Plan. For Respondent's 90-day District Plan, a decision was made to continue evaluating Respondent using the prior instrument requiring five deficiencies. The prior District Plan was not a part of the Union contract. However, the new 90-day District Plan, requiring a 30 plus 90-day assistance plan, was adopted by the Union and incorporated by reference in the Collective Bargaining Contract in Spring 1999. The Union and Petitioner worked for several years developing the new 30 plus 90-day assistance plan. Respondent's 90-day District Plan consisted of workshops, professional observations and feedback from the observers, peer teaching observations and school sites visits, and special assistance with planning. Periodic assistance and progress meetings were also held, which included the attendance of Principal Collins, Respondent, Respondent's union representative, and Dr. Burdsall or one of her staff members. The content of those meetings were recorded and signed-off on. On December 4, 1998, Dr. Lisa Troute, Petitioner's instructional specialist, Professional Standards, observed Respondent. Dr. Troute is a PAR teacher and is a certified FPMS observer. She determined, among other things, that Respondent had failed to develop any concepts. Dr. Troute concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective. She provided Respondent with recommendations regarding the six deficiencies. Dr. Troute returned to Respondent's classroom on December 15, 1998, and did not notice that any of her recommendations had been followed by Respondent. On December 10, 1998, Dr. Burdsall observed Respondent. As to the six deficiencies, she provided Respondent with the same teaching strategies for improvement that she had provided at her observation of March 10, 1998. Dr. Burdsall determined that Respondent failed to teach anything relative to the lesson and that his student management remained a problem. She concluded that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and that he was an incompetent teacher. A meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held on December 10, 1998. Persons in attendance included Respondent and his union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. In January 1999, Dr. Kaiser held a meeting with Respondent and his union representative to address Respondent's request for a transfer. Dr. Kaiser held the meeting in January 1999, because she wanted a 90-day District Plan in place before considering the request. Granting the transfer was in Dr. Kaiser's sole discretion. She considered Respondent's, as well as the district's, concerns in making her decision. Dr. Kaiser denied Respondent's request. She determined that PBL High had taken sufficient precautions to assure the safety of Respondent and his students and that, even though vacancies existed at other schools in social studies, Respondent's remaining at PBL High would serve the best interest of everyone concerned. By letter dated January 15, 1999, Respondent was noticed of the denial. Respondent was placed on a 30 plus 90-day School-Site and District Plan. The statutory provision in effect at the time, as interpreted by Petitioner, only required 90 days of assistance. An adjustment in the 90-day timeline was made due to a hurricane make-up day in February. The timeline was changed to March 11, 1999. On January 14, 1999, Steve Byrne, Petitioner's program planner for social studies, multi-cultural students, and students who speak languages other than English (ESOL), observed Respondent. He is a certified FPMS observer. Respondent had requested that a content teacher observe him to assist him with content and teaching strategies; and Mr. Byrne's observation was for the purpose of content and teaching strategies. Mr. Byrne determined that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective. He met with Respondent and provided Respondent with feedback and strategies for improvement, including suggesting the use of cooperative learning as a more effective strategy. A deficiency hearing was held. A determination was made that sufficient evidence was present to warrant Respondent being placed on a 90-day District Plan to correct the deficiencies. On January 20, 1999, Dr. Mary Gray, assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University, observed Respondent. Since around 1982, she has trained trainers in the FPMS. Dr. Gray is a certified FPMS observer. For several years for PBL High, she observed teachers on District Plans and diagnosed teaching problems. When Dr. Gray observed Respondent, she observed, among other things, serious management problems and nothing meaningful being taught. Dr. Gray provided Respondent with improvement strategies. She concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective and that Respondent was incompetent as a teacher. Dr. Gray reviewed Respondent's School-Site Plan, other observations, and the 90-day District Plan. She determined that a pattern existed which demonstrated a lack of teaching concepts, inability to manage student conduct, and off-task behavior. Dr. Gray concluded that Respondent was an incompetent teacher. On January 28, 1999, Ms. Kaupe observed Respondent again. She completed an anecdotal observation, as there was no interaction between Respondent and his students. Ms. Kaupe determined, among other things, that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and that students were off-task. She concluded that Respondent's teaching was ineffective. Ms. Kaupe provided Respondent with feedback and information regarding more effective teaching strategies. On February 10, 1999, a meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held. Persons attending the meeting included Respondent and his Union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. On February 24, 1999, Principal Collins observed Respondent. The six deficiencies were addressed, and recommendations were made; the six deficiencies remained. Student misconduct remained a problem. On March 11, 1999, a meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held. Persons attending the meeting included Respondent and his union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. Principal Collins conducted a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent on March 12, 1999, at the conclusion of the 90-day District Plan. In preparing the evaluation, Principal Collins considered the following observations: December 4, 1998, observation by Dr. Troute; December 10, 1998, observation by Dr. Burdsall; January 14, 1999, observation by Mr. Byrne; January 20, 1999, observation by Dr. Gray; January 28, 1999, observation by Ms. Kaupe; and February 24, 1999, observation by Principal Collins, himself. 6/ Principal Collins determined that Respondent had not corrected the six deficiencies. These deficiencies were the same deficiencies that were present at the conclusion of the 30-day School-Site Plan. The deficiencies were in the areas of Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Demonstrates an Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins determined further that Respondent was an ineffective teacher and that Respondent's teaching did not meet minimum standards to obtain a satisfactory evaluation. Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory. Principal Collins recommended to the Superintendent the termination of Respondent's employment with Petitioner. By letter dated March 23, 1999, Respondent was noticed by the Superintendent that she was going to recommend his suspension without pay, effective April 8, 1999, and termination, effective 15 days after Petitioner's scheduled meeting on April 7, 1999. Petitioner's professional development plan had several components, including a School-Site Plan, the PAR Program, and the 90-day District Plan. Respondent was provided all of the aforementioned three components. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent cooperated with Petitioner and attempted to comply with the recommendations and assistance provided by Petitioner even though his attempts were deemed unsuccessful by Petitioner to correct the deficiencies. Respondent is a diabetic and some of the assistance conflicted with his medically required living- routine. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Petitioner provided Respondent sufficient assistance to correct one of the deficiencies or concerns. Observers noted that one deficiency was that Respondent spoke in a monotone and lethargic manner. Respondent's speech is as described but such speech, as observed by the undersigned and supported by the evidence, is considered by the undersigned to be a part of Respondent's make-up, his nature and has been so apparently throughout his teaching career. The responsibility was upon Petitioner to assist Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. The evidence demonstrates that the assistance provided to correct this deficiency did little, if anything, to remedy Respondent's speech pattern. Petitioner did not ascertain as to whether Respondent's speech pattern was capable of being changed through avenues other than that provided by Petitioner, such as speech therapy, since peer observation was obviously not a remedy. Speech therapy was not even suggested by Petitioner as a remedy. Petitioner failed to provide Respondent sufficient assistance to correct his speaking in a monotone and lethargic manner. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that PBL High has a significant discipline problem. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent has meticulously prepared lesson plans and that his lesson plans are satisfactory. The evidence also demonstrates that he becomes frustrated when he has to deviate from his lesson plans. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent is knowledgeable in the subject area of social studies. Respondent had requested two significant forms of assistance, which were denied. The first assistance Respondent requested was to have his PAR teacher model more effective teaching behaviors with his students using his course curriculum. According to Dr. Troute, Petitioner can make modeling services available upon request from principals at "D" and "F" rated schools, such as PBL High, to assist teachers experiencing performance problems at such schools. Principal Collins was unaware of the availability of modeling services and, as a result, Respondent's request was denied. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the denial was a detriment to Respondent's performance in correcting his deficiencies. The second assistance Respondent requested repeatedly was a voluntary transfer. The granting of Respondent's transfer requests was discretionary with Dr. Kaiser. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Dr. Kaiser abused her discretion. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Carroll, Assistant Principal Lesser, any of Petitioner's administrative or management staff who observed Respondent, or any of the observers retaliated against Respondent. Furthermore, the evidence fails to demonstrate that any of the aforementioned persons retaliated against Respondent because of the letter written by Respondent's wife, dated March 4, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order and therein: Refusing to uphold the suspension without pay and recommendation for termination. Reinstating John Kent with full backpay and lost benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Broward County School Board (School Board) is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Meadowbrook Elementary School (Meadowbrook), Tropical Elementary School (Tropical), and Everglades Elementary School (Everglades)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. For five years, beginning in 2004, Joseph Tamburino was the area coordinator of student services for the School Board's South Central Office (SCO), overseeing the activities of the office's five-person secretarial staff, as well as the approximately 70 "itinerant" school psychologists and school social workers assigned to work at schools within the SCO's service area. Among these schools were Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school social worker since September 2000. She presently holds a professional services contract. From 2004 until August 2009, Respondent worked out of the SCO under the immediate supervision of Mr. Tamburino. During this time, she never received less than a satisfactory annual performance appraisal from Mr. Tamburino; however, in the "comments" section of the last appraisal he gave Respondent (for the 2008-2009 school year), Mr. Tamburino did write, "Jessica should work on improving absenteeism and performance issues such as task completion, timelines and adhering to work hours." During the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino "beg[a]n to have problems" with Respondent's being where she was supposed to be during the school day. These "problems" persisted, despite Mr. Tamburino's efforts to address them at meetings with Respondent and in written correspondence he sent her. Following the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent a "Letter of Reprimand," dated August 14, 2007, which read as follows: This correspondence is submitted as a formal reprimand for your failure to follow office procedures. This is the second occasion that I have had to meet with you regarding not being present at your assigned schools for the full workday. We met on February 1, 2007 because you were not in your assigned schools for the full workday (7.5 hours) over a period of five days. Furthermore, we met on June 1, 2007, because you were not in your assigned schools during the hours you were required to be present on May 4 and May 24, 2007. Know and understand that this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by this administration. You are hereby directed from this point forward, to comply with all administrative directives. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action such as a referral to Professional Standards and the Special Investigative Unit, suspension or termination. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on August 14, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Less than four months later, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent another "Letter of Reprimand," which was dated December 7, 2007, and read as follows: This letter is submitted as a formal reprimand for your continued failure to follow office procedure and falsification of records. On November 8, 2007 you were not in your assigned school for 7.5 hours. You called the South Central Student Services office and reported that you were leaving New River Middle School at 4:00 p.m. However, you were seen at a store at a shopping plaza at 3:00 p.m. Although you did not work a full day on November 8, 2007, you falsely reported to a Student Services secretary that you finished your workday after 7.5 hours. This is the second written reprimand that you have received within the last four months for failure to follow office procedures and falsification of records. This behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. You are directed to comply with office procedures, work your full 7.5 hour day, and sign in and out with accurate times. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on December 17, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Respondent did not file a grievance "specifically challenging" either the August 14, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand," or the December 7, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand." On March 17, 2008, Dr. Tamburino sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, we have had two recent meetings that have included discussions of following office procedures, the provision of social work services and collaboration with the community liaison and other personnel. On February 1, 2008 we had a meeting with Jerrod Neal from BTU and Ellen Williams, the Social Work BTU Steward. We examined possible discrepancies between dates listed for home visits on a log at New River and your November mileage voucher. Although there were L-panel entries to verify the home visits, there was inconsistent documentation of the addresses on the mileage voucher. However, you decided to withdraw your request for mileage reimbursement. Suggestions to improve your work performance were discussed. These include the following: * * * - Specific time of the home visits, including leaving and returning to campus, need to be documented. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was assigned to provide school social work services at three schools: Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. She was supposed to be at Meadowbrook on Mondays, Tropical on Wednesdays, and Everglades on Thursdays. On Tuesdays, she went to whichever of the three assigned schools "need[ed] [her]," and she also did "home visits." Fridays were designated as "office days." On these "office days," Respondent was expected to do "paperwork" that needed to be completed. Respondent was allowed to use office space at Meadowbrook as her "Friday office" instead of going to the SCO (which was farther from her residence than was Meadowbrook). Respondent missed a considerable amount of work during the 2008-2009 school year due to her daughter's, as well as her own, health-related issues, "exhaust[ing] her sick leave" before the year was half over. (By December, she "didn't have any sick days" left.) Respondent and the other school social workers and school psychologists working out of the SCO were required to notify the office's secretarial staff, by telephone (or in person, if at the SCO), of their whereabouts whenever they arrived at or left a work-related destination during the school day (Call In Office Procedure). It was the duty and routine practice of the secretarial staff, upon receiving such a call, to enter the information provided by the caller concerning the caller's location (as well as the date and time the call was received) on an "online call-in log" (Call Log) maintained by the SCO so as to have a record of these calls. The Call In Office Procedure and other "[o]ffice [p]rocedures" were discussed in a document entitled, "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year," which Mr. Tamburino provided "[a]ll the South Central Office . . . [p]ersonnel," including Respondent, at the very beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The document read, in pertinent part, as follows: Attendance is reported daily by Joyce [Doe] (social workers) . . . to the payroll department. You must call Joyce . . . prior to taking any leave (e.g., personal, sick, other.) You must call each day you are taking sick leave (unless otherwise arranged with the Area Coordinator [Mr. Tamburino]). Call the office twice daily, when you arrive at your location and before you leave for the day (for example, for most elementary schools by 7:30 AM, and 3:00 PM). You should call from a school telephone. If you do not call in, you may be considered absent. You are expected to be in your assigned school 7.5 hours (same work hours as the teachers). If you leave a school for another destination, be sure to inform personnel at school and one of the secretaries in our office. When you are at the Area Office, please be sure that our secretaries log you in. A schedule of team meetings is provided at the beginning of each year. Attendance at all scheduled team meetings is mandatory. A planning day is a 7.5 hour workday. * * * Mileage vouchers must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the month per the Superintendent. Use the exact mileage to schools listed in SCA mileage chart. Requests for more than one month may not be approved. * * * You must request and obtain an approved TDA [Temporary Duty Authorization] from the Area Coordinator when performing duties in a different location other than your regular assignment. TDA request forms should be completed 10 days prior to the workshop/event. Return to the office at least once a week to handle office duties. The Area Coordinator monitors the quality of your work and evaluates your performance at least annually. The Area Coordinator makes all school assignments. In addition to having to follow these SCO "[o]ffice [p]rocedures," Respondent and her fellow "itinerant" workers, when they were at their assigned schools, were "under [the] direction" of the school's principal and had to do what the principal "dictated." During the 2008-2009 school year, the principal of Meadowbrook "wanted her ['itinerant'] employees to sign in/sign out when they came on [and when they left] campus," and there was a "sign in/sign out" sheet posted at the school for "itinerant" employees to sign, date, and note their "time in" and "time out." Respondent "knew" of Meadowbrook's "sign in/sign out" "procedure," and routinely complied with it (when she was actually at the school that school year). Respondent was not present, and therefore did not "sign in," at Meadowbrook on any of the following dates: Friday, October 3, 2008; Friday, October 31, 2008; Friday, January 9, 2009; Friday, February 6, 2009; Friday, February 13, 2009; Friday, February 20, 2009; and Monday, February 23, 2009. Nonetheless, she telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Meadowbrook on each of these days (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log), obviously knowing this information to be false.4 February 4, 2009, was a Wednesday, the day Respondent was supposed to be at Tropical. On that day, Respondent telephoned the SCO secretarial staff at 8:05 a.m. to report she was at Tropical, and called back at 5:56 p.m. to advise that she was leaving the school (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). In fact, Respondent was not at Tropical during the school day on February 4, 2009.5 Her reporting otherwise was a knowingly-made false misrepresentation. March 20, 2009, was a Friday and thus an "office day" for Respondent. Respondent had made arrangements to attend a conference that day. In accordance with the "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year" that Mr. Tamburino had handed out at the start of the school year, Respondent had "request[ed] [on February 25, 2009] and subsequently obtain[ed] [on March 16, 2009] an approved TDA" from Mr. Tamburino to go to the conference (instead of doing the work she was "regular[ly] assign[ed]"). Respondent, however, did not go to the March 20, 2009, conference.6 Nonetheless, at 8:40 a.m. on March 20, 2009, she falsely and deceptively reported to the SCO secretarial staff over the telephone that she was on her "temporary duty" assignment (at the conference). At no time that day did Respondent advise the SCO secretarial staff that she was at her regular "Friday office" location, Meadowbrook,7 or that she was leaving that location (to pick up her sick daughter at school, or for any other reason). Furthermore, Respondent's leave records reveal that she did not take any type of leave that day. (Had she taken leave to care for her sick daughter that day, it would had to have been unpaid leave because she had no paid leave time left.)8 To receive reimbursement for non-commuting "travel expenses [she claimed she incurred] in the performance of [her] official duties" as a school social worker (that is, for mileage in excess of the 22.6 miles from her home to her office (at Meadowbrook) and back, reimbursed at a rate of 55 cents per mile, plus parking and tolls), Respondent had to submit mileage vouchers (on School Board Form 3042, Revised 09/05) to Mr. Tamburino for his approval.9 Respondent certified, by her signature on the forms, that her "claim[s] [were] true and correct" and that the "expenses [claimed] were actually incurred by [her]." Among the mileage vouchers she submitted were those covering the months of January 2009 (January Voucher) and February 2009 (February Voucher). There were entries on both the January and February Vouchers that were inconsistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on the dates for which these entries were made (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 6, 2009, she had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first at Meadowbrook, then at the SCO, and finally on a home visit. On the January Voucher, for Friday, January 9, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Meadowbrook" (a trip of 0 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "Meadowbrook to KCW [School Board headquarters]" (a trip of 5.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "KCW to Everglades" (a trip of 17.7 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), and "Everglades to Home (a trip of 14.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 9, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at School Board headquarters and at Meadowbrook.) On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 20, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 20, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit and then at Everglades. On the February Voucher, for Tuesday, February 3, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 3, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at Meadowbrook and on a home visit.) On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 6, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit, then at Meadowbrook, and finally at the SCO. On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 13, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 13, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at the SCO any time that day. (She had only reported being on a home visit and at Meadowbrook.10) On the February Voucher, for Wednesday, February 4, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Tropical to Home" (a trip of 9.8 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"). Unlike the other entries on the January and February Vouchers discussed above, this entry was entirely consistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on that day; however, as noted above, she had not been truthful in making such a telephonic report to the SCO secretarial staff. It was Mr. Tamburino's responsibility to check all of his subordinates' mileage vouchers, including Respondent's, "for accuracy" before approving them. Because "there [were] discrepanc[ies] between what was on the [January and February] [V]oucher[s] and what was on the [C]all [L]og," Mr. Tamburino did not approve these vouchers. Instead, he "forward[ed] the mileage voucher issue to the [School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit] for investigation."11 On or about April 23, 2009, Respondent was provided a Notice of Investigation (dated April 17, 2008), which read as follows: This correspondence is provided as formal notice of investigation into a complaint received in this office regarding allegations that you falsified records. You will be contacted in the near future for the purpose of giving a statement. You have the right to representation through all phases of this investigation. You are directed not to engage the complainant, or any student witness, or any other witness in any conversation regarding the matter under investigation. A violation of this directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Questions regarding the status of this investigation are to be directed to Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit at (754)321-0735. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file will be part of your personnel file and will be public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days after completion of the investigative process. Investigator Johanna Davidson was the School Board employee in the Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit who conducted the investigation. As part of her investigation, Investigator Davidson took a sworn statement from Respondent on June 4, 2009.12 In her sworn statement, Respondent told Investigator Davidson, among other things, that she arrived at Meadowbrook at "around 8:00" a.m. on March 20, 2009, and stayed there "all day"13; that she "knew that [signing-in] was the procedure" at Meadowbrook; that this "procedure" had been in place for the past year and a half; that she signed in at Meadowbrook "99 percent of the time"; that she "may have missed one or two sign-ins" at Meadowbrook, but she did not "think [she] had"; and that she is "a very procedure and policy oriented person," so it would have been "odd" had she not signed in at Meadowbrook, even during the time, from January to April 2009, when she had been "on crutches."14 When asked by Investigator Davidson "what happened that day, February 4, 2009," Respondent made no mention of having been in the teacher's lounge at Tropical (where, in her testimony at the final hearing, she falsely claimed she had been the entire school day on February 4, 2009, leaving only once to go to the bathroom across the hall). Rather, in response to Investigator Davidson's inquiry, she suggested that this day (February 4, 2009) might have been one of the many days that school year that she had "taken off" because of health-related issues and that she had not "communicated properly" concerning her having "taken off" that day. Investigator Davidson completed her investigation and issued an Investigative Report detailing her findings in late June 2009. Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report contained a section entitled, "Summary of Investigation," the first paragraph of which read as follows: A Personnel Investigation Request pertaining to School Social Worker Jessica Harrison was received in the Office of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit. Ms. Harrison was accused of Falsification of Records stemming from the following alleged incidents: Ms. Harrison allegedly submitted a Temporary Duty Authorization (TDA) request to attend a conference but did not attend the conference, and allegedly reported to the South Central Area Student Services office that she was in attendance. Two of Ms. Harrison's assigned schools reported that Ms. Harrison was not in attendance on several days. Ms. Harrison allegedly did not report her absences to the South Central Area Student Services office. Ms. Harrison allegedly falsified mileage vouchers. The information that Investigator Davidson had obtained supporting these allegations was detailed in succeeding paragraphs of this section. (It was this information upon which the "[s]pecific [c]harges" in the instant Administrative Complaint were based.) The School Board's Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, to consider the results of Investigator Davidson's investigation and "found probable cause of falsification of records" warranting Respondent's termination. On September 16, 2009, Craig Kowalski, the Acting Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, sent Respondent a letter, which read as follows: The Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, and found probable cause of falsification of records. The Committee has recommended termination. Please be advised by way of this correspondence that you have been scheduled for a pre-disciplinary conference on Monday, October 5, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in my office, which is located on the third floor of the Technical Support Services Center, 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida. You have the right to representation at this conference. If for some reason you are unable to be present at this conference you must contact my office by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, 2009. You have previously been furnished with a full report. You are not to disseminate these documents to the public and/or media since it may contain protected information. If you have a representative, it is your responsibility to furnish him/her with copies of your documentation. Your failure or refusal to appear at this conference will be considered a waiver of this procedural requirement. A copy of the Special Investigative Unit report and this letter are being forwarded to the Professional Practices Department of the State Department of Education to determine if certificate disciplinary action is warranted. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file is now a part of your personnel file and is a public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days from receipt of this letter. Any request made by the public for the documentation referred to above will be provided in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Questions regarding this correspondence are to be directed to my office (754)321-0735. The "pre-disciplinary conference" was held on October 5, 2009, as scheduled. Present at the conference were Mr. Kowalski; Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire (on behalf of the School Board); Respondent; and Jerrod Neal of the Broward Teachers Union, whom Respondent had asked to speak on her behalf. Prior to the conference, Respondent had received, and had had the opportunity to review, Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report. During the conference, Respondent affirmatively adopted the admission made by her representative at the meeting, Mr. Neal, that she had engaged in the "falsification" of which she was being accused (as described in the Investigative Report). The following is a verbatim recitation of what was said at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference": MR. KOWALSKI: This is a pre-disciplinary hearing for School Board employee Jessica Harrison. We are here pursuant to an investigative report dated June 30th, 2009. This investigation was based upon allegations of falsification of records. The Professional Standards Committee has reviewed this matter and has made a recommendation for disciplinary action. The disciplinary action is for termination. Have you received a copy of the investigative report? MS. HARRISON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: The purpose of this pre- disciplinary conference is to give you the opportunity to bring forward any additional matters that you believe should be considered before final decision as to disciplinary action is reached. Such matters include any additional evidence, witnesses or any matter that you believe should be considered. This is also an opportunity to say anything which you believe should be considered on your behalf. I am going to ask you if you identify additional witnesses, please identify what you believe the witness knows or would testify to or what the witness can contribute to this investigation. Do you understand the purpose of this meeting? MS. HARRISON: Um-hm. Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: Is there anything you wish to say, do you have any additional matters that you believe should be considered.? MR. NEAL: Let me speak on her behalf, because I think Ms. Harrison has pretty much said a lot of things at the Professional Standards Committee meeting. Since we've talked, since the information that was gathered during the investigation, I have really had a chance to look over it, I was really surprised by the recommendation of termination. Not eliminating what happened, because what happened as far as falsification of records, it was done. But circumstances surrounding it, I don't think it really warrants termination, considering that it is not an easy thing when you're going through a lot of personal problems. Once again, it doesn't justify what was done. But I think under the circumstances, decisions were made with not a lot of clear thought, and I really believe that Ms. Harrison's intention, from what I have known over the last couple of years, have always been good. I just think it's a matter of the things that she was actually going through. She should have brought them to the forefront earlier so there could have been a better understanding of what was going on, not an excuse for it, but a better understanding for what was going on. And you know, I would not be in my duty if I don't mention the fact that there has been so much, or so many other things that have been done through the district that should have warranted termination and people were not terminated. And I just think this is a situation where termination is to the extreme. Whereas some sort of punishment should happen, but termination is just way too much for this situation, because I think in her state of mind as she is now, I don't think these mistakes will be made again. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Do you want to add anything Ms. Harrison? MS: HARRISON: I think he summed it up. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know the outcome. MR. Neal: Okay. About how long will that be. And he will let you know, so that means you will have to let me know once they let you know. MR. KOWALSKI: I have to meet with the Superintendent, and so within two weeks. MR. NEAL: Okay. Until then you just go back to doing what you have been doing. MS. HARRISON: Okay. MR. NEAL: All right. Appreciate it. Ms. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Mr. NEAL: Thank you. (emphasis supplied).15 The plea for leniency that Mr. Neal made on behalf of Respondent proved to be unsuccessful. On October 30, 2009, Broward County Superintendent of Schools Notter issued an Administrative Complaint recommending that Respondent be terminated for the "falsification" of attendance records and mileage vouchers described in Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report (conduct that Respondent had admitted, at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference," she had engaged in).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a professional service contract school social worker with the School Board for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner under a continuing contract. The Respondent, Muriel Johnson Krueger, holds Florida teaching certificate number #0367469 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering grades K through 6. The Respondent is also certified in Florida for administration and supervision, grades K through 12. She also holds a Wisconsin teaching certificate. The Respondent taught in Wisconsin for a number of years; she taught in a one-room school house, grades 1 through 5. She began teaching in Florida in 1974 at Brooksville Primary School in Hernando County, where she taught first grade for two years. She next taught first grade at Moton School Center (Moton) also in Hernando County, for four years. She received her continuing contract in 1977. In 1979, the Respondent was appointed primary specialist at Moton; she held that position until August, 1985. As primary specialist, the Respondent was not assigned to a classroom; she worked primarily with teachers and teachers' aides. She was not responsible for drawing up lesson plans, recording grades, or developing pacing schedules, as those procedures are used in the ordinary classroom. The Respondent received favorable evaluations throughout her career in the Hernando County school system, until January, 1986. However, Respondent has never received an evaluation of her performance which would support her dismissal. In March, 1985, the Respondent was diagnosed as having certain physical and psychological problems, including diabetes and atypical psychosis. The Respondent's medical conditions, including the details regarding her psychological illness, were reported to the school system by the Respondent's doctors, Dr. Renee Haney, a psychiatrist and Dr. Joanne Pegg- McNab., a psychologist. In August, 1985, two days prior to the commencement of the school year, the Respondent was notified by the Petitioner that she would be teaching third grade at Spring Hill Elementary School (Spring Hill) during the 1985-86 school year. Previously, the Respondent had been given to understand, based on representations made to her by school administrators, that she would be teaching second grade in 1985-1986. The Respondent had prepared materials for the teaching of second grade, which she was unable to use in teaching third grade. Louise Ross, principal of Spring Hill, was aware that Respondent had not been a classroom teacher for at least four years prior to Respondent coming to Spring Hill in August, 1985. Ross was aware of Respondent's treatment for psychological illness. Prior to the students' return, the Respondent worked one week at Spring Hill. During that period, Respondent attended general meetings, and although Respondent received a packet of material during this period, it did not contain any specific instruction in regard to preparing lesson plans, grading or pacing. Respondent received specific written instruction regarding the recording of grades and pacing at a later date. Respondent did not receive any specific verbal or written instructions from Ross or any other person respecting the procedures in effect at Spring Hill in regard to grading and pacing until the memorandums of September 24, 1985 and November 19, 1985 from Ross concerning grades and pacing, and the December 16, 1985 letter to Respondent from Ross setting forth Ross' concerns about Respondent's procedures in grading, pacing, and lesson plan preparation that were covered in the meeting between Ross and Respondent on December 16, 1985. On September 24, 1985, approximately one month after school opened on August 22, 1985, Ross issued a memorandum regarding the number of grades to be recorded for each subject, and the procedure for recording the grades. On November 19, 1985 Ross issued a memorandum regarding the Ginn Reading Program (pacing student in reading). Both the memorandum and the chart attached pointed out it was a "guide" and that the primary concern was for the student to master the material. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent received this memorandum prior to returning to work on December 16, 1985. No documents concerning the pacing in other subjects were issued to Respondent. Pacing involves setting a pace for the teacher and the student to cover the required material in a set time and yet allow the student to master the subject matter. The failure to properly pace a class usually results in the student requiring remediation in the subject matter. Although Ross collected and reviewed Respondent's lesson plan books during the beginning of the school year and prior to Respondent going on sick leave in November, 1985, Ross did not make any suggestions or criticisms concerning pacing because when she checked the lesson plan books Ross found them sufficient. Respondent was aware of the requirement of preparing lesson plans in advance, but at Moton, where she had previously taught, the requirement was to prepare three days of lesson plans in advance, not five days as was required at Spring Hill. Spring Hill required lesson plans to be ready on the Friday immediately prior to week of the lesson plans, but Ross had allowed teachers to prepare lesson plans over the week-end for the following week. Respondent was absent from school beginning November 20, 1985 through December 16, 1985 on approved sick leave. Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and leave them for her substitute. Respondent's illness prevented her from preparing lesson plans for the period beginning November 25, 1985 and up until Respondent returned on December 16, 1985. However, the lesson plans for November 20, 21 and 22, 1985 should have been prepared prior to Respondent's illness. On December 16, 1985, the day Respondent returned from sick leave, Ross held a meeting with Respondent to advise her of certain changes in performance expected by Ross. The expected changes were the result of Ross reviewing Respondent's grade book and determining that the grades were not recorded in accordance with the September 24, 1985 memorandum, and reviewing Respondent's lesson plan books and determining that Respondent's class (an average class) was ahead of the top class in the third grade in reading and math. Respondent was advised of how to effect the changes and that compliance was expected by the beginning of the second semester. Although Respondent's third grade class was ahead of other third grade classes during the period of school prior to December 16, 1985, the student's mastery of the subject matter covered during this period was within an acceptable range, and remediation was normal. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until the Respondent took leave on March 12, 1987, the Respondent's pacing of her students was in accordance with school policy. Respondent's grade books may have shed some light on whether Respondent had properly recorded the student's grades but the grade books were not introduced into evidence. Prior to taking sick leave on November 20, 1985, the Respondent had, in addition to those grades recorded in her grade, recorded grades on sheets of paper in the back of her grade book contrary to the instructions given in the September 24, 1985 memorandum from Ross. However, Ross permitted the Respondent to record these grades in her grade book at a later time. Without knowing that it was against school policy, Respondent allowed her aides to record grades in her grade book. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until she took leave on March 12, 1986, the Respondent's recording of grades in her grade books was in substantial compliance with school policy. Although Respondent did not totally comply with the December 16, 1985 memorandum from Ross, her compliance with the memorandum satisfied Sonia Terrelonge, the third grade chairperson, who Ross had assigned the duty of working with Respondent to bring about compliance with the memorandum. Ross did not check Respondent's plan book or grade book on a regular basis as she had indicated in her memorandum of December 16, 1985 but delegated that responsibility to Terrelonge. On March 7, 1986, Respondent escorted her students to Terrelonge's portable classroom to see a movie and, since Respondent had detention duty, she picked up the students from other third grade classes on detention and returned to her portable classroom. At lunch time Respondent returned the students on detention to Terrelonge's portable classroom and escorted her students to lunch. After lunch Respondent escorted her students back to Terrelonge's portable classroom for the balance of the movie; again picked up the students on detention, and returned to her classroom. At the time scheduled for the conclusion of the movie, Respondent returned to Terrelonge's portable classroom to escort her students back to her classroom. Upon arrival at Terrelonge's classroom, Respondent discovered that her students had left earlier with either Maria Wolf or Catherine Winemiller or Jacqueline Mitchie, the other teachers having students at the movie. Although one of these three (3) teachers would have been responsible for supervising the return of Respondent's students to her classroom since Respondent was on detention duty, there is insufficient evidence to show which one had that responsibility. Upon return to her classroom Respondent observed some of her students outside the classroom unsupervised. Some of the students were running around and some were standing on a railing attempting to rescue a shoe from the roof. Respondent summoned her students into the classroom. None of the students were injured in any way. After the movie and the shoe incident the Respondent's children were "hyper". To calm them down, Respondent decided to go to the playground rather than to the scheduled special class. Respondent notified the special class teacher of this change but, without knowledge that she was required to notify Ross, failed to notify Ross of this change. This was the only special class the Respondent's student's missed while under her care during the 1985-86 school year. Other teachers took their students out on unscheduled recess when the children would not settle down. The evidence does not reveal any written policy concerning unscheduled recesses. Respondent kept blank discipline slips and omni passes in an unlocked desk drawer, and that students had on occasions filled out these slips without Respondent's knowledge. There was insufficient evidence to show that the children were under Respondent's supervision at the time the slips were taken out of the drawer and filled out. There were a number of disruptive and behavioral problem students in Respondent's class, but the number of disruptive or behavioral problem children in Respondent's class was not shown to be greater than in any other average third grade class. During the 1985-86 school year, Ross made frequent, unscheduled visits to Respondent's classroom and found Respondent's performance, including her classroom management, satisfactory, except on one (1) occasion, March 12, 1986. As a result of the shoe incident and skipping the special class, Ross called Respondent to a meeting on March 7, 1986 with Edward Poore, Assistant Superintendent, and Cathy Hogeland, Union Representative being present along with Ross and Respondent. As a result of this meeting, Ross advised Respondent to take the rest of that day off, which was Friday, and March 10, 1986 which was Monday. Respondent complied and returned to work on Tuesday, March 11, 1986. On March 11, 1986, the day Ross returned to school her students went on a field trip but Respondent was not allowed to accompany them. During the day Respondent worked on grading, grade books and planning. Also, on March 11, 1986, Ross gave Respondent a handwritten memorandum instructing her in class management, specifically addressing the supervision of students, class discipline, the following of lesson plans and attendance of students at special classes. Additionally, the memorandum instructed Respondent that teachers were not to eat lunch in the classroom and listed those areas where Respondent could eat lunch. On March 12, 1986, around noon, Respondent met with Ross, with Joanne Knight, being present as Union Representative. This meeting occurred as a result of Ross visiting Respondent's classroom and finding the students particularly disruptive and disorderly. When Respondent indicated that she could resume teaching her class that afternoon, Ross informed Respondent that she must take a leave of absence and have a complete physical examination and psychological evaluation or Ross would recommend her termination to the school board. Respondent was also informed by letter from Ross dated April 8, 1986 that her return to work would be based on the psychologist's report which should be submitted no later than May 31, 1986. Due to Ross' demands, Respondent requested leave and signed the necessary papers which had been filled out by the school board office. Respondent was put on leave without pay for the balance of the school year. Respondent resumed seeing Dr. Haney in April, 1986 but due to Dr. Haney's, or Respondent's oversight, an evaluation was not submitted until July 30, 1986. However, on July 1, 1986, Ross had recommended Respondent's dismissal to the superintendent based solely on Respondent's failure to provide the evaluation by May 31, 1986 without any further notice to Respondent other than the letter of April 8, 1986. Respondent learned of Ross's recommendation of dismissal sometime around July 16, 1986 when Ross notified her by letter. The letter also informed Respondent that this recommendation would go to the school board on August 5 1986. During Dr. Haney's treatment of Respondent in 1986, she prescribed medication for her mental condition which had no detrimental side effects on the Respondent. Dr. Haney's report of July 30, 1986 made no recommendation as to Respondent's ability to return to the classroom but left to the school system the interpretation of her findings. Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, Respondent's treating psychiatrist, began treating Respondent in October, 1986. Dr. Gonzalez's opinion was that while Respondent does have a mental condition, it is treatable with medication and does not affect Respondent's ability to teach. Dr. Gonzalez prescribes the same medication for Respondent as did Dr. Haney. From his observations, the Respondent takes the medication as prescribed. It was also Dr. Gonzalez's opinion that Respondent understands the need for medication. It was the opinion of Dr. Haney that Respondent better understood the need for medication after her second hospitalization in April 1986 then she had after the first hospitalization in 1985. It was the opinion of both Dr. Haney and Dr. Gonzalez that Respondent's mental condition would not prevent her from being effective in the classroom and that her presence as a teacher would not endanger the welfare of the students. Respondent was a concerned teacher, interested in her student's welfare. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that Respondent had emotional outbursts in the presence of her students. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that, due to Respondent's action, the students in her third grade class were deprived of minimum education experiences. Respondent substantially performed her duties as prescribed by law. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that there was a constant or continuing intentional refusal on the part of Respondent to obey a direct order given by proper authority.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Muriel Krueger. It is further RECOMMENDED Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Hernando County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2001 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 11-13. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraph 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23 except for the last clause which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 17-19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, except for the one occasion on March 12, 1986 which would not be described as a chaotic condition. That classroom management was discussed with Respondent is adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. That students took discipline slips and filled them out is adopted in Finding of Fact 24, the balance of paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 24-27. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Rejected as not being relevant or material because that was Dr. Haney's provisional diagnosis which was changed when she made her final diagnosis. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. The balance of paragraph 31 is rejected as not being relevant or material in that although Respondent admitted being acquainted with those school board policies there was credible evidence that Respondent was not aware at the beginning of the school year of Ross' or the Superintendent's specific instruction in regard to maintaining attendance records, grade books, etc. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. 20.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 as clarified. Rejected as not being a finding of fact but only a restatement of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 25.-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34 and 35 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 Susan E. Hicks, Esquire Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997
