The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Kenneth Ingber has been employed by Petitioner and assigned under a continuing contract to West Little River Elementary School. During Respondent's 23 years of employment by Petitioner, he resigned/retired twice. He was rehired by Petitioner after each resignation, the last rehiring taking place for the 1985/86 school year. His then-principal, Glenda Harris, hired him with the knowledge that he was an admitted recovering alcoholic. He told her that he was under control. She told him that she would give him a chance but that he would have to meet the expectations that all teachers have to meet. From the 1985/86 school year through the 1990/91 school year, Harris rated Respondent acceptable on his annual evaluations; however, during the 1989/90 school year, Respondent had an attendance problem when he began drinking again. Harris tried to get Respondent to obtain help, but he felt he could do it on his own. He deteriorated during that year but improved during the 1990/91 school year. During the time that Harris supervised Respondent, she had a problem with his not having lesson plans. He felt that he did not need them. For the 1991/92 school year, Respondent came under the supervision of Principal Lillian Coplin. Coplin was never advised of Respondent's alcoholism. On January 29, 1992, Respondent left school early without permission. He also failed to attend a Global Awareness Workshop scheduled for that day. Coplin discussed these failures with him on January 30, 1992. On January 31, 1992, Respondent arrived at work late and left early. The official working hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., but Respondent only worked from 9:47 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. On February 7, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to observe the working hours set by the collective bargaining agreement between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (Labor Contract). On February 27 and March 2, 1992, Respondent failed to have lesson plans. On February 27, 1992, Assistant Principal Edith Norniella observed Respondent smoking outside of his classroom, but within view of his students. Prior to that date, Norniella had observed him smoking on school grounds on August 30, 1991, November 14, 1991 and February 18, 1992. On each of these occasions, she told him not to smoke on school grounds. Coplin had also told him several times not to smoke on school grounds. On March 3, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to adhere to Petitioner's non-smoking rule. Norniella saw him smoking on school grounds at least two more times after that. On March 3, 1992, Coplin also directed Respondent to develop lesson plans according to the Labor Contract. On March 27, 1992, all teachers were given a site directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules before leaving for spring-break on April 3, 1992. On April 3, 1992, Respondent reported to work at 9:25 a.m. in spite of the directive given on February 7, 1992. On that same date, Respondent also failed to comply with the directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules. Moreover, by April 22, 1992, he still had not complied with that directive. On April 22, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to discuss his attendance problems and other failures to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and administrative directives. During the conference, he stated that he lost the gradebook but that the principal would not like it anyway. He also admitted that he did not maintain a parent log. Respondent was warned that any further violation of directives would be considered gross insubordination. He was also issued a written reprimand and directed to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and site directives. He was advised of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a program which offers assistance to employees in overcoming personal problems that may be affecting their work. Respondent declined the assistance and treated the matter as a joke by posting the EAP referral on his classroom door. On May 27, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have lesson plans, student work folders with tests, or a gradebook. It was impossible to assess his students' progress. Respondent was given a prescription to help him correct his deficiencies. Prescriptions are activities which the employee is directed to complete. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was to prepare two teacher-made tests and submit those to Norniella for review. He was also to complete some activities concerning assessment techniques from the TADS prescription manual. His prescription deadline was June 16, 1992. On June 2, 1992, Respondent was wearing a "pocket-knife" on his belt. Both Coplin and Norniella considered the pocket-knife to be a weapon in violation of the School Board rule because, although Respondent did not physically threaten anyone with the knife, the wearing of such a knife was intimidating to students and to Coplin. The matter had come to Coplin's attention through a complaint from the parent of a student. In addition, both administrators believed that wearing a knife set a bad example for the students and did not reflect credit upon Respondent and the school system. On June 3, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the knife incident. Respondent was issued a written reprimand and directed to cease and desist from bringing the pocket-knife to school. He was further advised that any re-occurrence of that infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. On June 5, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address Respondent's performance and his future employment status. During the conference, he admitted to not having had a written lesson plan during the May 27 observation. He was told of the Labor Contract provision which requires weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring students' progress. He was also warned that if he did not complete the prescription from that observation, he would be placed on prescription for professional responsibilities and given an unacceptable annual evaluation. On June 19, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. He had failed to correct his deficiencies and had failed to complete his prescription. Moreover, he still had not turned in his gradebook, parent log, and daily schedule, as directed on March 3, 1992. He was given an unacceptable annual evaluation because of his deficiencies in professional responsibility. Respondent verbally disagreed with that decision stating that the unacceptable evaluation was for simple paper-pushing requirements. The prescription for professional responsibilities required Respondent to review from the faculty handbook School Board policy on grading criteria, to submit his gradebook on a weekly basis to Coplin, to maintain a gradebook and a log of parent conferences, to maintain daily attendance, to submit student assessment records to Coplin for review prior to submission of the nine-week grade report, and to complete the prescription from the May 27 observation by September 15, 1992. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the category of professional responsibility. On September 20, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent because he was still wearing a "pocket-knife" in spite of the prior directive. He was directed not to wear the knife or the knife case. Respondent stated that he would not do as directed. On October 9, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have a lesson plan, student work folders, tests, or a gradebook. It would not be possible to evaluate the students' strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, if an administrator were called upon to explain to a parent why a student got a particular grade, the administrator would not have been able to do so. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual dealing with lesson planning and assessment techniques and to prepare two teacher-made tests and to submit all to Coplin for review. The prescription was to be completed by October 30, 1992. By November 13, 1992, Respondent was exhibiting a pattern of excessive and unauthorized absences. The absences were unauthorized because he failed to call the school prior to his absences as required by directives contained in the faculty handbook. He was advised that his absences were adversely impacting the continuity of instruction for his students and the work environment. He was given directives to report his absences directly to the principal, document absences upon return to the worksite, and provide lesson plans and materials for use by the substitute teacher when he was absent. On November 13, 1992, it was noted that Respondent had not met the prescription deadline of October 30, 1992. Coplin gave Respondent a new prescription deadline of November 30, 1992. In addition, she made a supervisory referral to the EAP because of Respondent's excessive absences, unauthorized disappearance from work, poor judgment, and failures to carry out assignments. By the end of November, 1992, Respondent had accumulated 21 absences. While he was absent, there were no gradebook, lesson plans or student folders for the substitute teacher. The substitute teacher was told to create a gradebook, lesson plans, and student work folders. All was in order when Respondent returned to work. On December 11, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, in techniques of instruction, and in assessment techniques. Because his techniques of instruction were also rated unacceptable, Respondent recognized for the first time that his teaching performance was being criticized. He had dismissed the prior criticisms as simply problems with creating a "paper-work trail". Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because he did not have a lesson plan. Norniella gave him a chance to turn in the lesson plans the following Monday, but he failed to do so. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he used the same materials and methods for all students regardless of their individual needs. Respondent failed to establish background knowledge before beginning the lesson. The sequence of the lesson was confusing to Norniella. Respondent covered three different subjects (vocabulary, science, and math), all within a period set aside for language arts. Respondent was given a prescription to help correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella on Fridays. He was to observe a reading/language arts lesson by another sixth- grade teacher. He was directed to maintain at least two grades per week in each subject for each student. He was also directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual relating to preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. He was directed to complete the prescription by January 15, 1993. He failed to complete any of the prescription activities. On January 4, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his performance and future employment. His absences and reporting procedures were also discussed as was his failure to comply with his prescription and prior directives. During the conference, Respondent was rude, agitated, and disrespectful. He yelled at the principal. His behavior did not reflect credit upon himself and the school system. He treated the conference as a joke. As of January 20, 1993, Respondent still had no gradebook. On January 25, 1993, he was notified that upon his return to the school site, there would be a conference-for-the-record to deal with his noncompliance with the directives to maintain a gradebook and to complete his prescription activities. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on March 3, 1993. It was noted that because of his absences, he had failed to meet the prescription deadline on January 15, 1993. Coplin gave him a new deadline of March 11, 1993. Respondent failed to meet the March 11, 1993, prescription deadline. Moreover, he still had not completed his prior prescription for professional responsibility. Because of these failures, Coplin extended the 1992 professional responsibility prescription through June 1993. On March 26, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. While Respondent had some lesson plans, he did not have one for each subject taught during the day. The student folders contained no tests. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to submit them on Wednesdays for the principal to review. He was also to complete an assessment techniques activity from the TADS prescription manual and was to submit the activity to Coplin for review. His prescription was to be completed by April 23, 1993. On April 1, 1993, Respondent was placed on prescription for professional responsibilities for failure to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and school site policies and directives concerning lesson plans, student assessment, record keeping, and maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans for each subject taught and to submit those to the principal for review. He was directed to read Article X of the Labor Contract and to submit a summary to the principal for review. He was directed to review the section of the faculty handbook concerning maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject and to label the grades. He was directed to maintain a parental conference log in the gradebook. He was directed to submit his gradebook to the principal for weekly review. On May 12, 1993, Coplin advised Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) that Respondent had failed to comply with the directive of November 13, 1992, concerning procedures for reporting absences. He had been absent on April 13, 16, 23, 27, and May 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, 1993, without calling the principal in advance. Respondent claims that he called the school secretary at her home before 7:00 a.m. every time he was absent, except for one time. Although the secretary told him he would have to speak directly to the principal, he chose not to call the school when Coplin was there. Calling the secretary does not absolve him from his responsibility to comply with the principal's directive to speak to her personally. On May 19, 1993, Respondent was sent a letter directing him to schedule a conference at OPS. Respondent did not do so. On that same day, Coplin was advised by EAP that EAP was closing Respondent's case due to his noncompliance with the program. Respondent was absent without authorized leave from April 23 - June 17, 1993. Moreover, he had 106 absences for the school year. Nine of these were paid sick leave, and 97 were leave without pay. The school year has 180 student contact days. Because of Respondent's absences and failure to follow leave procedures, Coplin was not able to secure a permanent substitute teacher. Respondent's students were subjected to frequent changes in substitute teachers and a lack of continuity in their education. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Because of Respondent's absences, the usual conference-for-the-record could not be conducted, and Respondent's annual evaluation was sent to him by mail. Respondent failed to complete all prescriptions given him by Coplin and by Norniella. By letter dated June 15, 1992, OPS notified Respondent that he was willfully absent from duty without leave. He was given an opportunity to provide a written response and was advised that failure to do so would result in the termination of his employment. On July 6, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Joyce Annunziata at OPS. The conference was held to discuss the pending dismissal action to be taken by Petitioner at its meeting of July 7, 1993. During the meeting, Respondent was extremely disoriented, turned his back on Annunziata, did not take the meeting seriously, made irrelevant comments, carried a stuffed purple animal which he talked to and through, and had watery, bloodshot eyes. He also wore his "pocket-knife" to the conference. Petitioner suspended Respondent and took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against him on July 7, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-27, and 29-56 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 28 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 7-9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 14-16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-13 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Doug Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Miami-Dade County School Board's Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board, Respondent, and his Supervisors The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including Gertrude K. Edlelman/Sabal Palm Elementary School (Sabal Palm), Miami Norland Senior High School (Norland), and North Miami Senior High School (North Miami). The principals of these schools have ultimate supervisory authority over all School Board employees assigned to their schools, including custodial employees. Raul Gutierrez is now, and has been for the past three years, the principal of Sabal Palm. Mr. Gutierrez succeeded Gertrude Edelman, after whom the school is now named. Mr. Gutierrez had served as an assistant principal at the school under Ms. Edelman for five years before he became the school's principal. Selma McKeller is now, and has been for the past 11 years, the head custodian at Sabal Palm, having supervisory authority over all other members of the school's custodial staff. Willie Turner is now, and has been for the past four years, the principal of Norland. Gladys Hudson was an assistant principal at Norland during the 2002-2003 school year. Among her responsibilities was to oversee the school's entire custodial staff, including the head and lead custodians. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March of 1989. Respondent was initially hired as a custodian and assigned to Sabal Palm. In August 1998, while still assigned to Sabal Palm, Respondent was promoted to his present position, lead custodian, which is a supervisory position. Respondent remained at Sabal Palm until August 2002, when he was placed on "alternate assignment" at Norland, where he worked under the direct supervision of the school's lead custodian, Leaford Harris. In December 2002, Respondent was placed on "alternate assignment" at North Miami. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II of the AFSCME Contract is the contract's "[r]ecognition" article. Section 3 of Article II provides as follows: The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, Local 1184, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; and (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the MDCPS and the lines of administrative authority of MDCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; I. Contract out for goods or services; and J. Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Definitions are set forth in Article V of the AFSCME Contract. They include the following: * * * Section 17. Working Hours-- Those specified hours when employees are expected to be present and performing assigned duties. Section 18. Workday-- The total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties. * * * Section 27. Unauthorized Absence-- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave. Section 4A of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[n]ewly-[h]ired [e]mployees." It provides as follows: Newly-hired employees in the bargaining unit (except temporary, hourly, or substitute employees) shall be considered probationary for the first three calendar months; thereafter, they shall be considered annual employees, subject to annual reappointment. During such probationary period, employees may be terminated without recourse under this Contract. If, at any time during the probationary period, the newly-hired employee's performance is considered unacceptable, the probationary employee shall be terminated. Section 13 of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract discusses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows: AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board recognize that a wide range of problems not directly associated with an employee's job function can have an effect on an employee's job performance and/or attendance. AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board agree that assistance will be provided to all employees through the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program. The Employee Assistance Program is intended to help employees and their families who are suffering from such persistent problems as may tend to jeopardize an employee's health and continued employment. The program goal is to help individuals who develop such problems by providing for consultation, treatment, and rehabilitation to prevent their condition from progressing to a degree which will prevent them from working effectively. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of records for any person admitted to the program, according to established personnel guidelines and federal regulations. The Guidelines for the Employee Assistance Program, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Employee Rights: Job security will not be jeopardized by referral to the Employee Assistance Program, whether the referral is considered a voluntary referral in which an employee elects to participate in the program, or a supervisory referral in which a supervisor uses adopted guidelines to refer an employee into the program. An employee has the right to refuse referral into the program and may discontinue participation at any time. Failure by an employee to accept referral or continue treatment will be considered in the same manner as any factor that continues to affect job performance adversely. Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[d]isciplinary [a]ction." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled, "Due Process," and it provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee[']s record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal. A Conference-for-the-Record shall be held when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated investigation to determine if formal disciplinary action should be taken (i.e., letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal). A Conference-for- the-Record in and of itself shall not be considered disciplinary. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. The employee shall have the right to Union representation in Conferences-for-the- Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. A maximum of two Union representatives may be present at a Conference-for-the Record. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notice of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled, "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade," and it provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer or through the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action and to select the method of appeal. If the employee when appealing the Board action, does not select the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract the Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled, "Cause for Suspension," and it provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI describes the "[t]ypes of [s]eparation." It provides in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any of four [sic] distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- . . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling ten or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- . . . . AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non- reappointment. Such employee may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . . Section 6 of Article XI addresses the subject of "[p]ersonnel [f]iles," and it provides as follows: A. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 231.291 Personnel Files - Public school system employee personnel files shall be maintained according to the following provisions: Except for materials pertaining to work performance or such other matters that may be cause for discipline, suspension, or dismissal under laws of this state, no derogatory materials relating to an employee's conduct, service, character, or personality shall be placed in the personnel file of such employee. Materials relating to work performance, discipline, suspension, or dismissal must be reduced to writing and signed by a person competent to know the facts or make the judgment. No such materials may be placed in a personnel file, unless they have been reduced to writing within 45 calendar days, exclusive of the summer vacation period, of the school system's administration becoming aware of the facts reflected in the materials. The employee shall have the right to answer any material filed hereafter in his/her personnel file and the answer, if submitted, shall be attached to the file copy. No anonymous letter or material shall be placed in an employee's personnel file. The validity of items of a derogatory nature placed in an employee's personnel file shall be subject to the grievance procedure. There shall be no statements placed in an employee's personnel file unless the employee has been given a copy. Upon request, the employee, or any person designated in writing by the employee, shall be permitted to examine the personnel file. The employee shall be permitted, conveniently, to reproduce any materials in the file, at a cost no greater tha[n] five cents per page. Such request should be made to the custodian of a personnel file, who shall permit examination of the records at reasonable times, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision of the custodian of the record. The custodian of the record shall maintain a record in the file of those persons reviewing the file each time it is reviewed. "Personnel [i]nvestigations" are the subject of Section 7 of Article XI, which provides as follows: The Board shall take steps to ascertain the identity of the complainant, prior to authorization of an investigation. No investigation of an allegation against an employee shall be made on the basis of an anonymous complaint. In the event of allegations and/or complaints being made against any employee, an investigation which may result in information being placed in the employee's personnel file shall not be concluded by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Police (MDCPSP) or any person prior to the time that the employee receives identification of the complainant and the nature of the complaint. In all Board investigations which may lead to suspension or dismissal of an employee, only the Superintendent or his/her designee may authorize such an investigation. When a formal investigation has been authorized, all personnel involved will be advised by the MDCPSP investigator of their legal rights, and the procedures available to them for representation. Information that is not substantiated will not be used for disciplinary action against the employee. In all Board investigations resulting in discipline, the employee shall be provided with a copy of the report. With the permission of the employee, the Union shall also receive a copy. When investigatory reports are provided, said reports shall be transmitted within a timeframe consistent and harmonious with basic due process. In all cases in which the preliminary investigation is concluded, with the finding that there is no probable cause to proceed further and no disciplinary action taken or charges filed, a statement to that effect signed by the responsible investigation official shall be attached to the complaint and the complaint and all such materials shall be open, thereafter, to inspection. Where allegations have not been proven against an employee, no reprisal or punitive action shall be taken against an employee. Pertinent School Board Rules As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,1 including School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08 is a "[g]eneral [p]ersonnel [p]olicy [s]tatement" regarding "[v]iolence in the [w]orkplace." It provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but it is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public Schools employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. September 1989 Investigation In September of 1989, Respondent was the subject of an investigation conducted by what was then referred to as the School Board's Special Investigative Unit (S.I.U.). The investigation culminated in an investigative report being issued on September 27, 1989 (in S.I.U. Case No. T1684). The report was written by Detective Sergeant Miriam McNeil-Green and read as follows: Allegation: On Wednesday, 09-13-89, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at Northwest 191 Street and 37 Avenue at 11:50 p.m. for driving with a suspended license, citation #55136-IR. The above allegation was reported to central S.I.U. office on September 14, 1989, by Sergeant Rudolf, Metro-Dade Police shift commander. Mr. Henry Hortsmann, Director, Office of Professional Standards, authorized a records check on September 14, 1989. I [Detective Sergeant McNeil-Green] responded to Metro-Dade headquarters building on September 20, 1989, in reference to the above offense. However, the traffic offense was not on file. I went to the Metro-Dade justice building, traffic division and was given a copy of the printout for the arrest of Steven Spencer Newbold. A copy of the printout is attached to this report. The arraignment date will be set. While at Metro-Dade headquarters building it was discovered that Steven Newbold has a felony and misdemeanor past as follows: On 02-24-88, Steven Newbold was arrested at Northwest 22 Avenue and 90 Street, Miami, Fl. 33142, for (1) No valid drivers license; (2) Driving with license suspended; (3) Grand theft auto; (4) Possession of marijuana (11 grams). On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled guilty to possession of marijuana. Adjudication was withheld and Newbold was placed on probation for one year. On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled nolo contendere to one count of grand theft auto and was placed on one year probation. Certified copies are attached. On May 11, 1988, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at 1461 N. W. 60 Street, apt. #5, Miami, Fl. 33141 for trespassing of structure. On July 14, 1988, Newbold pled guilty and was fined $78.75. Certified copies are attached. Vault information: Steven Spencer Newbold was hired on 03-22-89 as a custodian at Sabal Palm Elementary. On his application for employment, Mr. Newbold stated he had never been arrested. Conclusion: The allegation against Steven S. Newbold is substantiated, [in that] he was arrested on September 13, 1989 for a traffic offense. He also falsified his employment application by stating he had not been arrested. On October 1, 1990, Henry Horstmann, the director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards referred to in the investigative report, authored a memorandum concerning the report for placement in Respondent's personnel file. The memorandum read as follows: SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF INVESTIGATIVE
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment with the School Board pursuant Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, 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 13th day of August, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's behavior toward an assistant principal violated the prohibitions against misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), and gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4), so as to constitute just cause for Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a teacher since 2001. He has taught English at North Dade Middle School for the past nine years. For the 2015-16 school year, Respondent was supervised by principal Fabrice Laguerre and assistant principal Kayla Edwards. Following an observation of Respondent, Ms. Edwards submitted to the principal a report citing several teaching deficiencies. The principal, who is now a principal at another school, decided that Respondent was or might be in need of professional assistance in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Placing a teacher on a PIP requires the principal to provide Respondent with notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. The record does not reveal whether the purpose of the Support Dialogue Meeting is to determine whether Respondent shall be placed on a PIP, to prepare the PIP, or to deliver an already- prepared PIP. Earlier, the principal had agreed with Respondent not to conduct any disciplinary meetings with Respondent without Respondent's union representative in attendance. Respondent wanted a witness to what might transpire during such a meeting, and the principal understood that this was the purpose of having a witness at each such meeting. Toward the end of the school day on December 15, 2015, the principal summoned Respondent to his office. Respondent did not know why he was being summoned to the principal's office. Respondent tried unsuccessfully to have the school's union representative in attendance, so Respondent reported to the principal's office without a representative. When Respondent arrived at the principal's office, he asked if he needed a union representative or other witness. The principal replied that Respondent could have a representative, but this meeting was merely to provide Respondent with notification of the "real" meeting, which was to be within 48 hours of delivery of the notice. The meeting to which the principal referred was a Support Dialogue Meeting. Despite the principal's assurance to the contrary, the December 15 contact seems to have involved more than merely delivering a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting in a day or two. As the principal testified, as soon as Respondent entered the office, implicitly assenting to sufficient contact to receive the notice described by the principal, the principal invited Respondent to sit down at a table, at which Ms. Edwards was already seated. The mere delivery of a notice would not have required that Respondent take a seat and probably would not have required the attendance of Ms. Edwards, unless the principal wanted a witness to his delivery of the notice to Respondent. Still standing, Respondent read some papers in front of him on the table and correctly concluded that they reflected unfavorably on his teaching performance and the source of the information was Ms. Edwards. It is impossible to sort out exactly who said what at this juncture. Respondent testified that his first comment was that he could not attend the meeting without a witness, and Ms. Edwards replied, "boy, get in here, stop your drama, and sign these papers." The reference to "boy" is implausible. It seems unlikely that Ms. Edwards would have uttered such an insult and, if she had, it seems as unlikely that Respondent would have remained in the office after hearing this disrespectful appellation. Ms. Edwards may have spoken the remaining words, but they are inconsequential--direct and plainspoken, but not unprofessional or disrespectful. The principal testified more plausibly that Respondent looked up after examining the paperwork and announced that this better not be about his teaching because he had taught a "perfect" lesson to the class that Ms. Edwards had observed. The principal again invited Respondent to take a seat. Instead, Respondent characterized the PIP as part of a "witch hunt" and averred that Ms. Edwards did not know what she was doing when observing Respondent. This testimony of the principal is credited. Past observations of Respondent performed by other administrators were satisfactory. Respondent and Ms. Edwards appear to have had some difficulties in the past. Most importantly, as noted above, Respondent had good cause to doubt that the sole purpose of the December 15 meeting was to deliver a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. Even the Notice of Specific Charges characterizes the December 15 meeting as the Support Dialogue Meeting itself. Respondent thus could reasonably believe that he could still prevail upon the principal not to implement a PIP or to design a less-elaborate PIP. On these facts, in a meeting attended exclusively by himself, the principal, and Ms. Edwards, Respondent's questioning the qualifications of Ms. Edwards did not constitute just cause for any adverse employment action, as long as he did not do so in bad faith, and nothing in the record indicates that he did. The principal testified that Ms. Edwards refrained from insulting Respondent and, more specifically, said nothing about where he went to college. Ms. Edwards' testimony candidly does not bear out the principal's testimony on this point. Ms. Edwards testified that she and Respondent each inquired of the other where he or she went to college, implying an inferiority in the other's school of higher learning. However, the parties' "questions" as to academic pedigrees are found to have been intended as nothing more than mild insults--that is, slights--and, as such, insubstantial. The principal also testified that, during this exchange, Respondent pointed a finger at Ms. Edwards with a "relaxed hand." This testimony is credited, but any implication that such a gesture was intended or perceived as threatening is rejected. Respondent's gesture was for mild emphasis: textually, this emphasis would be expressed by underlining, not boldface. This marks the end of the portion of the December 15 incident alleged as proof of misconduct in office. Interestingly, the testimony of Ms. Edwards and the principal set forth in the preceding two paragraphs does not describe Respondent in terms suggesting any loss of composure, but rather in terms not inconsistent with an employee unapologetically advocating for himself. The principal next asked Ms. Edwards to make a copy of a document, which necessitated her leaving the office for a few moments. But even this seemingly innocuous act proved fraught. Returning, Ms. Edwards did not see Respondent standing behind the door, and, when she opened it, the door struck Respondent harmlessly. Trying to seize a potential advantage, Respondent, implying that the act had been intentional, asked the principal if he had seen what had happened. The principal sensibly replied that Ms. Edwards could not see Respondent through the solid door, and the bump was accidental. The principal then ushered Ms. Edwards and Respondent out of the office. Up to this point, there had been no other witnesses because the office door had been closed--or, as to the last matter, closing. Once the unhappy trio left the office, the principal and Ms. Edwards testified that Respondent "kept going after" Ms. Edwards, now loud enough for others to hear, and caused much embarrassment. Ms. Edwards added that she was crying. Even though not alleged as grounds for adverse employment action, from Petitioner's perspective, this testimony from the principal and Ms. Edwards is important because it could provide a basis for inferring an earlier lack of composure on Respondent's part. However, as assessed by the Administrative Law Judge, this testimony is important because it is untrue and undermines the credibility of the principal and Ms. Edwards as witnesses. Three independent witnesses to the exit of the edgy ternion from the principal's office uniformly portrayed Respondent as not agitated. The first of these witnesses was a secretary, who was in her office two doors down from the principal's office. The secretary heard absolutely nothing, even though she was close enough to hear anything that might have been said, even if not loudly. Her testimony is credited. Ms. Edwards approached Respondent to give him the papers that she had copied. Ms. Edwards testified that she did not want Respondent to see that she was crying, so she extended her arm out in Respondent's direction and released her grip. It is hard to understand how, with her eyes averted from Respondent, Ms. Edwards would have known if Respondent was looking at her to receive the papers. In her version, Ms. Edwards released the papers and, for whatever reason, Respondent did not grasp them before they fell to the floor. Ms. Edwards' testimony is not credited, except for the papers falling to the floor. For his part, Respondent testified that he was the one crying because Ms. Edwards employed a phrase that reminded him of his recently deceased mother. Based on the testimony of the three independent witnesses, which omits any mention of tears and, to varying degrees, is inconsistent with such emotion, the crying testimony of Ms. Edwards and Respondent is rejected as melodramatic embellishment. Respondent testified that Ms. Edwards thrust the papers into his chest, leading with her closed hand. This testimony, which is credited, is corroborated by two custodians who witnessed the attempted exchange. The exchange was attempted because everyone agrees that the papers fell to the ground where the principal gathered them up. One custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, who was visibly agitated, walked quickly up to Respondent and, without much force, pressed the papers into the chest of Respondent, who grinned in response. The other custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, with her hand leading, "very strongly" "snapped" the papers into Respondent's hands "and stomach area," but this custodian thought that the two of them were playing around. Despite minor discrepancies in their testimony, the three independent witnesses clearly establish that Respondent had not lost his composure. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner failed to prove misconduct in office. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to treat Ms. Edwards with dignity or exercised poor judgment by insulting her and objecting to her supervisory qualifications. Each party slighted the other's academic pedigree; this inconsequential lapse, committed in the presence of only the principal, did not render objectionable Respondent's behavior in the incident. His questioning of Ms. Edwards' qualifications to observe his teaching would raise a different factual issue if directed toward his students or even uttered in the presence of his students, but raising this issue with the principal was appropriate and raising it in the presence of Ms. Edwards, whom the principal had included in the meeting, was forthright and timely. Respondent raised this issue at what he might have reasonably assumed was his Support Dialogue Meeting--meaning that this might have been his last chance to avoid a PIP or at least avoid a more elaborate PIP. Petitioner failed to prove any aggression by Respondent--unwarranted or warranted--or that Respondent was intimidating, abusive, harassing, and offensive toward Ms. Edwards. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent made malicious and untrue statements in defending this case. His testimony that Ms. Edwards referred to him as "boy" has been discredited, but the record fails to establish that this testimony was a knowing falsehood. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's effectiveness has been impaired by anything that he said or did in connection with the December 15 meeting. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed gross insubordination. As alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, this count fails even to state a claim of gross insubordination under the rule for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Specific Charges and reinstating Respondent with "back salary," as provided in section 1012.33(4)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Jose R. Bustos (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Revised Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on March 6, 2015, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a school security monitor.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Braddock High is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The School Board hired Respondent on September 19, 2001, as a school security monitor assigned to Braddock High, the position Respondent continuously held until the date of the disciplinary action at issue. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. Braddock High is a large school in terms of student population and campus size. Braddock High employs 12 full-time security monitors. While it is common practice to hire a substitute for an absent teacher, Braddock High does not employ a substitute security monitor to replace an absent security monitor. If a security monitor is absent on any given day, the schedules of the other security monitors must be adjusted to avoid a breech in security. Respondent has been documented for poor attendance since April 2006. DECEMBER 4, 2009, MEMORANDUM Manuel S. Garcia has been the principal of Braddock High for the last 13 years. On December 4, 2009, Mr. Garcia issued to Respondent a memorandum on the subject “Absence from Worksite Directive.” From October 2009 to December 2009, Respondent accumulated 13.5 absences1/ of which 7.5 were unauthorized. The 7.5 unauthorized absences were categorized as “Leave Without Pay Unauthorized (LWOP-U)”. The memorandum issued by Mr. Garcia as Respondent’s supervisor, provided, in part, as follows: Because your absence from duties adversely impacts the work environment, particularly in the effective operation of this worksite, you are apprised of the following procedures concerning your future absences: Be in regular attendance and on time. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to a designated site supervisor, Mr. Manuel S. Garcia, principal or Dr. Edward G. Robinson, assistant principal. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written note presented to the designated site supervisor upon your return to the site. Your future absences will be reported as LWOU [sic] (unauthorized) until you provide the required documentation to show that you qualify for Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave of absence. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave just [sic] be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented, and the FMLA or ADA requirements, if applicable, must be complied with. These directives are in effect upon receipt of this notice and are necessary to prevent adverse impact to students and their academic progress and to ensure continuity of the educational program and to maintain effective worksite operations. Please be assured that assistance will continue to be provided to facilitate your regular attendance. Non-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities. APRIL 23, 2010, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD On April 23, 2010, Respondent was required by Mr. Garcia to attend a Conference for the Record. The purposes of the conference were to address Respondent’s non-compliance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties) and his insubordination to attendance directives. Between January 19, 2010, and April 6, 2010, Respondent was absent 14.5 days without communicating his intent to be absent to the principal or the assistant principal. As part of the conference, Mr. Garcia reiterated in writing to Respondent the directives pertaining to attendance set forth in the December 4, 2009, memorandum. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent that “[a]ny non-compliance with these directives will compel [sic] gross insubordination and will compel further disciplinary measures.” Mr. Garcia provided Respondent with a copy of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A.1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties) and 6Gx13-4E-1.01 (Absences and Leave). Mr. Garcia issued Respondent a referral to the School Board’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). There was no evidence that Respondent used that referral. For the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was absent a total of 28.5 days of which 17.5 days were unauthorized. DECEMBER 8, 2011, MEMORANDUM OF CONCERN On December 8, 2011, Mr. Garcia issued to Respondent a Memorandum of Concern addressing his excessive absences. Within less than five months into the 2010-11 school year, Respondent had accumulated 15 absences of which 8 were unauthorized. Respondent was informed that he was in violation of School Board Policy 4430 - Leaves of Absence.2/ Additionally, he was directed to report any future absence to Mr. Medina, the assistant principal. DECEMBER 5, 2012, MEMORANDUM On December 5, 2012, Mr. Garcia issued Respondent another memorandum addressing his absences. Mr. Garcia noted that Respondent had been absent a total of 11 days during the 2012-2013 school year. Respondent’s absence on November 21, 2012, was unauthorized. Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives as to absenteeism he had given to Respondent on December 4, 2009, and April 23, 2010. SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, MEMORANDUM On September 10, 2013, Mr. Garcia issued Respondent another memorandum addressing his absences. Between September 27, 2012, and August 29, 2013, Respondent had 36.5 absences, 19.5 of which were unauthorized leave. Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives as to absenteeism he had given to Respondent on December 4, 2009; April 23, 2010; and December 12, 2012. Mr. Garcia stated to Respondent that he considered Respondent’s actions of failing to abide by the attendance directives to be insubordination. OCTOBER 16, 2013, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD On October 16, 2013, Mr. Garcia conducted a Conference for the Record with Respondent to address Respondent’s attendance, his failure to abide by the previously issued directives, and his future employment with the School Board. Between September 30 and October 4, 2013, Respondent was absent without authorization. For three of those four days, Respondent did not notify anyone at Braddock High that he would be absent. Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives he had given to Respondent on December 4, 2009; April 23, 2010; December 12, 2012; and September 10, 2013. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent again that failure to comply with directives would be deemed gross insubordination. Mr. Garcia again provided Respondent with a copy of School Board Policy 4430 - Leaves of Absence. Mr. Garcia provided to Respondent a second referral to the EAP. In addition, Mr. Garcia gave Respondent contact information for four School Board Departments (including the name and telephone number of each department’s director). Those departments were Civil Rights Compliance; Leave, Retirement, and Unemployment; Human Resources – Americans with Disabilities Act; and EAP.3/ On October 18, 2013, Mr. Garcia issued a written reprimand to Respondent based on his absenteeism and his repeated failure to notify administrators in advance of absences. JANUARY 16, 2014, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD On January 10, 2014, Mr. Garcia issued to Respondent a Notice of Abandonment based on Respondent’s absence from work for the workweek beginning January 6, 2014, and his failure to communicate in advance with any school administrator about the absences. On January 16, 2014, Mr. Garcia conducted a Conference for the Record to address Respondent’s attendance. Respondent’s unauthorized absence for an entire week and his failure to abide by the previously issued directives prompted the Conference for the Record. Mr. Garcia also discussed Respondent’s future employment with the School Board. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent that the directives that had been repeatedly reiterated to Respondent were still in full force and effect. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent that failure to adhere to those directives would be considered gross insubordination. Mr. Garcia gave Respondent copies of the applicable School Board policies, including a copy of School Board Policy 4430–Leaves of Absence, and 4210-Standards of Ethical Conduct. Mr. Garcia issued Respondent a letter of reprimand. MARCH 12, 2014, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD Following the written reprimand in January 2014, Respondent was absent without authorization on six consecutive school days in February 2014. On March 12, 2014, Carmen Gutierrez, the district director of the Office of Professional Standards, conducted a Conference for the Record with Respondent because of Respondent’s history of absenteeism and his unauthorized absences in 2014. Ms. Gutierrez issued to Respondent the same directives Mr. Garcia had repeatedly issued to Respondent. Ms. Gutierrez informed Respondent that his failure to follow directives constituted gross insubordination. The Summary of the Conference for the Record contains the following: You were given the opportunity to respond to your excessive absenteeism. You stated that you had a family problem, a family member that was sick and you were helping them [sic] out. Ms. Hiralda Cruz-Ricot spoke on your behalf stating that you had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and it impedes your ability to do things. She added that you were recently diagnosed and are not undergoing treatment. Ms. Cruz-Ricot said that you would be producing doctor’s notes since Mr. Garcia remarked that he had only received one doctor’s note dated October 18, 2013 from Broward Psychological Services. MAY 7, 2014, SUSPENSION At the School Board meeting on May 7, 2014, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent without pay for fifteen workdays for just cause, including, but not limited to: gross insubordination, excessive absenteeism, non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities, and violation of School Board Policies 4210-Standards of Ethical Conduct, 4210.01-Code of Ethics, 4230–Leaves of Absence. Respondent was notified of the Board’s action via a letter dated September 4, 2014. JUNE 3, 2014, NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT Respondent was due back from his suspension on May 29, 2014. Respondent failed to show up for work on May 29th, May 30th, June 2nd, and June 3rd. Respondent was mailed another Notice of Abandonment. Respondent provided no explanation for his leave. At the beginning of the following school year on August 19, 2014, Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives as to absenteeism that had been repeatedly given to Respondent by Ms. Gutierrez and by Mr. Garcia. OCTOBER 28, 2014, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD Respondent failed to report to work for four consecutive school days beginning September 29, 2014. As a result, on October 28, 2014, Ms. Gutierrez conducted a Conference for the Record with Respondent to address Respondent’s absenteeism, gross insubordination, non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities and violation of School Board Policies 4210-Standards of Ethical Conduct, 4210.01-Code of Ethics, 4230–Leaves of Absence. On December 9, 2014, Respondent received a letter informing him that the Superintendent of Schools would be recommending that the School Board suspend Respondent’s employment without pay and initiate proceedings to terminate that employment. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate his employment. FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE In addition to the excessive absenteeism set forth above, between October 2009 and December 2014, Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate in advance with any administrator that he would be absent on days he failed to appear for work. DEPRESSION Respondent’s only exhibit was a letter from Dr. Maribel Agullera, a psychiatrist. This letter confirms that Respondent has been diagnosed with “Mayor Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate” and “Alcohol Dependence.” The exhibit also confirms that Respondent is on medication. Respondent testified, credibly, that he was diagnosed with depression before 2001, the year he first started working at Braddock High. Respondent testified he has suffered from depression for most of his adult life and that all of his absences were related to depression. There was no other evidence to support the contention that Respondent’s repeated absences should be attributed to depression. In the absence of competent medical evidence to support Respondent’s contention, the undersigned declines to find that Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and his failure to appropriately communicate with school administrators over a five-year period was attributable to depression.4/
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Jose R. Bustos. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 May, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Peters has been employed by Petitioner as a Special Education Teacher for eight years. Her first two years of employment as a full-time teacher were at Edison Park Elementary School. Peters has been assigned to Morningside Elementary School ("Morningside") as a full-time Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher for approximately six years. She remains employed at Morningside presently. During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent worked as an ESE teacher dealing with kindergarten and first grades. Even though Peters had a room, she went to the classrooms of the students assigned to her to perform her duties. Peters' job duties and responsibilities included but were not limited to developing IEPs, maintaining attendance and grade records, keeping students records, participating in various meetings and in-services, and performing work as required or assigned by the supervising administrator or his/her designee. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was provided with an assigned class schedule. During Peters' employment at Morningside from August of 2005 through March of 2009, Respondent was disciplined numerous times for not complying with her job duties. Peters repetitively failed to adhere to her class schedule; failed to request administrative permission to leave the worksite; failed to follow faculty sign in/out procedures; left the school site during scheduled classroom work time; failed to complete student IEPs; failed to keep student grading, attendance, and other student records; and continually refused to obey the direct and reasonable orders given by her supervisors, Morningside Principal Ms. Kathleen John-Lousissaint ("Principal" or "John- Lousissaint"), and Morningside Assistant Principal Ms. Sandra Cue ("Assistant Principal" or "Cue").2 The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Peters' personnel file and went through all the required procedures for disciplining Peters, including repetitive verbal directives, approximately 47 written directives by memorandums, numerous Conferences-for-the-Record ("CFR"), and ultimately written reprimands after Respondent continuously refused to comply with previously given directives. From October 4, 2006, to March 16, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written and was issued 16 written directives, including two written reprimands, to adhere to her class schedule and not to make any changes to the class schedule unless approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal.3 On September 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2008, Peters did not adhere to her daily schedule as written when she didn't report to her assignment. Peters received her first written reprimand for failing to adhere to her schedule on September 21, 2008.4 The Principal went out of her way to work with Peters constantly and met with her numerous times providing verbal directives to follow the school policies including adhering to the class schedule. After the first reprimand, Peters continued to fail to adhere to her class schedule numerous times in November and December 2008 and January 2009. Peters received a second written reprimand for failing to adhere to her class schedule on March 16, 2008. Peters signed both of the written reprimands dated September 21, 2008, and March 16, 2008. Each informed Peters that "Any recurrence of the above infraction [would] result in further disciplinary action." By failing to adhere to her schedule, Peters burdened the Morningside administrators and other teachers who had to cover for Respondent or do her work. Peters also impaired the learning environment for the ESE students when she didn't show up, since she was responsible for educating the students assigned to her. Further, when Peters did not report to her assigned classes, she jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care. From November 8, 2006, to February 16, 2009, Peters was issued several written directives including one written reprimand for failing to request authorization from the administration before leaving the school site, and three written directives for failing to sign in and out when leaving and returning to the school site, as per school site policy.5 Peters received two written reprimands on March 27, 2007, and on March 16, 2008, for failing to comply with the established timelines in the execution of a variety of her duties including, but not limited to, recording student grades, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, and failing to utilize the WISE system to complete IEPs. When Peters failed to complete her IEPs, the Morningside administrators had to get other teachers to complete Peters' job in addition to their own assignments. On February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written. Peters was reprimanded on February 20, 2009, for numerous violations of school policy. The reprimand was entitled RESPRIMAND-INSUBORDINATION and stated: On the following dates, November 3, 6, 18, 20, and 25, 2008, December 1, 5, 8, and 9, 2008, January 12, 13, 15 and 21, 2009 and February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, you did not adhere to your schedule as written. On December 10 and 11, 2008, you attended a two day WISE training without prior approval from this administrator. On January 13, 2009, you refused to meet with this administrator. On January 14, 2009, you did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting. Since your Conference-For-[the-]Record meeting in September, you have failed to follow your schedule on 16 occasions, did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting, and have refused to meet with this administrator on five different occasions and refused to meet with the Assistant Principal on one occasion. Your continuous defiance and compliance with the site directives issued on September 25, 2008 and reissued on October 20, 2008, is considered insubordination. It is your professional responsibility as a Miami-Dade County Public School employee to comply with directives issued by the site supervisor. You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contractual responsibilities: Non-compliance with Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.[6] Refusal to meet with this administrator. Failure to adhere to school site procedures. Failure to adhere to assigned schedule as written. At hearing, Respondent answered in the affirmative that she believed that the directives relating to adhering to a work schedule, seeking administrative approval before leaving a school site, and signing in and out when leaving campus were reasonable. Peters' journal, submitted to the School Board detailing her responses to the disciplinary action of February 20, 2009, stated “I’m not following the schedule because it doesn’t make sense.”7 After receiving the reprimand of February 20, 2009, Peters failed to secure approval from an administrator on either February 26, 2009, or March 3, 2009, when she signed out on the staff sign out log and left the building at a time when she was scheduled to work with students. On March 5, 2009, Peters refused to sign the memorandum dated March 4, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that the Assistant Principal provided Peters. The memorandum advised Peters that she had been told on February 20, 2009, to "adhere to [her] schedule and secure administrative approval prior to leaving the building at a time other than the scheduled lunch time.” It also stated: This memorandum serves as a final reminder that you are to adhere to your schedule and you are to request prior approval from this administrator to leave the building at anytime other than your scheduled duty free half hour lunch block. On March 16, 2009, John-Lousissaint observed Peters in the hallway at approximately 8:30 a.m. and instructed her to report to her scheduled assignment. At approximately 8:40 a.m., the Assistant principal saw Peters and told her several more times to report to her scheduled assignment. At 9:00 a.m. Peters was not in her scheduled classroom assignment. On March 16, 2009, the Assistant Principal gave Peters a memorandum dated March 16, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that stated, "You are reminded that you are to adhere to school site procedures and your schedule as outlined unless notified by an administrator." As a result of Peters actions described in paragraphs 21 and 22 above, on or about April 16, 2009, a CFR was held with Peters. Administrators addressed Peters' gross insubordination and misconduct at the CFR. Peters was instructed yet again to adhere to the directives previously issued by the Principal on numerous occasions, and to comply with the reasonable requests of the Principal. Peters testified at hearing that her personal relationship with the school administrators has become strained and she felt she was being singled out. Peters felt as though she were not being treated like a teacher. Peters asserted that she should work with higher level students and didn't feel like she was part of the Morningside team since she didn't have a homeroom.8 On or about May 18, 2009, Morningside's Principal observed Peters in the school's resource room, sitting in front of a laptop, during a time when Respondent was scheduled to be instructing students. John-Louissaint instructed Respondent to follow her schedule and report to room 103. Peters refused and replied, "No, I don't think I will be going." The Principal left and went and brought a union steward back to the resource room, and repeated to Peters, "Ms. Peters as your supervisor and in front of your union steward, you are directed to report to your scheduled assignment." Peters was insubordinate and refused to go stating again, "No, I am not going." The students in room 103 were unattended. On May 20, 2009, the Principal issued a memorandum to Peters regarding the May 19, 2009, incident stating that Respondent's "continuous defiance and non-compliance with previously issued directives is considered blatant and gross insubordination." On or about August 26, 2009, Peters was notified by letter that the Superintendent of Schools was recommending to the School Board to suspend her without pay for 30 workdays. The letter further notified Respondent the reasons for the recommendation included, but were not limited to: gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics. At a regularly scheduled meeting on September 9, 2009, the School Board of Miami-Dade County took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay for just cause including, but not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of those School Board Rules as set forth above in paragraph 28. Respondent was notified of the School Board's action by letter dated September 10, 2009. On March 15, 2010, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board rules regarding responsibilities and duties, and ethics.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Peters without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2010, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Angel Guzman, committed the violations alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 14, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Miami-Dade County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Angel Guzman was employed as a teacher by the School Board and assigned to Miami Edison Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Edison"). Mr. Guzman is and has been employed by the School Board pursuant to an annual service contract. Prior to his employment by the School Board, Mr. Guzman was employed by New York City as a teacher assistant for three years and as a teacher for four years. He has been employed as a graphic communications teacher by the School Board since 1998, approximately two and a half years. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. Guzman had never been the subject of a School Board personnel investigation. The February 16, 2001, Incident On February 16, 2001, Mr. Guzman was handing out reading logs in a FCAT preparation class at Edison. The students in the class were seventh graders. Sherwin JeanPierre, a student in the class, and another student asked their fellow student, Maurice Barnhill to get their reading logs from Mr. Guzman. Maurice picked up the logs, but was confronted by Mr. Guzman who, when he learned that Maurice was picking up logs for others, snatched the logs out of his hands and told him to return to his seat. An argument between Mr. Guzman and Maurice ensued. The teacher and student yelled at each other, Mr. Guzman forcefully pushed Maurice on the shoulder, and Mr. Guzman said "coño" to Maurice, which means "damn" in Spanish. Mr. Guzman eventually became so angry that he grabbed a wooden stool located between him and Maurice, swung it toward Maurice, and hit Maurice on the leg with the stool. While the stool hurt Maurice, he suffered no significant injury. The Second February 2001 Incident Following the February 16, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman and another student were involved in a verbal confrontation. The situation was defused by Theron Clark, an Assistant Principal at Edison, and a security monitor. Following the confrontation, Mr. Clark and Dr. Peggy Henderson Jones, another Assistant Principal, met with Mr. Guzman. At this meeting, Mr. Guzman indicated that he was very stressed and did not want to return to his class. Mr. Guzman was allowed to go home the day of the incident and was subsequently referred to the Employee Assistance Program. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the February 16, 2001, Incident A conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "conference") was held with Mr. Guzman on March 6, 2001, by Ronald D. Major, the Principal at Edison. The conference was attended by Mr. Major, Mr. Theron, Eduardo Sacarello, a United Teachers of Dade representative, and Mr. Guzman. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Mr. Guzman's non-compliance, during the February 16, 2001, incident with Maurice Barnhill, with school rules, School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07, dealing with corporal punishment, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, dealing with employee conduct, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. During the conference, Mr. Guzman was advised that a letter of reprimand would be issued, and he was directed to immediately implement procedures for the removal of disruptive students consistent with the faculty handbook. Mr. Guzman was also warned that any recurrence of the type of violation committed by him during the February 16, 2001, incident would result in further disciplinary action. A written reprimand to Mr. Guzman was issued on March 7, 2001, by Mr. Major. In the reprimand, Mr. Major again warned Mr. Guzman that any recurrence of the infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. The April 25, 2001, Incident On April 25, 2001, during a class under Mr. Guzman's supervision, Mr. Guzman caused a document to be printed from a class computer. A student took the paper and gave it to another student in the class, Ian Lightbourne, who asked for the paper. Ian placed the paper, even though it did not belong to him, in his book bag. When Mr. Guzman came to retrieve the paper he had printed, found it was gone, and asked if anyone knew what had happened to it. Although no one answered, Mr. Guzman suspected Ian and asked him to open his book bag. Ian complied and Mr. Guzman found the paper. Mr. Guzman became irate and began yelling at Ian to "not touch my things." Mr. Guzman then grabbed Ian by the arm and started to pull him toward the front of the classroom. Ian, who was sitting on a stool, lost his balance and fell to his knees. Mr. Guzman continued to pull Ian, who began to cry and yell, "Let me go," the length of the classroom on his knees. Mr. Guzman pulled Ian to a corner of the classroom where he banged Ian's arm against a metal darkroom door. Ian had previously broken the arm that Mr. Guzman grabbed and had only recently had the cast removed. Although the incident did not result in any serious injury to Ian, it was painful and caused his mother to seek medical attention for her son. On April 27, 2001, as a result of the April 25, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman was assigned to alternative work at his residence, with pay. Mr. Guzman was not allowed to have any contact in his assignment with students. On August 14, 2001, the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, entered a "Stay Away Order" in Case No. M0130143 requiring that Mr. Guzman stay away from, and have no contact with, Ian. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the April 25, 2001, Incident On August 29, 2001, another conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "second conference") was held. The second conference was attended by Julia F. Menendez, Regional Director, Region IV Operations of the School Board; Sharon D. Jackson, District Director; and Mr. Guzman. The second conference was held at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. The second conference was conducted to discuss Mr. Guzman's performance assessments, non-compliance with School Board policies and rules regarding violence in the workplace and corporal punishment, insubordination, noncompliance with site directives regarding appropriate use of discipline techniques, violation of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities, and Mr. Guzman's future employment with the School Board. At the conclusion of the second conference, Mr. Guzman was informed that his alternative work assignment would be continued, that his actions would be reviewed with the Superintendent of Region IV Operations, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, and Edison's principal, and he was directed to refrain from touching, grabbing, hitting, or dragging any student for any reason. Subsequent to the second conference, the School Board's Office of Professional Standards concluded that Mr. Guzman had violated School Board and state rules. Therefore, an agenda item recommending dismissal of Mr. Guzman was prepared for the School Board to consider. That agenda item was discussed with Mr. Guzman on October 16, 2001, and was considered at the School Board's meeting of October 24, 2001. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board suspended Mr. Guzman without pay and approved the initiation of dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, suspending Angel Guzman without pay be sustained and that his employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank E. Freeman, Esquire 666 Northeast 125th Street Suite 238 Miami, Florida 33161 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and return her to an annual contract.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Gabriele has been employed by the School Board since October 13, 1997. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Ms. Gabriele's employment was subject to section 1012.33, which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for just cause. During the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Gabriele was a teacher at Bashaw Elementary School (Bashaw). As a teacher, Ms. Gabriele was required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board. On February 17, 2011, an Office of Professional Standards (OPS) file was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele based upon allegations that, on February 9, 2011, Ms. Gabriele asked a teacher's aide, Brenda Twinem (Ms. Twinem), in the presence of students, "Can I kill a kid today?", and, on February 16, 2011, Ms. Gabriele called a female student to the front of the classroom and yelled at her in the presence of other students and a parent. On April 18, 2011, another OPS file was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele based upon an allegation that she made intentional contact with a witness (Ms. Twinem) who was involved in a recent OPS investigation into the alleged misconduct of Ms. Gabriele. On April 19, 2011, the School Board notified Ms. Gabriele of its intent to place her on paid administrative leave pending the OPS investigation. On June 3, 2011, the superintendent notified Ms. Gabriele of his intent to recommend the suspension of her employment for 15 days without pay, the dates of which to be determined by her principal, and a return to annual contract status. The June 2011 AC notified Ms. Gabriele of the School Board's intent to suspend her employment and set forth the basis of the superintendent's recommendation for suspension. In the AC, the School Board charged that Ms. Gabriele had engaged in actions which constituted just cause under Section 6.11 of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board. These actions included: immorality, misconduct in office, corporal punishment, excessive force, and violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e). Joshua Bennett (Principal Bennett) became the principal of Bashaw in September 2010. Among his many other duties during the 2010-2011 school year, Principal Bennett was responsible for the supervision of the Bashaw teachers, including Ms. Gabriele, who was a fifth-grade teacher. Ms. Gabriele's class size fluctuated from 18 to 22 students during the 2010-2011 school year. It was noted that, during the math instruction period, there were changes in the number of students in her classroom, and it changed when Principal Bennett moved a student out of her class. Principal Bennett received some parent complaints and concerns regarding Ms. Gabriele shortly after he became Bashaw's principal. Based on these complaints, Principal Bennett collected information from the parents and decided to have an informal conversation with Ms. Gabriele. He also determined to walk through her classroom more frequently during the school year. Further, Principal Bennett recommended to Ms. Gabriele that she take some behavior management classes. Ms. Gabriele had the services of a paraprofessional (a/k/a a teacher's aide), Ms. Twinem, for a specific amount of time (40 to 50 minutes) during a particular day each week. While working for Ms. Gabriele as a paraprofessional, Ms. Twinem would check off homework, sort papers, grade papers, or work with groups of students as she was directed. In February 2011, Ms. Twinem approached Ms. Gabriele to provide her information. There were several students engaged in conversations in close proximity to Ms. Gabriele as she sat at her desk. According to Ms. Twinem, Ms. Twinem was standing beside Ms. Gabriele's desk when Ms. Gabriele looked at her and, in a frustrated tone, stated, "Can I kill a kid?" (Gabriele's Statement). Ms. Twinem was speechless because she thought it was inappropriate for Ms. Gabriele to make that statement in front of students. Ms. Twinem told Principal Bennett of Gabriele's Statement shortly thereafter. Ms. Twinem wrote her own account of Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Twinem's account contained her thought that Ms. Gabriele was joking, but she (Ms. Twinem) did not "know how it [Gabriele's Statement] was interpreted by the students." Clearly, at that time, Ms. Twinem had concerns about what the students thought of Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele admitted to making Gabriele's Statement. At hearing, she testified that, at the time she made the statement, the students were working with their partners, and it was loud in the classroom. After a student had asked her the same question several times, Ms. Gabriele made Gabriele's Statement. Although Ms. Gabriele testified that she was not frustrated, mad or upset when she made the statement, that she just made the statement "off-the-cuff kind of thing," this is not credible. According to Ms. Gabriele, the student's question involved a long-standing classroom practice of the students placing their completed assignments in a pink bin. If the student was indeed asking or questioning this long-standing practice, it would be natural for some type of frustration or exasperation to be expected. Ms. Gabriele conceded that, even if Gabriele's Statement had been made in jest or in a joking manner, it was inappropriate. Also in February 2011, Principal Bennett had a specific complaint involving a parent's (E.B.) observation during a visit to Ms. Gabriele's classroom. With Ms. Gabriele's knowledge that she was in the classroom, E.B. had come to pick up her student and to search for some misplaced homework in the classroom. E.B. observed a female student (later identified by the initials N.A.) go to the front of the classroom where Ms. Gabriele was yelling at her. E.B. described Ms. Gabriele's actions as ". . . really reaming the kid, . . . And she just didn't seem like she was letting up, and the child was just very distraught." E.B. observed N.A. to be "really teary eyed . . . Not in a full cry, but looked like she would break down." E.B. thought Ms. Gabriele's behavior was "pretty harsh," loud in a real demanding way, and fierce. E.B testified that, had Ms. Gabriele been yelling at E.B.'s student, she "probably would have yanked her in the hall and had a few words." E.B. was appalled at Ms. Gabriele's behavior and reported her observation to Principal Bennett. As a result of her conversation with Principal Bennett, E.B. followed up with a letter to the principal detailing what she had witnessed in Ms. Gabriele's classroom, as well as other observations she had while chaperoning a school field trip with Ms. Gabriele's class. E.B. requested to be kept informed of what action was being taken and volunteered to be in the classroom when her scheduled permitted. Shortly thereafter, an OPS investigation was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele. Debra Horne (Ms. Horne) is a specialist in the OPS. Ms. Horne conducted an investigation of E.B.'s classroom observation and Gabriele's Statement by interviewing Ms. Twinem; 11 students from Ms. Gabriele's class, including N.A.; and Ms. Gabriele. Ms. Twinem and the students' statements were taken on February 18, 2011, making them almost contemporaneous with the events. During the OPS interviews with the 11 students, all 11 stated that Ms. Gabriele yells at the students, and one student said her yelling was "extreme." Five of the students stated Ms. Gabriele embarrassed them or other students by her actions; four stated Ms. Gabriele called students different names, such as "toads," "toadettes," "hillbilly," or "baby"; and three said she made them cry or other students cry. During her OPS interview, N.A. stated that Ms. Gabriele had made her cry and that it embarrassed her a lot. N.A. further stated that Ms. Gabriele yelled at her and other students a lot.2/ During Ms. Twinem's OPS interview regarding Gabriele's Statement, she described Ms. Gabriele as being frustrated and using a frustrated tone when it was spoken. At the hearing Ms. Twinem also testified that she thought Gabriele's Statement was made "out of frustration," but that it was "inappropriate" nonetheless. Ms. Gabriele's OPS interview occurred on March 17, 2011. Ms. Horne conducted the OPS interview and followed her standard procedures in telling Ms. Gabriele the substance of the investigation. Aside from being told what her rights and duties were regarding the investigation, Ms. Gabriele was also reminded of the School Board policy regarding her cooperation with the investigation and her responsibility to not interfere with it or communicate with any witnesses to the investigation. Ms. Gabriele's interview included questions about E.B.'s letter, including E.B.'s classroom observations, and Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele confirmed she was aware that E.B.'s letter was sent "downtown." Ms. Gabriele maintained that she thought the only issue in the initial investigation was E.B.'s letter. This position is thwarted when one reviews her OPS interview wherein Ms. Gabriele was questioned about both E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement. Although during the OPS interview Ms. Gabriele stated she did not remember the incident with N.A. crying, she did admit that if E.B.'s recollection of the incident with N.A. was correct that she, Ms. Gabriele, could "have handled it differently" by calling the student off to the side to discuss the issue. Also, during the OPS interview, Ms. Gabriele admitted that Gabriele's Statement was inappropriate when made to a coworker in the presence of students. Ms. Gabriele received a copy of the School Board's initial OPS investigative report in April 2011. Within that report, and through Ms. Gabriele's testimony, she acknowledged receipt of that investigative file,3/ which included all the information obtained during the initial OPS investigation, including her own interview regarding E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement. In Section III of the initial OPS investigative report (for E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement) and through her hearing testimony, Ms. Horne detailed her standard routine with respect to the description given to each witness at the start of his/her interview. Further, Ms. Horne advised School Board employees of their obligation to cooperate with the investigation as well as the School Board's Policy 6.13.4/ Ms. Gabriele testified that she was aware of the policies. On Monday morning, April 18, 2011, when Ms. Twinem reported to Ms. Gabriele's classroom to sort papers and check homework, she was subjected to questions by Ms. Gabriele regarding whether or not Ms. Twinem had, in fact, reported Gabriele's Statement to Principal Bennett. Ms. Gabriele testified she found out that Ms. Twinem was upset or bothered by Gabriele's Statement during one of her meetings with Principal Bennett. However, neither her testimony nor Principal Bennett's testimony reflected upon any meeting between those two on that Monday morning or the week prior for Ms. Gabriele to make that connection. Further, as Ms. Gabriele testified, she "obviously" knew that Ms. Twinem was the person who reported Gabriele's Statement, as she was the only other adult in the classroom at the time it was uttered. Ms. Twinem testified that she felt like "a deer in the headlights" when Ms. Gabriele asked her about reporting Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Twinem admitted to Ms. Gabriele that she had reported Gabriele's Statement to the principal "a long time ago." Ms. Twinem testified she was "anxious and nervous and like just didn't feel good" when Ms. Gabriele confronted her. Ms. Twinem reported this first encounter to Principal Bennett because she thought it should not have occurred. Later that same morning, Ms. Gabriele came into Ms. Twinem's office and told Ms. Twinem that she shouldn't tell anyone about their prior conversation because Ms. Gabriele could get in trouble. Ms. Twinem reported this second encounter to Principal Bennett. Still, later that same day when Ms. Twinem was in her office, Ms. Gabriele stood at the door and said that Ms. Twinem had gotten her (Ms. Gabriele) in trouble, because she had reported the second contact to the principal. Ms. Twinem reported this third contact to Principal Bennett. Principal Bennett testified that, after Ms. Twinem reported the first contact by Ms. Gabriele, he conferred with the OPS personnel as to what he should do. Based on direction from OPS, Principal Bennett hastily attempted to arrange a meeting with Ms. Gabriele to give her a verbal directive about contacting any witnesses involved with the investigation. Before the meeting could occur, Ms. Twinem reported that Ms. Gabriele had contacted her again. Prior to the third encounter, Principal Bennett issued a verbal directive to Ms. Gabriele about contacting any witnesses involved in the investigation. His directive included an admonishment "to cease and desist talking to the other employees about the OPS matter." Principal Bennett recounted that he told Ms. Gabriele that she was "not to talk to any other employees about the open investigation." Ms. Gabriele admitted she spoke with Ms. Twinem three times on April 18, 2011. Ms. Gabriele claimed that she did not understand who she could or could not talk to with respect to the investigation and that she only wanted to apologize for making Ms. Twinem upset about Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele admitted she knew it was Ms. Twinem who reported Gabriele's Statement to the principal. In the event Ms. Gabriele had questions about who she could or could not talk to, she had the opportunity to ask either Principal Bennett or Ms. Horne. Such dialogue apparently did not occur.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Manatee County School Board enter a final order suspending Ms. Gabriele for 15 days without pay and returning her to an annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 8th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Kenneth Mills (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed January 9, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff at Miami Lakes. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Kenneth Mills, was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner and was assigned to teach mathematics at Miami Lakes. All acts complained of occurred during Respondent's tenure at Miami Lakes. During the 2007-2008 school year, Bridget McKinney was assigned to duties as an assistant principal at Miami Lakes. Among her responsibilities was the task of assuring that classrooms were ready for an open house at the school. The school had been chosen to be the site of a "town hall meeting." Respondent's classroom was among those rooms to be used for the session, and he was notified to have the room straightened and ready to receive the public. During an inspection of Respondent's classroom in final preparation for the meeting, Ms. McKinney discovered numerous photographs of Respondent hugging students, a large poster of a female student, and locks of hair taped to a cabinet with notes attached. Ms. McKinney removed the items described above and went to place them in Respondent's desk. When she opened the desk drawer, Ms. McKinney discovered more pictures of female students. One of the photographs showed a female student wearing a t-shirt that depicted the words, "I HAVE THE PUSSY, SO I MAKE THE RULES." Additional photos of female students showed one standing on Respondent's desk. Respondent took a picture of a female student standing on his desk. The picture was taken after hours. The student was not enrolled in Respondent's class at the time the photo was taken. Respondent claimed the student made the unsolicited visit to his classroom because "he looked lonely." One picture stored on Respondent's district-owned computer showed a female student with an added "I Love You" border around the photo. Respondent admitted that he possessed a school identification badge of a female student who was also shown in the poster-size photo Ms. McKinney removed from Respondent's wall. After Ms. McKinney reported her discoveries to the principal, James Parker, Respondent's computer was confiscated and turned over to the school investigators to conduct an analysis of the hard drive content. After retrieving the data, images were stored on a DVD, and the matter was turned over to the Civil Investigation Unit for further review. Respondent was notified of the on-going investigation in writing and was placed on alternate assignment at Region Center I. The investigation of the matter was assigned to Terri Chester. Ms. Chester reviewed the images from the DVD. The DVD stored photos and videos that were taken by Respondent. The images depicted: several provocative pictures with nudity or partial nudity; the picture of the female student with the t- shirt proclaiming "I HAVE THE PUSSY, SO I MAKE THE RULES;" audio of Respondent calling a student "nerd;" students who do not want to be video taped by Respondent who he challenges; Respondent proclaiming that video will be posted to You Tube by the next day; and other classroom activities that are inappropriate such as students running around the room, climbing on chairs, and attempts made by one student trying to staple other students in the back. Throughout the depicted images, Respondent does not redirect students to appropriate activities and does not assist them in any mathematics-related endeavor. Based upon the foregoing, Ms. Chester concluded that Respondent's conduct violated School Board rules. When presented with the findings of Ms. Chester's investigation, Respondent sought additional inquiry into the allegations against him. Ms. Chester then reviewed all information Respondent presented. Afterward, Ms. Chester referred the matter to the OPS. Dr. Hernandez, District Director at OPS, conducted a conference for the record (CFR) with Respondent. The purpose of the CFR was to discuss the investigative findings and Respondent's future employment with Petitioner. Throughout the investigation and review process, Respondent has not denied taking the pictures and videos. Moreover, when confronted with the images from his district-owned computer he provided no plausible explanation for the materials. Subsequent to the CFR, Mr. Parker as well as other staff from the region office recommended termination of Respondent's employment with the school district. Among the reasons Mr. Parker recommended termination was Respondent's failure to abide by the educational principles concerning teacher conduct. Mr. Parker determined that Respondent's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher since he failed to properly manage students, displayed an inappropriate familiarity with students, and took and retained improper images. At its meeting on October 17, 2008, Petitioner accepted the recommendation to suspend Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against him. Thereafter, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to contest the proposed dismissal. Respondent does not deny displaying the photographs in his classroom or the retention of locks of hair. Moreover, Respondent does not deny that he took the images that were stored on his district-owned computer. Photography is one of Respondent's main interests. He sought to combine his interest in photography with his classroom responsibilities. Finally, Respondent maintains that he did not do anything wrong and that he is the victim of an administrator trying to get him fired. Respondent advised that it was his intention to have a disruptive class at the time portions of the video were shot to add some levity to the class work. Respondent stated that during the two hour blocks of teaching allocated to each class that it was his desire to have the students have some levity and laugh. The UTD negotiated terms and conditions of employment for Petitioner and its teachers. Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, also known as the UTD contract, "any member of the instructional staff shall be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that such charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent's employment with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Mills 17890 West Dixie Highway, Number 703 Miami, Florida 33160 Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Alberto M. Carvalho Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
