The Issue Whether Broward County School Board has good cause to non- renew Automotive Technical Charter High School of South Florida, Inc.'s Charter School Agreement.
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 2001, the School Board approved the initial Charter School Agreement that allowed Parkway Academy to open. The original contract was effective for a ten-year period, which ended on June 30, 2011. Parkway Academy was assigned school location number 5181. Parkway Academy serves students from both Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Parkway Academy is located on Broward College Campus and the 2011-2012 school year enrollment was approximately 517 students. Eighty-five students were in Parkway Academy's most recent graduating class and 84 were accepted into college. Charter schools are part of the public school system and are required to follow the same precepts as a public school. During the 2010-2011 school year, the school district conducted a program review of Parkway Academy's Charter to determine if the charter should be renewed. After the first program review conducted during the 2010-2011 school year, the School Board determined that Parkway Academy had academic performance and programmatic deficiencies. As a result of the deficiencies, the School Board only granted Parkway Academy a one-year renewal Charter. Parkway Academy's Charter was renewed for the 2011-2012 school year, permitting the school to operate through June 30, 2012. The Charter Agreement mandated that Parkway Academy "provide educational services in accordance with the terms of [the] charter school agreement." The Charter School Agreement provided the following contractual performance obligations in Section 2.D: "Any non- renewal cancellation or termination of the Charter shall be subject to Section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, and the terms of this Charter." Section 2.D.1. of the Charter prohibited Parkway Academy from being designated a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years and provided the following non-renewal provisions: a failure by the School to participate in the state's education accountability system created in section 1008.31 or failure to meet requirements for student performance stated in this Charter. * * * (f) receipt by the School of a state- designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of Four(4) years or the School is designated as "a school in need of improvement" for more than Two (2) years [more than Five (5) years of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP)], in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A "school in need of improvement" is one that has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5) years in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the School receiving less than 395 points for elementary and middle schools and less than 790 for high schools on the Florida Grades issued by the Florida Department of Education. Schools that receive a school improvement designation of "Declining" will also be considered the equivalent to an "F" grade. The foregoing point designations or school improvement ratings shall be amended during the term of this Charter to conform to current state law or rules; Section 2.D.1.a of the Charter delineated what constitutes "good cause" for charter termination or non-renewal and read in pertinent part: "Good cause" for termination or non-renewal shall include, but not be limited to, the following: * * * (2) receipt by the School of a state- designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of Four (4) years or the School is designated as "a school in need of improvement" for more than "Two (2) years [more than Five (5) years of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)], in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A "school in need of improvement" is one that has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5) years in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the School receiving less than 395 points for elementary and middle schools and less than 790 for high schools on the Florida Grades issued by the Florida Department of Education. Schools that receive a school improvement designation of "Declining" will also be considered the equivalent to an "F" grade. The foregoing point designations or school improvement ratings shall be amended during the term of this Charter to conform with the current state or rules. * * * (22) any other good cause shown, which shall include without limitation, any material breach or violation by the School of the standards, requirements or procedures of this Charter such as: * * * (c) the School's failure to fulfill all the requirements for highly qualified instructional personnel as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) * * * (t) a failure by the School to fulfill all of the requirements for highly qualified instructional personnel as defined by NCLB Section 11.D of the Charter provided the requirements for teacher certification and highly qualified teachers and read in pertinent part: All teachers employed by or under contract to the School shall be certified and highly qualified as required by Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes and any other applicable state of federal law. Criteria developed by the School for hiring all other staff (administrative and support staff) shall be in accordance with their educational and/or experiential backgrounds that correspond to the job responsibilities they will be expected to perform. If the School receives Title I funds, it will employ highly qualified staff. In compliance with those requirements, the School's teachers shall be certified and teaching in-field and the School's support staff shall have attained at least Two (2) years of college education or have passed an equivalent exam. The School may employ or contract with skilled selected non-certified personnel to provide instructional services or to assist instructional staff members as education paraprofessionals in the same manner as defined in Chapter 1012 and as provided by State Board of Education rule for charter school Governing Boards; however, in order to comply with NCLB requirements, all teachers in core academic areas must be certified/qualified based on Florida Statutes and highly qualified as required by NCLB. The School agrees to disclose to the parents of its students the qualifications of instructional personnel hired by the School. Parkway Academy's Charter Agreement for the 2011-2012 school year was signed by the parties on or about March 3, 2011, and went into effect July 1, 2011. The School District conducted its next renewal review of Parkway Academy during the last week of October and first week of November of 2011 to determine if the charter school renewal should go beyond the 2011-2012 school year. Diane Rogers ("Rogers"), Personnel Administrator for the Certification Department, audited and reviewed Parkway Academy's instructors and the courses each instructor was teaching. On or about October 26, 2011, Rogers retrieved teacher assignment information from the Data Warehouse1 and reviewed the instruction assignments and qualifications for the 2011-2012 school year to make a determination if each of Parkway Academy's teachers were certified, teaching in field, out of field, highly qualified, or not highly qualified for the teaching assignments he/she had been given. After completing the teacher review audit, Rogers identified the following five faculty members who lacked appropriate teacher certification: John Ahrens ("Ahrens"), Valerie Cedant ("Cedant"), Jerry Goodbolt ("Goodbolt"), Talondra Ingram ("Ingram"), and Uriel Williams ("Williams"). Rogers found Ahrens was teaching auto mechanics and auto tech but did not have the required Broward certificate. Rogers notified Parkway Academy in November 2011 that Ahrens needed a Broward teaching certificate. Rogers also found that Cedant previously had a temporary certificate, which expired June 30, 2011, and Ingram's temporary certificate had also expired before the 2011-2012 school year. Additionally, Goodbolt was working at the school without ever applying for a teaching certificate. While assessing the Parkway Academy, Rogers also discovered Williams had applied for a certificate from the Florida Department of Education ("FDOE"). FDOE determined his status was ineligible for a Florida educator's certificate in any area. Therefore, Rogers properly categorized Williams as not highly qualified to teach his assignments, Physical Education, Personal Fitness and Health Education, for the school because Williams did not have the basic requirement, a Florida educator's certificate. Rogers also identified the following eight teachers who did not have the required highly qualified2 status when she did her review: Floyd Barber ("Barber"), Cedant, Ingram, Gleandeal Johnson ("Johnson"), Lee Kornhauser ("Kornhauser"), Hyaptia Mata ("Mata"), Roxanna Smilovich ("Smilovich"), and Manage Vincent ("Vincent"). Rogers determined that Cedant was not highly qualified in that Cedant was precluded from the status because she did not have a valid educator's certificate and was also teaching improperly out of field without a valid educator's certificate. Rogers determined that Barber was not highly qualified to teach his assignment, Literature and Arts, since his FDOE certification was in Business Education. Therefore, he was improperly teaching out of field at Parkway Academy. Rogers also found in her review that Johnson had a FDOE certificate in Business Education 6 through 12 but she was assigned to teach Journalism, which requires FDOE certification either in English 6 through 12, Journalism, or English 5 through Therefore, Johnson was not highly qualified to teach Journalism because she was teaching out of field improperly, and she had not met the requirements. Rogers also discovered during her audit that Kornhauser was FDOE certified in Math 5 through 9, which allows him to teach middle school grade level math but he was assigned to teach Business Math and Math for College Readiness, which requires a Mathematics 6 through 12 certification. Therefore, Rogers determined that Kornhauser was not highly qualified to teach his assigned courses and was improperly teaching out of field. Rogers' review of Mata found that she was FDOE certified in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned to teach Earth Space Science, Chemistry, and Physics, all three of which required certifications other than Biology. Rogers determined Mata was not highly qualified to teach the three courses and was improperly teaching out of field. Upon review, Rogers found that Smilovich's FDOE certification was in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned to teach Earth Space Science, which requires certification in Chemistry, Physics, Earth Space Science, or General Science 5 through 9. Rogers' audit also determined that Smilovich was not highly qualified for her assigned class, and she was improperly teaching Earth Space Science out of field. Rogers' review also found Vincent was FDOE certified in Biology 6 through 12, but Vincent was teaching Chemistry, which requires a certification in Chemistry 6 through 12. Rogers determined that Vincent was not highly qualified for the teaching assignment and was improperly teaching Chemistry out of field. Parkway Academy employed and had the following instructors teaching out of field for the 2011-2012 school year without the proper credential for the core course of instruction they were assigned: Cedant, Ingram, Johnson, Kornhauser, Mata, Smilovich, Vincent, and Williams. Seventeen out of the 52 classes at Parkway Academy were being taught out of field. After discovering the teachers who were teaching out of their fields during her audit, Rogers also checked to determine if Parkway Academy had complied with the requirement to notify the parents that their children had teachers providing instruction out of field. Rogers found that Parkway Academy had only notified parents partially regarding Vincent and Mata. She concluded that the newsletter notification was incomplete for Mata because it listed only one of her areas being out of field, and it failed to notify the parents about the other instructors teaching out of field. Rogers concluded her audit by determining that Parkway Academy did not comply with the Charter School Agreement and laws because the school failed to employ teachers who all had valid teaching certificates, failed to have all of its teachers teaching in the appropriate field, failed to correctly designate teachers who were highly qualified to teach core curriculum subject areas, and failed to correctly notify parents that their children were being taught by teachers who were out of field. Rogers emailed Parkway Academy on or about December 1, 2011, and requested updated information on the status of each deficiency regarding the instructors that lacked the proper certification and/or qualifications that she had discovered during her review. Parkway Academy provided Rogers an email update the next day on each teacher Rogers had listed in the email of December 1, 2011, that was not in compliance, but Parkway Academy never provided Rogers any replacement teachers' names or certifications to verify compliance as she requested. During December 2011, Parkway Academy took the following measures to correct some of the teacher certification and qualification deficiencies. Parkway Academy replaced Cedant, Ingram, and Smilovich with certified, highly qualified teachers. Also, Parkway Academy changed Barber, Johnson, and Kornhauser's core course codes to courses they were certified to teach. Parkway also obtained out of field agreements with Mata and Vincent to teach courses they were not certified to teach while each worked on certification in the area they were teaching. The School Board's Testing and Assessment Department also reviewed Parkway Academy's Charter. Among other things, the Department looked at Parkway Academy's Adequate Yearly Progress ("AYP"), the measure of school performance used to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB"). The Testing and Assessment Department found that Parkway Academy did not meet AYP for the latest school year 2010-2011, which was reported after the signing of the renewal Charter School Agreement in March 2011. Additionally, the Department determined that the failure to meet the requirements for student performance for the 2010-2011 school year meant Parkway Academy had failed to make AYP for the following eight consecutive years: 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011. Parkway Academy's failure to meet the AYP for eight consecutive years earned the school the status of a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years. Parkway Academy failed to operate in compliance with the Charter School Agreement. The Certification Department's audit review report which showed a failure to use instructors that had the proper certification and/or qualifications for a substantial part of the year, combined with the Testing and Assessment Department's review results that concluded the Respondent was a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years due to failing to make AYP for eight consecutive years, caused a recommendation to be made to the School Board to non-renew Parkway Academy's Charter. On March 20, 2012, the School Board voted not to renew Parkway Academy's Charter. A Proposed Non-Renewal of its Charter notice was sent to Parkway Academy. On April 4, 2012, the School Board received Parkway's letter dated April 2, 2012, requesting a hearing upon the proposed Charter non-renewal, which was forwarded to the DOAH. The day of the formal hearing, Ahrens obtained a vocational certificate, which qualified him to teach auto mechanics and auto tech. Kornhauser neither had applied for nor obtained mathematics certification for grades 6 though 12.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board, enter a final order declining to renew the Charter School Agreement for Automotive Technical Charter High School of South Florida Inc., upon both the statutory and contractual grounds of (1) failure to meet the requirements for student performance stated in Parkway Academy's Charter including the school's status as a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years; (2) failure to use instructors having proper certification and/or qualifications; (3) failure to have teachers teaching in their fields; and (4) failure for Parkway Academy to disclose the out of field qualifications to the students' parents. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner had a contractual obligation, which it breached, to employ Respondent during the 2009-2010 school year, and, if so, what damages should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact The following is a verbatim recital of the Joint Stipulation of Facts filed by the parties on June 8, 2012: Lurana Hillard (Respondent) was employed by the St. Lucie County School District (Petitioner) as a Program Specialist for School Psychology and School Psychologists beginning in the 2005/2006 school year. Respondent was a participant in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS") and its Deferred Retirement Option Program (hereinafter "DROP"). Respondent's initial 60-month period of DROP was from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007. In January 2007, Respondent signed a document requesting to extend her participation in DROP beyond the initial 60- month period. A true and correct copy of the Form is attached as Exhibit B.[1/] Barbara Casteen is the Director of Student Services and Respondent's supervisor. On January 12, 2007, Barbara Casteen sent Steve Valencia, Director of FTE/Position Control, an email with a copy to Respondent regarding DROP extension. A true and correct copy of that email is attached as Exhibit A.[2/] On January 16, 2007, DROP Extension forms [sic] prescribed by the Florida Retirement System were executed by Respondent and Steve Valencia. A true and correct copy of the Form is attached as Exhibit B. Mr. Valencia had the authority, as the Superintendent's designee, to execute the form advising that that the School Board stipulates that the Respondent was eligible to participate in DROP beyond the initial 60- months. On January 23, 2007, at a regularly scheduled School Board meeting, the Board approved the Personnel Agenda which included DROP extension for Respondent.[3/] Attached is a true and correct copy of the Personnel Agenda for the January 23, 2007 meeting and minutes from the same.[4/] The Board has taken no subsequent formal action regarding Respondent's DROP status. On May 26, 2009, Barbara Casteen sent Respondent a letter advising that she would not recommend her for reappointment for the 2009-2010 school year. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit C. On June 30, 2009, Respondent signed a Notification of Separation from Employment Form. A true and correct copy of that Form is attached as Exhibit D. On July 29, 2009, the School Board approved Respondent's retirement. A true and correct copy of a letter from Shelby Baker, Personnel Records Specialist and Employer Notification of Employment Termination are attached as Exhibit E. Respondent initially submitted a letter of resignation pursuant to the DROP statute dated June 30, 2007. Based on request to extend DROP, Respondent submitted another letter of resignation dated June 30, 2010 pursuant to the DROP statute. Respondent received from FRS a Revised Notification of DROP Extension Benefits which is attached as Exhibit F. Attached is a true and correct copy of the FRS DROP Termination Notification as Exhibit G. Apart from the documents referred to herein, Respondent was issued no documents by the St. Lucie County School Board reflecting her employment status during the period of her DROP extension. The body of the January 12, 2007, email from Ms. Casteen to Mr. Valencia attached to the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts as Exhibit A (1/12/07 Email) read as follows: I am approving the DROP extension for Lurana Hillard for 3 years from 7/1/07 to 6/30/10. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me. The "Form" attached to the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts as Exhibit B is a completed Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Division) form--Form DP-EXT (05/05) (DROP Extension Form)--signed in January 2007, by Ms. Hillard and by Mr. Valencia, as the Superintendent's "designee".5/ On this completed and signed DROP Extension Form (Executed Extension Form or Form), Ms. Hillard indicated that her "DROP begin date" was July 1, 2002; that her "DROP termination and resignation date" was June 30, 2007; and that she was "requesting to extend [her] DROP participation through 6/30/10 with the approval of [her] employer." The "Employer Certification" section of the Form contained the following statement made to the Division by Mr. Valencia, as the Superintendent's designee: This is to certify that the St. Lucie County School Board (agency name) has rescinded the resignation of the above named member whose position meets the definition of an instructional position. The agency has approved a new termination date of 6/30/10. This agency stipulates that this member is eligible to participate in the DROP beyond 60 months and the member will continue working in a regularly established position as a School Psychologist.[6/]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of St. Lucie County issue a Final Order declining to award Ms. Hillard the relief requested in her Petition. S DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of July, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, Seminole Community College, is a community college governed by a community college district board of trustees vested with the responsibility of operating the college in accordance with applicable statutes, rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges, as well as its own rules. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for establishing and discontinuing programs and course offerings. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for the appointment, employment, and removal of personnel. Such personnel includes course instructors employed by the college to teach specific courses or programs offered by the school. The Petitioner offers instruction in courses ranging from basic academic subjects, which might be comparable to high school courses, to sophisticated courses that might be comparable to four-year college courses. Additionally, the Petitioner is the area vocational center and adult continuing education function for Seminole County. Prior to April 9, 1991, the Respondent had been a continuing contract instructor employed by the Petitioner for several years. Respondent was employed to teach the upholstery or reupholstery (upholstery) course/program offered by the college. In the 1986 school year, the upholstery program was given a formal evaluation as it had experienced a decline in student enrollment. Goals were established to encourage student participation in the program and additional development of the program. The evaluation or program review described in paragraph 6 was performed under the guidelines addressed in Appendix K, and resulted in the program being placed on probation for one year with the following condition: that the enrollment goal of an average of 16 full-time or full-time equivalent students per term be established. The probation term ran from April 1, 1986 through, presumably, March 30, 1987. Appendix K is a procedure utilized by the Petitioner to evaluate and review programs or courses offered by the school. On March 27, 1986, the president of the college issued a letter to Respondent advising him of the probation status of the upholstery program. The letter further provided that should the program be terminated, that the instructional position held by Respondent would be terminated. In January, 1991, Dr. Samuels, as Vice President for Instructions, issued a memorandum to the Deans' Council advising them of budget cuts incurred and expected by the college. Further, the memorandum provided that it was expected that instruction would have to absorb a major fraction of the expected future decrease amount. On January 17, 1991, the college president issued a memorandum to all full-time college employees that addressed the cuts experienced to that date and the expectation of cuts for the planning for the next budget year. In connection with planning for the 1991-92 budget year, Dr. Samuels met with the deans for areas of instruction under his supervision and requested that they consider alternatives given budget cuts of three levels: $200,000; $400,000; and $600,000. The goal was to prioritize spending to meet the instructional needs of the college, and to assume potential budget "worst case" scenarios. Dean Tesinsky gave the directors of her applied technologies area the following guidelines to prepare their proposals for services and programs: to preserve full-time faculty positions; to preserve full-time equivalent (FTE) student hours; if possible, to reduce regular part-time support first; and to eliminate unproductive programs. "Unproductive programs" were defined as having low enrollment relative to capacity and a decreasing enrollment trend. Such programs are also referred to as "weak programs" in this record. When the reviews of their programs were completed by the directors under Dean Tesinsky, she reported findings to Dr. Samuels. Such findings recommended the elimination of the upholstery, welding and culinary arts (on- campus) programs at the $600,000 budget cut level. The reviews performed by the directors and Dean Tesinsky did not follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix K. Concurrent with the planning incidental to the budget cuts options, Dr. Samuels reviewed information regarding the course offerings and courses or sections not available at the college but which were in great demand by large numbers of students. Courses of instruction which were identified as being in critical need of full-time instructors were: computer assisted drafting (CAD); biology, with laboratory experience; mathematics, foreign languages, and humanities. Further, there were vocational programs within the applied technologies area where additional sections and, consequently, instructors, were needed to meet student demand for courses. As a result of the foregoing, Dr. Samuels concluded that the budget amounts needed for instructors' salaries would have to increase, not decrease. To that end, Dr. Samuels concluded that monies captured from the elimination of unproductive programs could be redistributed to fund sections in the high demand areas of instruction previously identified. Given the notion that they would have to eliminate Respondent's program, Dean Tesinsky, Dr. Samuels, and Russ Calvet attempted to relocate Respondent to another program or course of instruction. However, no course or instructor opening was found for which they felt Respondent could qualify and be reassigned. On March 22, 1991, the college president issued a letter to Respondent that provided, in part, as follows: I have been informed that it is no longer feasible to continue the Reupholstery program. Therefore, in consideration of the College's mission to meet the educational needs of the community, the current budget concerns for the next fiscal year, and the past, present, and projected future enrollments of the Reupholstery program, it has been determined that the program will be discontinued at the end of this fiscal year. It is therefore with considerable regret that I inform you that a recommendation shall be made to the District Board of Trustees on April 9, that your contract with the College be terminated as of June 30, 1991. Your educational qualifications do not make it possible to reassign you to another instructional program area; however, should a position vacancy occur for which you are qualified, you will be notified. On April 1, 1991, the president forwarded a memorandum to the district board of trustees members that addressed the proposed termination of employment of the three vocational instructors. That memorandum reiterated the information given to the Respondent in the letter dated March 23, 1991. On April 9, 1991, the board of trustees voted to terminate the full- time, continuing contract position held by Respondent. Subsequently, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to review that decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Trustees of the Seminole Community College enter a final order confirming the elimination of the upholstery program and the termination of Respondent's continuing contract. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 12, 14 through 22 are accepted. As to paragraph 4, it is accepted that Respondent was hand-delivered the letter notice dated March 23, 1991; otherwise rejected as a conclusion of law. It is concluded, however, that such letter was sufficient to place the Respondent on notice of the college's position regarding the proposed actions. That portion of paragraph 8 which suggests that Director Satterlee's analysis was the first time the reupholstery program was identified as weak is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. This program had a history of being "unproductive" and had, in fact, been on probation in the not-too- distant past. Paragraph 9 is rejected as a misstatement of Petitioner's exhibit 41. That exhibit showed the headcounts as stated but showed the "instructor salary w/benefits" to be $62,552. Paragraph 10 is rejected to the extent that it suggests the reupholstery program had been on probation in any year other than 1986. With the following clarifications, paragraph 11 is accepted: that additional full-time instructors were needed; that the number of adjunct instructors would be reduced since full-time instructors would be added; that adding full-time instructors was a meaningful goal in order to upgrade programs/courses; add "therapy" after the word "respiratory" in the first sentence of 11b.; add under 11c., that there are now less than 500 students on overload status. The first sentence of paragraph 13 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: To the extent addressed in the foregoing findings of fact, paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that Dr. Samuels is Vice President for Instructions with the general responsibility for all the instructional programs at the college and that he made recommendations to the president of the college; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by record cited. Paragraph 9 is accepted with the clarification that Mr. Calvet's title is Dean of Personnel Services. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as it does not make sense. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant; no wrongdoing or misconduct has been suggested by the Petitioner. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the letter dated March 22, 1991, was the first written notice of the proposed action; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 16, see comment above regarding proposed finding of fact 15. Paragraph 17 is rejected as a misstatement of the record. To suggest the Petitioner contemplating "firing" Respondents grossly misstates their position. The Respondents' programs were eliminated and, consequently, their continuing contracts terminated. No suggestion of misconduct, incompetence, or wrongdoing on the part of these instructors should be suggested. To the contrary, these instructors were well qualified in their respective fields and respected by the employer. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed ruling 12 above. Paragraph 21 is rejected as repetitive; see above. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as repetitive; see above. Paragraphs 24 through 30 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 31 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted when clarified to add "an administrative procedure" for "the" after the word "out." Paragraph 39 is accepted. Paragraph 40 is rejected as a conclusion not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or irrelevant. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or irrelevant. Paragraph 46 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 47 is rejected as argument and irrelevant. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument and irrelevant. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "only" paragraph 57 is accepted. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 60 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 61 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 62 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 63 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence cited or speculation. Paragraph 64 is accepted. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 67 is accepted to the extent that the meeting(s) identified the programs as "weaker." Paragraph 68 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 70 through 73 are rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. The first sentence of paragraph 74 is accepted; otherwise rejected as argument, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. Paragraph 75 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. The first two sentences of paragraph 76 are accepted; otherwise rejected as not supported record cited or contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 77 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, and not supported by record cited. Paragraph 78 is rejected as conclusion of law or irrelevant. Paragraph 79 is rejected as it does not make sense or irrelevant. Paragraph 80 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 81 is rejected as irrelevant. With the addition of the phrase "or could be" after the word "would," paragraph 84 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record cited. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are rejected as contrary to the record cited. Paragraph 87 is accepted. Paragraph 88 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 89 is repetitive in part but is accepted. Paragraph 90 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 91 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 92 and 93 are accepted. Paragraph 94 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 96 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 97 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 98 is rejected as not supported by record cited, contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 99 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. Paragraph 100 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. Paragraph 101 is accepted. Paragraphs 102 through 105 are rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraphs 106 through 110 are accepted but are irrelevant. Paragraph 111 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraphs 112 through 115 are accepted. Paragraph 116 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 117 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 118 is rejected as not supported by record cited. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are accepted. Paragraph 123 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 124 and 125 are accepted. Insert word "contact" after "thirty" in paragraph 125. Paragraph 126 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 127 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 128 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 129 is accepted. Paragraph 130 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 131 through 134 are accepted. Paragraph 135 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 136 and 137 are accepted with the addition to paragraph 137 that such position was only part-time and not vacant. Paragraph 138 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 139 through 141 are accepted. Paragraph 142 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraphs 143 through 147 are accepted. Paragraph 148 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 149 through 152 are accepted. Paragraph 153 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 154 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 155 through 160 though repetitive in part are accepted. Paragraph 161 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 162 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 163 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Dana Fogle FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. 217 East Plymouth Avenue Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817 Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Margaret T. Roberts COBLE, BARKIN, GORDON, MORRIS & REYNOLDS, P.A. 1020 Volusia Avenue Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32120
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether St. Lucie County School Board (School Board) Rules 6.16 and 6.50*+ are invalid exercises in delegated legislative authority as defined by sections 120.52(8)(c), (d), and (e).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Jones is currently an employee of the St. Lucie County School Board, and has a professional service contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Her status with the School Board is “suspended without pay,” for reasons that are not relevant to this proceeding. As a classroom teacher, Ms. Jones is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of St. Lucie County and the Classroom Teachers Association. On June 13, 2017, the School Board suspended Ms. Jones without pay and on July 27, 2017, a Petition for Termination in Termination I was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing. At that point, while Ms. Jones remained an employee of the School Board, she received no pay and no benefits from the School District. She began to look for other employment to support herself and her family. Ms. Jones applied to and was offered a job to work as a music teacher by the Somerset Academy St. Lucie (Somerset). Somerset is a charter school in St. Lucie County sponsored by and located within the geographical bounds of the School District and the jurisdictional bounds of the School Board. Ms. Jones did not submit an application for leave and the School Board did not approve a request for leave of absence in order for Ms. Jones to work at Somerset. By letter dated August 28, 2017, Superintendent Gent notified Ms. Jones of his intent to recommended to the School Board that she be terminated for grounds in addition to the already-existing suspension, i.e., for violating the School Board’s Rules 6.16(1); 6.301(2), (3)(b)(i), (3)(b)(xix), and (3)(b)(xxix); and 6.50*+. That letter became the basis for the Termination II proceeding. The factual basis for pursuing the second termination proceeding was that Ms. Jones was working at Somerset without having applied for and received approval for a leave of absence from the School Board. The merits of the School Board’s allegations in this second proceeding are no longer relevant in terms of Ms. Jones’ employment with the School Board, as the School Board, through counsel, has represented that the School Board no longer intends to pursue the allegations in Termination II. The allegations are relevant and informative, however, in establishing the School Board’s interpretation of its rules and establishing Ms. Jones’ standing to challenge the validity of those rules. The evidence presented at hearing established that Ms. Jones has standing to bring this rule challenge. School Board rule 6.16 is entitled “Dual employment,” and provides as follows: No person may be employed to work in more than one position in the school system except upon the recommendation of the Superintendent and approval of the School Board. No employee shall accept other employment that might impair the independence of his or her judgment in the performance of his or her duties. Rule 6.16 lists as its statutory authority sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and lists sections 1001.43 and 1012.22 as the laws implemented. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. School Board Policy 6.50*+ is entitled “Leave of Absence,” and provides in pertinent part: Leave of absence. A leave of absence is permission granted by the School Board or allowed under its adopted policies for an employee to be absent from duty for a specified period of time with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave. Any absence of a member of the staff from duty shall be covered by leave duly authorized and granted. Leave shall be officially granted in advance and shall be used for the purposes set forth in the leave application. Leave for sickness or other emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance if prompt report is made to the proper authority. Length of Leave and Pay. Generally, no leave or combination of leaves, except military leave or Workers’ Compensation Leave, will be granted for a period in excess of one year. Illness-in-line-of- duty leave may not be extended beyond the maximum medical improvement date or a maximum of two (2) years from the date of injury, whichever is the earliest date. Leave may be with or without pay as provided by law, regulations of the State Board, and these rules. For any absence that is without pay, the deduction for each day of absence shall be determined by dividing the annual salary by the number of days/hours for the employment period. Employment leave. A leave shall not be granted to any employee to accept other employment unless the leave is to accept employment at a charter school as provided in paragraph (5) below. Accepting employment while on a leave of absence cancels the leave automatically. The person on leave will be notified that he or she must return to work with the School Board immediately, resign or be terminated. The Superintendent shall develop procedures to implement leave provisions. Charter School Leave. An employee may be granted leave to accept employment at a charter school in St. Lucie County in accordance with the following provisions: Teachers. Teachers may apply for leave to work at a charter school. The School Board will not require resignation of teachers desiring to work at a charter school. Teachers granted such leave by the School Board are not required to be on a continuing or professional services contract and shall not be subject to the seven (7) continuous years’ service requirement. Should a teacher on leave elect to return to work at the District, the teacher shall return to the teacher’s former position or a comparable position for which the teacher is qualified. * * * Method to Request Leave. An application to request leave to accept employment in a charter school shall be submitted using the procedures specified in Policy 6.501(1). For ten month instructional personnel, an application to request leave to accept employment at a charter school shall be submitted to the principal at least forty-five (45) days prior to the first day of work for the school year . . . . Insurance and Retirement Benefits. It shall be the sole responsibility of the charter school site to provide insurance and retirement benefits to charter school employees . . . . * * * Notice of Intent to Return. Employees on charter school leave shall give the School Board written notice of their intent to return at least sixty (60) days prior to the beginning of the semester they wish to return. Requirement for Annual Renewal. Charter school leave must be renewed annually. It is the sole responsibility of the employee on leave to submit an annual written letter notice of leave to the Superintendent or designee, and a copy of the annual written letter notice of leave to the employee’s school principal or immediate supervisor, as applicable, on or before April 1 of each year if they wish to renew their charter school leave for the following school year. Employees who do not submit the required annual leave form on or before April 1st will be considered to have voluntarily terminated their employment, and will no longer be eligible for any benefits or other consideration under this leave policy. (Emphasis supplied.) 11. Rule 6.50*+ lists sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33 as its statutory authority, and lists sections 1001.43, 1002.33(12)(e), 1012.22, 1012.61, 1012.63, and 1012.66 as the laws it implements. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. Rule 6.50*+ provides that if a teacher working for the School Board wishes to work at a charter school within St. Lucie County, that teacher must apply for permission to do so. However, the definition of a leave of absence in the first paragraph of rule 6.50*+ specifically provides that a leave of absence allowed under the rule is for a specified period of time “with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave.” By its terms, the rule does not appear to encompass those employees whose status is “suspended without pay,” given that those employees who are suspended without pay do not necessarily have the right to return to employment upon expiration of leave. Rule 6.50*+ also provides that an application for charter school leave shall be provided to the teacher’s principal at least 45 days before the beginning of the school year. For teachers on suspension without pay or who are not assigned to a particular school, there is no principal to whom the application can be given. The rule does not specify an alternative. Instead, Mr. Clements stated that it would be up to Ms. Jones (and presumably, anyone in her circumstance) to ask where to submit an application for charter school leave. The School Board interprets rule 6.50*+ as applying to all employees, regardless of their status. Rule 6.50*+ does not indicate what criteria would be used for determining if an employee’s application for leave should be granted. Mr. Clements testified that the decision is made on a case-by-case basis. He also testified that had Ms. Jones applied for charter school leave, he would not have recommended that her request be approved, because as a teacher on unpaid suspension, she is not in good standing with the School District. Nothing in rule 6.50*+ alerts Ms. Jones, or any other teacher in her circumstances, that her suspension without pay would be a basis for disapproval of an application for charter school leave. Nothing in the rule alerts any applicant of the criteria to be considered for the grant or denial of a requested leave of absence. The consideration of a staff member’s current disciplinary status is not an unreasonable consideration for the Superintendent or for the School District. It is not, however, included in the rule as a basis for deciding whether a request for charter school leave should be approved or denied.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges served April 19, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The 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; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2004). Mr. Varona was employed as a school security monitor in October 1990. In October 1996, the School Board hired Mr. Varona as a fine arts teacher, and he continued as a full- time teacher until his full-time status was terminated in June 2003, when his second non-renewable temporary teaching certificate expired. Mr. Varona was re-hired by the School Board as a temporary instructor in August 2004, and continued working for the School Board as a classroom instructor until he was suspended in March 2006. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Varona was a member of the United Teachers of Dade, which had entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("Agreement") with the School Board, effective July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2006. Article V, Section 1 of the Agreement provides that the School Board can dismiss employees only for just cause. Article XXI, Section 1.a. of the Agreement provides that the School Board can suspend or dismiss instructional employees during the school year if the charges against him or her are based on Florida Statutes. Finally, Article XXI, Section 2 of the Agreement provides that dismissals are to be effectuated in accordance with the Florida Statutes, including Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prior to the expiration of his temporary teaching certificate, Mr. Varona began his efforts to qualify for a permanent Florida Educator's Certificate.2 He decided to take coursework through an entity named Moving on Toward Education and Training ("MOTET"), which was operated by Dr. William McCoggle, a teacher and coach at Palmetto Senior High School in Miami, Florida. Mr. Varona learned through colleagues who had participated in the program that Dr. McCoggle and MOTET offered courses for which teachers could obtain college credit that could be used to satisfy the requirements for certification. Mr. Varona telephoned Palmetto Senior High School and inquired about certification courses. He was directed to Dr. McCoggle, who told Mr. Varona where and at what time he needed to appear to register for courses. Mr. Varona arrived at Palmetto Senior High School at the appointed time and met with Dr. McCoggle. There were several other teachers present at the time. Mr. Varona obtained information on the classes and was told by Dr. McCoggle to come the next week and bring a document showing the courses that he needed to take, since Mr. Varona had already taken coursework at Florida International University and Miami-Dade Community College. Mr. Varona returned the following week and brought the information Dr. McCoggle had requested. He registered for three or four classes and paid Dr. McCoggle and MOTET $2,000.00 as tuition. When Mr. Varona went to Palmetto Senior High School for the third time, Dr. McCoggle gave him a sealed, white envelope and told him to take the envelope and turn it in, unopened, at the School Board's Certification Office. Mr. Varona gave the unopened envelope to Ruby Howard at the School Board's Certification Office. The envelope contained a transcript showing credit for college courses from Eastern Oklahoma State College. Mr. Varona did not attend any classes, complete any assignments, take any tests, or engage in any academic effort whatsoever to obtain the college credits reflected on the transcript from Eastern Oklahoma State College. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Varona had substantial family responsibilities and was in poor health, and he decided at some point that he was going to leave the teaching profession and would not pursue a permanent Florida Educator's Certificate. He was, however, at the times material to this proceeding, a classroom teacher employed by the School Board. Although he was later notified that the college credits he had submitted to the Certification Office were no good and that he would be entitled to a small refund of the money he paid for the classes, he did not pursue the matter further because of his decision to leave teaching and not pursue permanent certification. The activities of Dr. McCoggle and MOTET and the Miami-Dade County school teachers who obtained credit without attending classes or making any academic effort were the subject of a grand jury investigation and report, filed July 18, 2005, that was submitted to the Superintendent of the Miami-Dade County school system. Mr. Varona's name was included in the list of 106 teachers who had submitted transcripts showing college credit for classes they had not attended, and the School Board initiated investigations of each of these teachers. The matter was widely reported in the local newspapers. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that Mr. Varona committed misconduct in office and an act of immorality. Although Mr. Varona denied having knowingly submitted false college credits to the School Board's Certification Office for purposes of accumulating credits toward his professional certification, his denials are not persuasive. Under the circumstances, he should have known that the envelope contained a transcript showing college course credit and he knew he had made absolutely no academic effort to obtain those credits. Mr. Varona's testimony that he asked Dr. McCoggle on numerous occasions when the classes would be held is, likewise, unpersuasive; after a time he must have realized that there would be no classes held, and his failure to withdraw the Eastern Oklahoma State College transcript from the Certification Office supports the reasonable inference that he intended these credits to be applied toward professional certification.
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 finding that Nestor Varona violated Section 1012.33(1)(a) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes, by committing misconduct in office and dismissing Mr. Varona from his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 15th day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, began service with the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher in August, 1965. He was employed on annual contract for three school years until he was granted a continuing contract by the school board on July 23, 1968, as a teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. After the execution of the continuing contract, Petitioner was assigned as coordinator of vocational education during the 1969-1970 school term but in addition to those duties, continued to teach five classes. As Petitioner was assigned additional duties by the Superintendent, his teaching duties were reduced. Starting in 1970 and continuing through 1973, though the continuing contract as a teacher had not been rescinded, Petitioner and the school board entered into annual contracts of employment in which Petitioner was assigned as Director of Vocational Education. On June 5, 1973, the parties entered into a second continuing contract which described Petitioner's duties as "Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education." At no time did Petitioner ever hold a contract as "principal" nor was he ever paid as such. His current Florida Teacher's Certificate shows him certified in, among other things, secondary administration and supervision. Both this contract and the 1968 continuing contract contained a provision that the school board was authorized, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools, to transfer and assign the Petitioner to a "similar position in any other school" in the district, provided that "the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be as heretofore set forth." From the time he was appointed director of VTAE until January, 1981, Petitioner served in that capacity. As director of VTAE, he considered his position as similar to that of a principal in that he reported directly to the Superintendent of Schools, he supervised the teachers who taught within his program (although he did not rate them) he was paid on the non- instructional salary schedule as is a principal he was responsible for the procurement of and administration of students including their promotion and graduation. Nonetheless, he was not classified as a principal, he served schools throughout the county, the teachers in the program were recruited from regular day teachers and additional personnel who taught only in the night program, and these teachers were rated by their day principal when appropriate. Consequently, his position as Director, VTAE, was not similar to that of a principal. At the time he left the job as Director, VTAE, to assume the office of Superintendent of Schools, he was paid a salary of $21,000.00 per year for a 12 month term and was on step 6 of the non-instructional salary schedule. He has never released the school board from the terms of the continuing contract. In January, 1981, Petitioner took office as Superintendent of Schools. At that time the function of Director, VTAE, was assigned to Ms. Scaff who subsequently also occupied several other positions within the school board system including instructional coordinator, secondary curriculum coordinator, community education director, law education director, and management information systems director. Ms. Scaff did not assume all those functions at one time. The job was built up over a period of years and while the duties changed, the title of Director, VTAE, did not. Ms. Scaff was paid as an instructional director on the non-instructional salary schedule. As Director, VTAE, Ms. Scaff, and Mr. Greene before her, occupied one of the director positions reflected in the directory of the School Board. The School Board uses the same contract form for directors and principals and the director is evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools as is a principal, but there are few other similarities between the function of principal and Director. Petitioner served as Superintendent of Schools from 1981 until November, 1984, when he was replaced as superintendent by Mr. Hinton. Several months before his term expired, in June, 1984, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that it appoint Ms. Scaff, who was at that time serving as, inter alia, Director, VTAE, to a two year contract in that position. This contract was approved by the School Board. Shortly after his defeat in the election, Petitioner allegedly told Mr. Hinton that he did not wish to displace anyone employed by the school system in order to enforce his return rights under the continuing contract he held. It was his position that he would accept a teaching position but at a salary level equivalent to that of an administrator until such time as an administrator's position within the system became open. At a special meeting of the School Board called by Petitioner on the last day of his term as superintendent, Mr. Greene nominated himself for the position as principal at NHE. This nomination, however, was tabled by the School Board upon advice of counsel so that an advisory opinion on it could be requested from the Florida Commission on Ethics. At this point it should be noted that though the position as Principal at NHE became vacant prior to Petitioner leaving his position as superintendent, he did not apply during the period that the·advertisement was open. The only person to do so was Harry Pennington who was subsequently placed in that position. When Mr. Hinton assumed the position of Superintendent of Schools, replacing Mr. Greene, he immediately assigned Petitioner to the position as teacher of business education. Mr. Greene accepted the assignment but requested that he be paid a salary equivalent to the 20th step on the salary schedule for the position of instructional director at a figure of $32,550.00 per year. The figure demanded by Petitioner was not paid, however. After conferring with the State Department of Education regarding the proposed salary for Petitioner, the School Board determined that since he held a continuing contract as a teacher, he would be employed at a salary based on the teacher position. He was given credit for four years of teaching service while serving as Superintendent of Schools which placed him at the 20 year service point. In addition, he was given credit for a master's degree and for teaching in his field of certification. His total salary, therefore, was set at $23,460.00 over a ten month term. Petitioner was not satisfied, especially since Mr. Pennington, who was serving as principal of NHE was receiving $28,100.00 per year based on a 12 month employment contract. On May 27, 1985 the school board rejected Mr. Greene's nomination of himself as principal at NHE. The board's rejection of Mr. Greene was based on the recommendation of Mr. Hinton who felt that Petitioner was not qualified for the position in that he did not hold certification in administration and supervision at the elementary level his contract was not for the position of principal he had no experience as principal or assistant principal he did not apply for the position when it was advertised and because counsel advised that filling the position based on self nomination might violate Florida law. Mr. Pennington on the other hand, was fully certified in administration and supervision for all grade levels involved at NHE. Other positions for which Respondent felt himself qualified came open during the 1984-1985 school year but he was not selected to fill any of them. Included in these were that of principal of Hamilton County High School and administrative assistant positions at both North Hamilton Elementary and South Hamilton Elementary. When Mr. Hinton took over as Superintendent of Schools, as a part of his management program and in an effort to correct what appeared to be a problem regarding the late payment of School Board obligations which existed when he took over, he recommended certain personnel changes including the creation of an office manager position. Mattie Fouraker, formerly the business education instructor at Hamilton High School, was appointed office manager to the School Board at a salary approximately equivalent to that she received as a teacher. It is to her vacant job as teacher of business education that Mr. Greene was assigned. Petitioner contends Ms. Fouraker was appointed to the position before it was ever officially created and approved by the School Board. Be that as it may, however, it becomes clear that the Superintendent of Schools intended that a problem be solved and to do so, created a position designed to correct it. He appointed Ms. Fouraker to the job on a temporary basis and as soon as the School Board met at the next scheduled meeting in December, 1984, it approved the position and confirmed Ms. Fouraker's assignment to it. This formal board action, however, served to increase her pay from that of a teacher at $23,460.00 per year to that of an administrative position at $29,700.00 per year and her position was changed from that of a 10 month to a 12 month employment, along with the benefits accruing thereto. Petitioner's salary as business education instructor was developed through a tailored formula developed with an intent to,-in the opinion of Mr. Hinton, put Mr. Greene in approximately the same position for the four years he was Superintendent of Schools. As was stated previously, Mr. Greene was given credit for his 16 years in the classroom plus his years of superintendent for a total of 20 years experience credit. Added to that was credit for a Master's degree and credit for teaching in his field of certification. When the $23,460.00 salary that was arrived at for this was compared to what it was anticipated he would have earned had he stayed as Director of VTAE, it was seen that had he remained in his position on the same salary schedule, he would have presumably earned $2,362.50 per month ($23,625.00 per 10 month school year) as an instructional director, Step 6. This is approximately $155.00 more over the school year. Had Petitioner been paid at the salary of an instructional support position, Step 6, the monthly salary would be slightly lower. It should be noted, however, that due to schedule changes during the period, this might not be a valid comparison. Positions within the school system are assigned by the Superintendent of schools on the nature of the position. Non- instructional personnel are assigned categories on the salary schedule based on an assessment of their qualifications and value to the system. Teachers, on the other hand, who are generally serving under contracts, are placed on the salary schedule consistent with the number of years experience they have plus certain other additions. It was Mr. Hinton's position that Mr. Greene should be paid as a teacher since he was serving as a teacher and once that decision was made, Mr. Greene was paid the highest amount that a person with his certificate and his experience and qualification could earn in that position. When the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its opinion on the question certified to it regarding Petitioner's recommending himself for the position of Principal of NHE, the opinion indicated the Commission could not conceive of how the Petitioner's actions in recommending himself for a position could not have constituted a misuse of public position. In other words, while not saying that it was, the Commission concluded that it probably was a violation. Thereafter, the School Board requested an Attorney General's opinion on whether a school superintendent may nominate himself for appointment of a principal. The opinion was not received as of the date of the hearing. Turning again to the issue of the function of Director of VTAE, the School Board contends that the function of Director has steadily expanded in scope. For example, Mr. Hinton urges that the work that Mr. Greene was doing as Director, VTAE prior to being elected superintendent now constitutes only 10 to 20% of the currently described duties of the position. The additional functions that Ms. Scaff performs, as described above, he contends, constitute more by far than that which Petitioner did when he held the job. In support of that position, Mr. Hinton refers to the organization and management study conducted in 1983 at the request of Petitioner when he was Superintendent of Schools. Among the pertinent recommendations of that study was the restructuring of the organization within the school district level. The position of Director, VTAE was not one of the three Director and five coordinator positions recommended by the study. Ms. Scaff indicates that when Petitioner was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent of schools, she indicated her willingness to step down from the position of Director, VTAE and return to classroom teaching. She does not consider the return to a position of teaching as a demotion nor does Ms. Fouraker. It should be noted, however, that both individuals received substantial increases in salary by virtue of their position changes under the Hinton administration. For example, Ms. Fouraker's promotion to the position of office manager carried a pay increase from $23,460.00 to $29,700.00 per year. Ms. Scaff now earns the same. Mr. Greene was at Step 6 on the non-instructional scale when he left the job of Director, VTAE. These scales were modified in the intervening years, and Ms. Fouraker traced Mr. Greene's position as Director, VTAE, to the new scale as if he had stayed in place. She placed him at Step 6 on the new scale at a salary of $28,350.00. Petitioner contends that he should be treated the same as Mr. Coe, Director of Personnel, who realized a large salary and step increase when the pay scales were changed. If this were done, and he was given an instructional director's position at step 20 on the non- instructional salary schedule, his salary would be $32,500.00. Subtracting that $28,350.00 from the $32,550.00 he says he should be earning, Mr. Greene indicates that he lost approximately $4,958.87 for the period starting November 20, 1984, when he began teaching, to the end of the school year. He further contends that his salary loss is continuing at the rate of $757.50 per month and in addition, he is also being deprived of other benefits of employment such as paid annual leave, sick leave, enhanced retirement benefits, and other like perquisites attached to a 12 month contract. Mr. Greene further contends that since he was involved in litigation with the school board concerning Mr. Coe's contract prior to his leaving the position of Superintendent of Schools, the School Board should have known of his entitlements under the continuing contract since it was shown that it had been established for assignments and transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, be assigned a non-principal supervisor/director position within the Hamilton County Schools as available that he be paid accordingly when performing in such a position but that he be denied adjustment for back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette, Suite 112 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Hendrick, Esquire 111 South Central Avenue Suite 1 Jasper, FL 32052 Owen Hinton, Jr. Superintendent Hamilton County School Board P. O. Box 1059 Jasper, FL 32052 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX Ruling by the Hearing Officer as to the Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted* Accepted* Accepted* Accepted Accepted except as to the veracity of the reported comment of the School Board member Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted except as to comments of Ms. Scaff as to her being a principal and signing forms as such Accepted except for Petitioner's comment that he would receive temporary certificate for Elementary Ed principal and would obtain certification in grades K-6 without much problem Accepted Accepted Rejected as irrelevant Irrelevant as a finding of fact should be conclusion of law Accepted Accepted except as to last sentence which is irrelevant unnumbered between and 23 Rejected Rejected Rulings by the Hearing Officer as to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Respondent failed to number paragraphs.) The unnumbered paragraphs are therefore treated in sequence and numbered herein for purposes of identification only. Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to substance Accepted Accepted Accepted except that acceptance of the position was not meant to be acquiesed in permanent assignment Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as it relates to teacher salaries only Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the request made. As of the hearing, the opinion had not been received. It was not offered into evidence and though attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, was not considered Accepted Accepted Accepted except for the conclusion drawn in the last sentence which was not supported by evidence admitted. Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected. Position was held by Ms. Scaff who performed the same duties performed by Petitioner when he was the encumbent, in addition to additional duties which he did not *Petitioner's terms describing the personnel changes are not necessarily dispositive of the issue.
The Issue Whether the School Board lacked the delegated legislative authority to promulgate School Board Policy 2.57. Whether the challenged portions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate certain provisions of the charter school statute, section 1002.33, Florida Statutes, and State Board Rules, as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge Petitions. Whether the Innovative Rubric Policy 2.57 should be invalidated for enlarging, modifying, and/or contravening the charter statute and also the adopted State Board Education rule(s) and form(s). Whether the budget worksheet referenced in School Board Policy 2.57 is an unadopted rule because it was not attached or incorporated into School Board Policy 2.57 and/or was never specifically adopted by rule. Whether certain provisions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate section 1002.33(6)(h) as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge and Charter Petitions. Whether the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to section 1002.33(6)(h) and/or section 120.595, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Renaissance is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Renaissance currently operates six charter schools in the School District of Palm Beach County ("School District") pursuant to charters issued by the School Board: (1) Renaissance Charter School at Central Palm; (2) Renaissance Charter School at Cypress; (3) Renaissance Charter School at Palms West; (4) Renaissance Charter School at Summit; (5) Renaissance Charter School at Wellington; and (6) Renaissance Charter School at West Palm Beach. The School Board is the "sponsor" of the six schools operated by Renaissance in the School District for purposes of section 1002.33. The six schools operated by Renaissance are public schools, by virtue of their status as charter schools, under section 1002.33(1). Charter Schools USA serves as the education services provider or management company for all six of Renaissance's schools in the School District. On April 1, 2015, the School Board held a public workshop on the subject of charter schools, including proposed revisions to School Board Policy 2.57 ("Policy 2.57") entitled "Charter Schools." After the workshop, the School Board reviewed proposed revisions to the rule, Policy 2.57, at a noticed public meeting on April 22, 2015, and approved development of the policy. On May 27, 2015, at a noticed public meeting, the School Board approved adoption of revised Policy 2.57. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 required, among other things, that charter schools meet a standard beyond the status quo for "innovative learning methods," mandated that every charter contract contain a provision requiring 51 percent of the charter school governing board members to reside within Palm Beach County, and mandated that every charter contract contain a provision precluding new charter schools from being located in the vicinity of a district-operated school that has the same grade levels and programs. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also included an attached Innovative Policy Rubric 2.57, which contained the innovative definition and additional standards of innovation which charter school applicants must satisfy. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also required a completed budget worksheet in the format prescribed by the School Board from each charter school applicant. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 is the "Budget Template Tool" developed by the Florida Charter Support Unit. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 was not specifically identified in Policy 2.57 or attached thereto when it was adopted. The School District requires use of the Budget Template Tool in order to provide charter school applicants notice about everything that is required to prepare a budget and to ensure that the budget includes all necessary information. Charter school applicants who do not use the Budget Template Tool often fail to provide all of the information required to be included in the budget. The School District will review an applicant's budget even if it is not submitted using the Budget Template Tool. Failure to use the Budget Template Tool, in and of itself, will not be a factor in the rating of the "Budget" section of an application or the overall recommendation on an application. On August 3, 2015, Renaissance submitted its application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach to the District's Charter Schools Department. The application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach is the only charter application Renaissance has filed in the School District since the revised Policy 2.57 was adopted on May 27, 2015. On or around August 18, 2015, Renaissance requested that the Florida Department of Education ("FDOE") mediate its dispute over the amendments to Policy 2.57. The School Board declined FDOE's request to mediate the dispute. On September 8, 2015, Commissioner of Education Pam Stewart issued a letter to both Renaissance and the School Board confirming that the dispute could not be settled through mediation and providing Renaissance with permission to bring its dispute to DOAH. The District Superintendent recommended that the application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach be denied and placed it on the consent agenda for the School Board's November 4, 2015, public meeting, with one of the reasons being that the application "failed to meet indicators of School Board Policy 2.57 innovative rubric." At the November 4, 2015, meeting, after deliberation, the School Board voted to deny the application. In its letter dated November 13, 2015, denying the charter application of the proposed Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach, the School Board relied, in part, on Policy 2.57 as grounds for denial. On September 7, 2016, Petitioner filed a consolidated challenge that was amended on December 20, 2016. Petitioner is challenging the School Board's adoption and amendments of May 27, 2015, to Policy 2.57 in the Rule Challenge and asserting a violation of the flexibility granted to charter schools for the amended provisions in the Charter Petition.
Findings Of Fact Background And Overview Respondent was first employed by Petitioner, School Board Of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "School Board"), in 1964 as a teacher. Respondent was promoted to principal in 1971, Assistant Superintendent for the School Board in 1978, and Associate Superintendent of Schools for Planning and Operations on July 1, 1984. Respondent was one of three Associate Superintendents in the Palm Beach County school district. There was also an Associate Superintendent of Instruction and an Associate Superintendent of Administration. Each Associate Superintendent reported to the Deputy Director who reported to the Superintendent. Respondent served as Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations until he was demoted to principal on November 5, 1991. Respondent served under an annual contract as an Associate Superintendent and maintains a continuing contract as a teacher. While employed as an Associate Superintendent, Respondent never received notice of an allegation of incompetent conduct, was never disciplined, and never received a negative performance evaluation prior to this proceeding. In the Summer of 1991, Respondent was a finalist for the position of Superintendent. The position of Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations was subsequently abolished effective July 1, 1992. Planning And Operations: Organization And Regular Duties The organization of Planning and Operations has changed in specific regards during the years Respondent was its Associate Superintendent. 1/ For the purposes of this proceeding, however, Planning and Operations employed approximately 1,500 people and was organized and operated in three subdivisions: Growth Management; Facilities Planning and Management; and Personnel Relations. Personnel Relations is not at issue in this proceeding. 2/ Growth Management responsibilities included: identifying school district demographics; determining racial balance; and site acquisition for development of schools and other facilities. Facilities Planning and Management responsibilities included: building new schools; renovations; improvements; and maintenance. Each of the three subdivisions of Planning and Operations was supervised directly by an Assistant Superintendent. The Assistant Superintendents supervised one comptroller and nine directors. Directors had direct responsibility for assistant directors. Assistant directors supervised first-line managers. First-line managers supervised numerous employees who regularly worked on: major school center projects; new school construction; facility design and contract services; facility operations; maintenance and renovations; personnel administration; information management; recruitment and selection; and human resources. Additional Duties In addition to their regular duties, Respondent and other senior administrative supervisors were required by Mr. Thomas Mills, the former Superintendent, to promote and solicit the involvement of members of the local business community in the Palm Beach County school system. The school system faced student overcrowding, a lack of materials, a lack of adequate funding, and a rising drop out rate. Members of the business community were recruited to help raise money for operating expenses and to support a bond issue for which the School Board sought voter approval in 1986. Many members of the local business community were also vendors to the School Board. Respondent was directed by former Superintendent Mills and Dr. James Daniels, the Deputy Superintendent, to contact and network with as many members of the business community as possible. Such activities were considered by former Superintendent Mills to be a high priority. Respondent complied with the directives of the former Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent. The efforts of Respondent and other senior managers proved successful. The business community in Palm Beach County raised funds to supplement the operating expenses of the school system and supported a bond issue for construction of new facilities and capital improvements to existing facilities. In 1986, the majority of registered voters in Palm Beach County approved a Special Referendum authorizing a $678 million bond issue for the construction of educational facilities in the Palm Beach County School District. The School Board established a five year plan for the construction of educational and ancillary facilities (the "five year construction plan"). A portion of the bond money was allocated to capital improvement projects to renovate or remodel existing facilities. Planning and Operations supervised all bond issue projects, including capital improvement projects. In the 1986- 1987 school year, such projects, including capital improvement projects, were supervised by the division of New School Construction. In the Fall of 1987, supervision of capital improvements was transferred to Maintenance and Renovations. Maintenance and Renovations was also organized within Planning and Operations. Approximately 39 new schools were constructed in Palm Beach County while Respondent was Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations. The total budget for construction of new schools was approximately $550 million. Thousands of construction projects, renovations, and improvement or maintenance projects were performed by Planning and Operations. Approximately $317 million of the authorized bond issue was issued from 1987 through 1989. In addition to the construction of new schools, the School Board approved a plan in 1985 to acquire land and construct four ancillary facilities. The ancillary facilities included a new administrative complex, a central warehouse, and a maintenance and operations facility. Planning and Operations supervised the site acquisition and construction of all four ancillary facilities. Deficiencies In Planning And Operations Deficiencies in the organization and operation of Planning and Operations were well known to both the School Board and Planning and Operations personnel. They were pandemic deficiencies that Respondent could not correct without the approval and financial support of the School Board and the technical assistance of experts. 3/ The School Board retained an outside consultant, Price Waterhouse, to study deficiencies in Planning and Operations and to formulate an improvement program. The improvement program was to be developed in three phases. The first phase identified deficiencies within Planning and Operations on the basis of discussions with department personnel and outside specialists. The second phase would have focused on verifying and prioritizing problems and their impacts. The third phase would have formulated a program for improvement of Planning and Operations. Deficiencies in Facilities Planning and Management were identified in interviews conducted by the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse with directors, assistant directors, and first- line managers. In 1987, Price Waterhouse issued a draft report to the School Board describing the deficiencies found in Facilities Planning and Management (the "Price Waterhouse Report"). 4/ The School Board determined that the Price Waterhouse Report merely told the School Board what was already common knowledge and that further expenditures on a program for improvement with Price Waterhouse would be a waste of money. The School Board knew of the deficiencies in Planning and Operations. The School Board knew that those deficiencies created impediments to the supervision of Planning and Operations. Known deficiencies within Facilities Planning and Management involved: financial procedures and controls; staff performance, including personnel and control; planning of operations and projects; contract administration; construction administration; and organization structure. Deficiencies in financial procedures resulted in budgeting without adequate preparation, historical data, timing, and coordination between departments. Poor cost and schedule accounting for capital improvements, maintenance, and operations made it difficult to capture and report cost information in sufficient detail and in a timely manner. Poor cost controls directly affected the control of operations, decisions to perform work by in-house staff or contractors, and the value received for money spent. Adequate project management tools and policies were not in place to contain costs and adhere to schedules for maintenance, capital improvements, and new construction. Payment of suppliers, contractors, architects, and other vendors was slow, frustrated vendors, and made them reluctant to do work for the School Board. There were deficiencies in staff performance, personnel, and control. Productivity appeared to be low. There was a lack of performance measurement and reporting mechanisms in place to accurately assess productivity. Productivity was significantly affected by: inadequate work planning and coordination; the condition and availability of equipment and materials; logistics; and geographic constraints. Many employees were uncertain as to their responsibilities and corresponding authority, particularly at the first-line manager level. Uncertainty over responsibility and authority undermined the effectiveness of first-line managers dealing with vendors, contractors, and architects. Staffing levels and management span were not adequate to maintain existing facilities and operations, control personnel growth, and prevent duplication of field personnel skills between maintenance and capital improvements. Support resources were weak in technical expertise, administrative staff, reference materials, and computer aided design equipment. Capital improvement, new construction, and maintenance tasks were frequently not scheduled in sufficient accuracy and detail to foresee and anticipate potential problems. Frequent schedule slippage allowed contractors less time to complete construction and meet schedules; adversely affecting productivity, project costs, and the ability to plan for and manage project issues and achieve targeted completion dates. Shortages of materials and supplies often caused project delays. Coordination of work between and within departments failed to determine the optimal sequence in which work was to be performed to maximize the utilization of trade employees and avoid conflicts and rework. Deficiencies in contract administration led to lack of clarification in the responsibilities, requirements, and expectations of parties to contracts. Contract documents and conditions were too vague and resulted in frequent disputes, delays, and occasional change orders. To avoid delays caused by change orders, contractors sometime proceeded without proper authorization at their own risk. The definition of authority and responsibility and the guidelines for quality control and inspection for in-house employees and contractors needed to be improved. Such deficiencies in construction administration resulted in project delays, poor construction, and higher facility life cycle costs. A lack of consistency in procedures and policies for project management exacerbated the deficiencies in construction administration. Deficiencies in organization structure directly affected problems in other areas of Planning and Operations. Continuity of work was lacking on new construction. Project managers changed when responsibility passed from one division to the next; resulting in a start-stop effect on the project and a loss of specific project knowledge. Improvement was needed in communications between and within departments and in upper management support of lower management authority. There was a need for a long range organization structure and staffing strategy which addressed alternatives such as internal staffing and contracted services. The presence of deficiencies described in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987 was confirmed in 1993 in a Report On Audit Of The Palm Beach County District School Board For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1992 Dated: June 24, 1993 issued by the State of Florida, Office Of The Auditor General (the "Auditor General's Report"). The Auditor General's Report found that deficiencies similar to those described in the Price Waterhouse Report for Facilities Planning and Management also existed in Growth Management. Problems reported in the Price Waterhouse Report and in the Auditor General's Report described a deficient organizational and operational system in which the School Board required Respondent to supervise unprecedented growth and activity. Respondent was required to: supervise a $550 million construction plan involving thousands of projects and four ancillary facilities; 5/ promote involvement of the business community in the school system; and perform the duties he was otherwise required to perform in the absence of the five year construction plan established by the School Board and associated promotional responsibilities. In 1987, the Price Waterhouse Report stated that supervisors and assistant directors were stretched very thin, and their roles needed to be more clearly defined. Communication between and within departments and from directors and similar supervisors was poor. 6/ Many of the deficiencies described in the Price Waterhouse Report and the Auditor General's Report created impediments to Respondent's supervision of Planning and Operations irrespective of his additional duties associated with the five year construction plan. Petitioners' Allegations Petitioners' allegations against Respondent are based on two separate investigations conducted by Petitioners. 7/ Petitioners' allegations involve: acquisition of a site for a central warehouse for $3.161 million (the "District Warehouse Site"); acquisition of a site for a west bus compound for $750,000 (the "West Bus Compound"); construction of an addition to a new maintenance and operations building on Summit Boulevard in West Palm Beach for Maintenance and Renovations and Facility Operations and construction of an addition to a north maintenance building (the "Summit Facility"); requests for additional services on form G-604 (the "G-604" issue); acceptance of gratuities from members of the business community who were also vendors of the School Board; and evaluation of two employees. Petitioners' allegations of incompetency primarily involve the five year construction plan and ancillary facilities. Few of the alleged acts of incompetence involve other aspects of Respondent's job performance from July 1, 1984, through November 5, 1991. The District Warehouse Site The School Board determined in 1985 that a need existed for a centralized warehouse site in Palm Beach County. 8/ The School Board determined that approximately 10 acres would be adequate. Since the value of land in Palm Beach County was appreciating, the School Board also approved the policy of former Superintendent Mills that encouraged the acquisition of land for future expansion if the land could be acquired at a desirable price, i.e., "warehousing" land for future use. Respondent had advocated a decentralized warehouse system in which separate warehouse functions would be carried out in various regions of Palm Beach County. Others in Planning and Operations supported the concept of a centralized warehouse site. The centralized warehouse concept was accepted and approved by former Superintendent Mills and the School Board. On October 11, 1989, the School Board purchased approximately 16 acres of real property as a site for a centralized district warehouse. The property was purchased for $3.161 million from KEI Palm Beach Center, Ltd. ("KEI"), a limited partnership in which Mr. William Knight was a limited partner and Knight Enterprises, Inc., a corporation controlled by Mr. William Knight, was the general partner (the "Knight property"). Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate any statute, rule, policy, instruction, or directive, or circumvent normal acquisition procedures (collectively referred to hereinafter as "applicable standards") with regard to the evaluation and purchase of the Knight property. Respondent neither proposed nor advocated the purchase of a particular warehouse site. Respondent did not propose or advocate the identification, evaluation, selection, and purchase of the Knight property. Respondent showed no favoritism to Mr. William Knight, to his son, Mr. Jim Knight, or to any entity owned by the Knights. Respondent committed no act or omission which impaired his business judgment, compromised his independence, or which was otherwise improper in connection with the acquisition of the District Warehouse Site. Initial Site Selection And Evaluation Prior to the acquisition of the Knight property, the School Board attempted to acquire property owned by Palm Beach County and known as Section 6. Negotiations for the acquisition of Section 6 terminated when Section 6 became unavailable. A site search for the District Warehouse property was conducted by Growth Management. Ten separate sites, including the Knight property, were initially identified and reviewed by a site acquisition team within Growth Management. The site acquisition team was headed by Mr. William Hukill, Assistant Superintendent for Growth Management. The site acquisition team also included Mr. Robert Skakandy, a real estate acquisition coordinator in Growth Management, and Mr. David Williams, Assistant Director of Growth Management. Respondent was not significantly involved in identifying the 10 properties considered by the site acquisition team, including the Knight property. Each property was placed on the list by the site acquisition team because it was within or proximate to the geographical area preferred by the site acquisition team or possessed other targeted location characteristics. 9/ Site selection procedures typically did not involve Respondent. Site selection procedures were described in detail in the Auditor General's Report: . . . upon identification of potential sites, the sites were evaluated by the District's Growth Management Center. A description of each site was presented to the Assistant Superintendent, Growth Management and to the Assistant Director, Growth Management for their review, after which the descriptions were . . . presented to the Superintendent. Following the Superintendent's review, the preliminary site investigations and site descriptions with the Superintendent's recommendation were to be presented to the School Board for their review and approval. (emphasis supplied) Auditor General's Report at 63. Growth Management first considered the Knight property in August, 1988. Mr. Jim Knight communicated the availability of the Knight property to Ms. Linda Howell, a real estate coordinator in Growth Management. Ms. Howell and Mr. Jim Knight conducted further discussions. Ms. Howell identified the Knight property as a potential site and relayed the site information to Mr. Skakandy. The site acquisition team reduced the list of ten sites to a list of three final sites. The Knight property was not one of the three final sites selected. The three final sites were all less expensive than the Knight property. The three final sites were the Riviera Beach site, the Boyton Beach site, and the Farmer's Market site. Feasibility problems developed with each of the three final sites. The Riviera Beach site was sold to another party. The Boyton Beach site was objected to by other staff not on the site acquisition team. It was 15-20 miles south of the center of the county and failed the express criteria for a "central" warehouse. Environmental problems and costs associated with the disposal of building materials caused Maintenance and Renovations to recommend against purchase of the Farmer's Market site. 10/ Reconsideration Of Knight Property On or about January 11, 1989, former Superintendent Mills sent a memorandum to Mr. Hukill indicating that Mr. William Knight had called the Superintendent to express his interest in having the Knight property reconsidered for the District Warehouse Site. Respondent received a copy of that memorandum but was not otherwise involved significantly in the reconsideration of the Knight property. On or about January 20, 1989, Mr. Hukill sent a letter to the former Superintendent indicating that the Knight property was still under consideration and that the Knight property location was quite good under the circumstances. Mr. Hukill indicated that appraisals had been ordered and that a site recommendation would be forthcoming. 11/ The Knight property was reconsidered in accordance with procedures customarily followed in Growth Management. There was no formalized procedure followed in Growth Management for the evaluation of property for site acquisition. Sites were discussed in a free form fashion. Except for a recommendation of the final site selected, written records for recommendations on specific properties were not customarily prepared by staff in Growth Management. 12/ Mr. Hukill made the ultimate decision to add or drop sites from consideration. Acquisition sites were added or deleted from site acquisition lists without notifying Respondent. The Knight property was evaluated by the entire staff in Growth Management. The evaluation of the Knight property included a review of environmental issues, utilities, zoning, and road use. Mr. Jim Knight had more than 20 meetings with Growth Management staff including Mr. Hukill, Mr. Skakandy, and Mr. Williams. Respondent was not significantly involved in those discussions. 13/ The Knight property was recommended by staff because of its suitability for the District Warehouse and because of the unavailability or unsuitability of the first three sites originally selected by the site acquisition team. The Knight property was located in almost the exact center of the county. It was also located on Southern Boulevard, a roadway that runs directly to western communities in Palm Beach County where many new schools were scheduled for construction. Respondent properly relied on staff recommendations for the Knight property in accordance with his customary practice. At no time prior to the time the property was acquired did any employee within Growth Management state to Respondent that the Knight property was not a suitable site or that the purchase of the Knight property would be detrimental to the School Board. Mr. Hukill did not sign the written recommendation for the Knight property. The reason for his refusal, however, had nothing to do with the suitability of the Knight property for the District Warehouse. Mr. Hukill believed, as a philosophical matter, that the School Board should spend its money on schools rather than on additional warehouse sites. Mr. Hukill, in effect, objected to a determination made by the School Board in 1985. Mr. Hukill agreed with the recommendation that the Knight property was suitable based on the marketplace, location, and ease of distribution for servicing schools. Respondent neither identified nor advocated the Knight property. Respondent had no conversations with either Mr. William Knight or Mr. Jim Knight concerning the evaluation of the Knight property as a site for the District Warehouse except as previously described. Except for the price paid for the Knight property, Respondent's involvement in the acquisition of the Knight property was limited to a review of staff recommendations and the acceptance of those recommendations. Additional Acreage The initial search for a District Warehouse site focused on the acquisition of 10 acres of property. However, the Knight property included 16 acres. The additional acreage was purchased to overcome access problems that would have occurred if only 10 acres had been purchased. Unanticipated problems in site selection was one of the deficiencies known to the School Board and discussed in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987. Engineering involvement frequently did not occur early enough in site acquisition. As a result, sites selected by the site acquisition team required unanticipated expenses, and the full cost of the project was not properly assessed. 14/ The decision to purchase additional acreage was not made by Respondent. Former Superintendent Mills wanted the additional acreage to accommodate future expansion for office space on the warehouse site. The former Superintendent believed that a larger site was desirable to properly accommodate future expansion needs and directed the purchase of the additional acreage. The issue of whether to increase the site for the District Warehouse from 10 acres to 16 acres was discussed at a Superintendent's staff meeting. The former Superintendent, the School Board attorney, Respondent, and a dozen other members of the former Superintendent's staff attended the meeting and participated in the discussion. The decision and recommendation to purchase the additional acreage was made by the former Superintendent. Purchase Price The final purchase price for the Knight property was reasonable and beneficial for the School Board. Respondent was responsible for the final purchase price. Two separate appraisals for the Knight property were obtained by Growth Management in accordance with its customary practice and applicable law. 15/ Respondent did not select the appraisers. They were selected by Mr. Skakandy with the approval of Mr. Williams. The appraisers were qualified and had been used many times in the past by Planning and Operations. The two appraisals for the Knight property differed by $1.00 a square foot. The higher appraisal was for $5.50 a square foot. The lower appraisal was for $4.50 a square foot. 16/ Respondent refused to accept Mr. William Knight's offer to split the difference between the two appraisals and insisted on a sales price of $4.42 a square foot. The price paid for the Knight property was reasonable and less than the lowest appraised value. Contract Negotiations Respondent was not involved in contract negotiations for the Knight property and did not dictate any of the terms of the contract for the purchase of the Knight property; except the final purchase price discussed in the preceding paragraph. Site acquisition personnel typically negotiated site acquisition contracts in concert with the School Board attorney. Site acquisition personnel did not customarily report the status of contract negotiations to Respondent. No established procedure required such reports. Contract negotiations for the acquisition of the Knight property were carried out entirely by site acquisition personnel within Growth Management and Mr. Robert Rosillo, the School Board attorney. Negotiations by staff and the School Board attorney for the Knight property were within the scope of normal functions for site acquisition. The School Board attorney did not confer with Respondent during the three months in which contract negotiations for the Knight property were conducted. Respondent never gave the School Board any direction or other information concerning the acquisition of the Knight property. It is the responsibility of the School Board attorney and technical staff in Growth Management to draw acquisition contracts, address zoning requirements, and determine contingencies for closing. Any problems associated with the final contract for purchase of the Knight property were the responsibility of the School Board attorney and staff negotiators. Road Improvements: Allocation Of Costs Between The Parties The contract for the Knight property addressed road improvements, right-of-way, and relocation measures necessary for the use of the property. Engineering drawings reflected the right-of-way issues, the need to relocate water and sewer lines and a lift station, and the need for road improvements. The parties to the contract agreed to share the cost of road improvements proportionally. The contract required the seller to place $70,000 in a separate escrow account to be used to fund the necessary road improvements. While Petitioners now complain that the amount escrowed by the seller was inadequate, the terms of the contract were prepared by the School Board attorney and recommended by Growth Management staff in accordance with long standing practice. In 1987, The Price Waterhouse Report stated that contract documents did not delineate specific responsibilities. The result was confusion, disagreements, and additional costs to the School Board or outside parties. 17/ Adverse impacts from the purchase of the Knight property on October 11, 1989, reflected deficiencies reported in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987. Those deficiencies were well known to the School Board at least two years before the acquisition of the Knight Property. The School Board chose not to expend additional funds on a program of improvement suggested by Price Waterhouse. Financial Ability Of Seller To Comply With Repurchase Option The contract for the Knight property contained a provision which gives the School Board the right to require the seller to repurchase the property if conditions pertaining to zoning are not satisfied (the "repurchase option"). The repurchase option was drafted by the School Board attorney. A decision not to enforce the repurchase option was made by the School Board, the School Board attorney, and the former Superintendent. If the School Board had elected not to proceed with closing, the contract afforded the seller to right to sue for specific performance. A foreclosure suit was filed against the Knight property a few days prior to the closing on October 11, 1989. Mr. Rosillo discussed the impact of the foreclosure suit on the purchase with former Superintendent Mills. The issue was not discussed with Respondent. The contract did not require the seller to evidence its financial ability to perform the terms of the contract. Nor did the contract require Mr. William Knight to personally guarantee the obligation of the seller under the repurchase option. Temporal Considerations The time required for the evaluation and purchase of the Knight property was reasonable and adequate. The transaction was not "rushed." The evaluation and purchase of the Knight property required approximately 14 months to complete. Once the decision to purchase the property was made, approximately three months were required to finalize the terms of the contract and close the transaction. Even if the evaluation and purchase of the Knight property was rushed, Respondent did not act as an impetus to rush the transaction. Respondent was not significantly involved in the identification, evaluation, and purchase of the Knight property except for the final purchase price. Mr. Jim Knight actively negotiated the transaction with Mr. Rosillo, Mr. Hukill, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Skakandy. The entire transaction was discussed fairly and adequately by Growth Management staff and the School Board attorney. Respondent did not propose or advocate the Knight property. Respondent did not negotiate the terms of the contract to purchase the Knight property except for the final purchase price. Respondent did not decide whether to close the transaction or whether to enforce the repurchase option. Bifurcated Funding For Land Acquisition And Construction The fact that the Knight property was acquired prior to the time that money was available to construct the District Warehouse does not make Respondent incompetent. Property was customarily purchased first and a building constructed out of budget appropriations in subsequent years. In 1987, The Price Waterhouse Report included such practices in its list of deficiencies. The capital budgeting process lacked sufficient coordination, timing, and input. Adequate cost accounting tools were not available. Existing reports lacked sufficient detail, accuracy, and timeliness. Capital improvement funding sources were not clearly identified. The fact that priorities for capital improvements were not easily or accurately tracked was a source of frustration for administrators including Respondent. 18/ Those deficiencies were known to the School Board prior to 1987. In 1987, the School Board chose not to pursue a program of improvement with Price Waterhouse. In 1993, the Auditor General's Report found that originally designated capital outlay moneys had been expended on projects, land purchases, and other purposes which were not contemplated in the 1986 school construction plan. Expenditures not contemplated in the five year construction plan included the District Warehouse Site. 19/ The notice of tax levy for capital improvements had not been prioritized within categories as required by Section 200.065(9)(a), Florida Statutes. Failure to prioritize the projects contributed to delays in undertaking some of the projects at issue. Furthermore, the School Board did not segregate and account for the proceeds and related expenditures of each respective year's levy. 20/ The decision to purchase the Knight property and rely on budget appropriations in subsequent years for construction was made by former Superintendent Mills. The former Superintendent's policy was to purchase land at a reasonable price if there was a future need for the property. Land values in Palm Beach County were appreciating rapidly. The money to construct the buildings on such properties typically came from budget appropriations in subsequent years. The Knight property was purchased for less than its lowest appraised value. 2.10 Gratuities And The Knight Property Respondent went fishing in 1986 and 1987 on Mr. William Knight's fishing boat in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and in Bimini, Bahama Islands. Respondent reported both fishing trips on his annual financial disclosure forms. The two fishing trips did not adversely affect Respondent's business judgment or create the appearance of impropriety. Respondent was not significantly involved in the acquisition of the Knight property in October, 1989. In 1986, Respondent accepted an invitation from Mr. Robert Howell, a member of the School Board at the time, to go fishing in St. Thomas. The invitation was made to Respondent through former Superintendent Mills. The former Superintendent joined Respondent on the fishing trip. Respondent had never met Mr. William Knight before that time. The fishing trip lasted two days. Respondent paid for his own transportation to St. Thomas. In 1987, Respondent and former Superintendent Mills accepted an invitation from Mr. William Knight to fish with their children in Bimini. The fishing trip lasted one day. The West Bus Compound On or about April 24, 1990, the School Board purchased property in Royal Palm Beach for $750,000 (the "West Bus Compound"). The property was purchased from Mr. John Bills. Site selection procedures typically did not involve Respondent. 21/ Respondent did not act incompetently or violate applicable standards with regard to the identification, evaluation, and purchase of the West Bus Compound. Respondent did not propose or advocate the West Bus Compound or the evaluation, selection, and purchase of the West Bus Compound. Respondent showed no favoritism to Mr. Bills, or any entity owned by Mr. Bills. Respondent committed no act or omission which impaired his judgment, compromised his independence, or which was otherwise improper in connection with the evaluation and acquisition of the West Bus Compound. The need for a site to service the western portion of Palm Beach County was identified by Mr. George Baker, the Director of Transportation. Transportation was a division of the Department of Administration. The Associate Superintendent of Administration was Dr. Henry Boekhoff. Respondent had no authority or responsibility over Transportation. The need for a site to service the western portion of Palm Beach County was uncontroverted. Due to westward population migration, several new schools were built in the western regions of the County. Mr. Baker determined that it was not cost effective to transport buses back and forth from compounds in the eastern portion of the County for maintenance and storage. Mr. Baker and Dr. Boekhoff determined that a West Bus Compound would result in significant savings in the operating budget. The need for a West Bus Compound was well known within the school district administration, including Growth Management. Mr. Baker had repeatedly stated to everyone "within earshot" that the need for a West Bus Compound was urgent. Mr. Baker identified a site location in Royal Palm Beach owned by Mr. Bills. Mr. Baker told Mr. Williams, who worked in Growth Management, that Transportation wanted the site owned by Mr. Bills for the West Bus Compound. Mr. Bills was trying to sell his property. Mr. Bills submitted a brochure on the property to Mr. Hukill and other staff in Growth Management. Mr. Hukill recommended the property owned by Mr. Bills to Respondent. Respondent discussed the site with former Superintendent Mills. At Mr. Hukill's request, the former Superintendent authorized Mr. Hukill to proceed with negotiations for the property owned by Mr. Bills. Respondent advised Mr. Williams of the availability of the property owned by Mr. Bills. Respondent instructed Mr. Skakandy to follow normal procedures regarding the West Bus Compound site. The West Bus Compound site was evaluated by Mr. Skakandy and Mr. Williams. They also negotiated the contract for acquisition. Such action on the part of Mr. Skakandy and Mr. Williams was consistent with customary practice within Growth Management and was within the scope of their regular duties and responsibilities. Two appraisals were obtained for the West Bus Compound. The higher appraisal was for $810,000. The lower appraisal was for $703,000. The property was purchased for $750,000. Respondent properly relied on the recommendations and advice of technical staff in Growth Management with respect to the acquisition of the West Bus Compound site. Respondent was never informed by anyone within Growth Management that there were any limitations on the use of the site. Certain zoning and easement requirements reduced the usable area for the site below that originally projected by Growth Management. Mr. Baker recommended the site even though the usable area was less than originally projected. Respondent was not acquainted with Mr. Bills at the time that the West Bus Compound was evaluated and acquired. Subsequently, however, Respondent developed a friendship with Mr. Bills. Respondent never showed any favoritism to Mr. Bills in connection with the West Bus Compound. The Summit Facility On July 1, 1989, employees of Maintenance and Renovations and employees of Facility Operations were housed in a leased facility at 3323 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, Florida (the "Belvedere" site). A new ancillary facility was nearing completion in the Fall of 1989. The new facility was located at 3300 Summit Boulevard in West Palm Beach (the "Summit Facility"). The Summit Facility included a second building known as the north building. The landlord for the Belvedere site exercised its rights under the lease to obtain use of the Belvedere site sooner than originally anticipated by the School Board. Electronics employees housed at the Belvedere site were moved to Northshore High School ("Northshore") on a temporary basis until the Summit Facility was completed. Residents of the neighborhood adjacent to Northshore complained to some members of the School Board about increased traffic. The School Board took the matter up at a public meeting during the Fall of 1989. Approval Of Day Laborers In Trades Sections At the public meeting conducted in the Fall of 1989, the School Board specifically authorized Mr. David Lord, Director of Maintenance, and former Superintendent Mills to use day- laborers in the trades sections 22/ to construct additions to buildings at the Summit Facility and to relocate electronics employees from Northshore to the Summit Facility by January 1, 1990. Mr. Lord and the former Superintendent discussed the matter with the School Board in detail. 23/ At the public meeting, the School Board instructed Mr. Lord to use whatever resources were available to him to make needed capital improvements to the Summit Facility by January 1, 1990. Confusion over when to use contractors or in-house personnel was one of the deficiencies discussed in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987. Criteria for determining when to perform work on a contract basis and when to perform work in- house were not clearly established. This made planning difficult and increased project costs. 24/ Lack of communication and agreement between project managers and construction personnel concerning time and cost of in-house projects resulted in incorrect decisions concerning the desirability of building in-house or by contract, caused delays, cost overruns. 25/ Comparative cost analyses of in- house and contract maintenance construction were not available. 26/ In 1993, the Auditor General's Report found that established procedures did not provide reasonable safeguards to monitor day-labor projects to ensure that goods and labor were used only for authorized projects. The Auditor General's Report recommended that such procedures be established. 27/ Mr. Lord used day-laborers from his trades sections to make the capital improvements mandated by the School Board in accordance with the School Board's instructions. The work was begun in December, 1989, and completed in March, 1990. Code Violations In 1991, after considerable time for discussion and analysis among attorneys and technical staff within the Department of Education and Planning and Operations, it was determined that some additions to the Summit Facility were not in compliance with applicable safety code regulations. Respondent properly relied on Mr. Lord and Mr. Lord's immediate supervisor for technical compliance with applicable code provisions. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 6A-2 contains the State Uniform Building Code. Part A of Chapter 6A-2 ("Part A") applies in some circumstances, and Part B of Chapter 6A-2 ("Part B") applies in other circumstances. In July, 1990, officials of the Department of Education, Educational Facilities Department, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, were invited to a demonstration of fire alarms at the Summit Facility. Mr. Russell Smith, Director of Facilities Design, determined that life/safety code violations existed in the two buildings at issue in the Summit Facility. Mr. Smith's determination of code violations was based on the assumption that Part A applied to the capital improvements at the Summit Facility. Mr. Lord had determined that Part B applied to the capital improvements. The capital improvements at the Summit Facility complied with the requirements of Part B but not Part A. Mr. Smith did not report the alleged code violations to Respondent until December, 1990. Respondent directed Mr. Smith to obtain a determination from the Department of Education. Mr. Smith pursued the matter with representatives of the Department of Education as well as Mr. Lord in Growth Management. Ms. Abbey Hairston, General Counsel for the School Board, concluded that there was a strong likelihood that Part B applied. Mr. Lord suggested that an outside consulting firm be retained to determine the applicability of Part A or Part B to the capital improvements at the Summit Facility. Respondent could not have detected the existence of the alleged code violations in the capital improvements to the Summit Facility. Respondent did not have the expertise to make such a determination. Respondent's regular duties and responsibilities did not require that Respondent maintain such expertise, conduct inspections for the purpose of detecting code violations, or correct code violations. Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards with regard to the capital improvements to the Summit Facility. Respondent did not propose or advocate that capital improvements be made to the Summit Facility in compliance with Part B. Respondent properly relied on his staff for technical compliance with applicable code requirements. When Respondent received notice of alleged code violations, Respondent acted in a competent and timely manner. In 1987, The Price Waterhouse Report discussed several deficiencies in staff performance, personnel, and control. The Price Waterhouse Report stated: Internal expertise is limited. Knowledge of specialized areas is limited, project quality suffers, life cycle costs are higher. . . . Training programs and budgets are insufficient, especially with respect to technical and safety training. Employees are not as efficient or effective as they could be. Knowledge of project managers is less than they feel is necessary Project managers are resistant to new management techniques. . . . Inadequate technical library. . . . Price Waterhouse Report, Staff Performance, Personnel And Control, Issues 5, 7, and 9, and corresponding Impacts. In 1993, the Auditor General's Report recommended that: . . . District personnel strengthen procedures to provide that, prior to occupancy in the future, the required approvals for occupancy are obtained to ensure that the facilities meet the prescribed safety standards. Auditor General's Report at 64. Tracking And Reporting Costs The computer codes and accounting approach used to track and report the cost of capital improvements to the Summit Facility complied with applicable standards. The computer codes and accounting approach recorded each transaction and were subject to separate retrieval in accordance with established procedures. Required object, fund, and function codes were used to document the expenditure of funds for the capital improvements to the Summit Facility. In 1987, the Price Waterhouse Report stated: Adequate cost accounting tools are not available. Existing reports lack sufficient detail, accuracy and timeliness. [There is] . . . [n]o ability to manage and control project cost. This results in true project cost being unknown and lack of problem identification on a timely basis. . . . Capital Improvement Requests are not easily or accurately tracked. Priorities are difficult to track and coordinate. This is a source of school administration frustration. . . . Project management tools are not available. Project cost containment suffers. Control and reporting is lacking. . . . Accountability is difficult to enforce. Price Waterhouse Report, Financial Procedures And Controls, Issues 4, 8, and 17, and corresponding Impacts. The day-labor hours billed for additions to the Summit Facility totaled approximately 6,373. In the three fiscal years from 1989 through 1992, approximately 566,853.75 day-labor hours were paid and approximately 454,701.75 were billed. Day-labor hours paid exceeded day-labor hours billed by approximately 112,152 hours. 28/ As the Price Waterhouse Report indicated in 1987, adequate cost accounting tools were not available. The cost accounting and reporting procedures that were in fact utilized for the additions to the Summit Facility complied with available cost accounting procedures. Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards in connection with the method used to track and report the cost of capital improvements to the Summit Facility. Respondent did not propose or advocate any particular accounting procedure. Respondent properly relied on technical staff to track and record the cost of capital improvements to the Summit Facility, and staff properly utilized the accounting tools available to them. Purchase Orders Purchase orders for mezzanine and modular offices were originated by staff in lower levels of Maintenance and Operations. The purchase orders were processed in accordance with normal procedure and approved by Ms. Betty Helser, Director of Purchasing. Ms. Helser was under the supervision of the Associate Superintendent of Administration and was not subject to the authority of Planning and Operations. Planning and Operations had no authority over Purchasing. Respondent did not participate in the purchase order approval process. Respondent was not responsible for that process. Several names were listed on the purchase orders as resource or contact persons in connection with the purchase order. Respondent was not one of those named. Funding Source For Capital Improvements Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards in connection with the funding source for capital projects, including acquisition of the District Warehouse site, the West Bus Compound, and additions to the Summit Facility. Funding sources for such projects were approved by the School Board. The funds used to pay for the District Warehouse, the West Bus Compound, and the Summit Facility were not misappropriated or misapplied. The School Board approved those capital projects and their corresponding budgets. The budget for each capital project provided for the transfer of capital outlay moneys to the general fund. 29/ Taxes had been levied for capital improvements pursuant to Section 236.25(2), Florida Statutes. Funds were transferred from this special millage money and not from general obligation bond money. Such transfers occurred in prior years and were consistent with customary procedure. Moreover, no funds were used for capital projects without the prior knowledge and consent of the School Board. Deficiencies in the budget reporting and control process impeded full consideration by the School Board of the impact of capital projects and budget transfers on the 1986 school construction plan. As a result, originally designated capital outlay moneys were expended on capital projects not contemplated in the 1986 school construction plan. Accordingly, some originally contemplated projects were not undertaken in the five year plan due to lack of funds. 30/ Deficiencies in financial processes and controls reported by Price Water House in 1987 and known to the School Board prior to that time created impediments to proper budgeting and resulted in poor budget quality. In 1987, the Price Waterhouse Report stated: Performance measurement (feedback) needed to assess and improve budget accuracy is lacking. Poor budget accuracy, control, and forecasting [results]. . . . The capital budgeting process lacks sufficient coordination, timing and department input. Budget priorities may not be sufficiently addressed and quality of actual budgets may suffer. Priorities for improvements are defined by construction and remodeling, but they may not be consistent with the school's needs. High priority projects may not be addressed on a timely basis. Price Waterhouse Report, Financial Procedures And Controls, Issues 2, 16, and corresponding Impacts; Price Waterhouse Report, Planning Of Operations And Projects, Issue 9 and corresponding Impact. Projects funded by the capital outlay millage derived under Section 236.25(2), Florida Statutes, were not prioritized within categories in the notice of tax levy as required by Section 200.065(9)(a). Failure to prioritize the projects to be funded by the capital outlay millage contributed to delays in undertaking some of the projects contemplated in the 1986 construction plan. In addition, the proceeds and related expenditures of each year's levy was not segregated and accounted for. 31/ Reports reviewed by the School Board consisted of monthly financial statements containing analyses of revenues by source of funds and analyses of expenditures by function. Status reports showed comparisons of projected revenues designated for the 1986 school construction plan with actual revenues received. Comparisons of projected construction costs anticipated in the five year construction plan with actual construction costs were not available. Like the notice of tax levy, available status reports did not prioritize projects within categories. The failure to prioritize projects and reporting inadequacies constituted some of the pandemic deficiencies known to the School Board prior to 1987 and did not result from Respondent's alleged incompetence. In 1993, the Auditor General's Report recommended several procedures for rectifying deficiencies in the budgeting process. First, quarterly status reports on capital projects should be revised to show the projected costs of projects, current expenditures, and the variances over or under projected costs. Second, proposed budget amendments should include an explanation of the possible effects on capital construction plans and operating budgets. Third, the ". . . Board and the Superintendent. . ." 32/ should develop written management reporting guidelines. Finally, the School Board should re- examine the remaining bond plan projects to ensure that they reflect current needs. G-604s: Requests For Additional Services Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards with regard to the use of requests for additional services or change orders on form G-604. Requests for additional professional services or for change orders are made on form G-604. Palm Beach County requires that such requests be reviewed by the School Board. Respondent never attempted to hide requests for architectural services from the School Board or to prevent their review by the School Board. In August of 1986, Mr. Hukill wrote a memorandum to Respondent requesting that directors be allowed to review and approve appropriate requests for additional services in an amount no greater than $20,000 per request and then submit the G-604 to the School Board for subsequent review. Respondent approved the procedure requested by Mr. Hukill. Two weeks later, Mr. Larry Mione, Contract Administrator, erroneously wrote a memorandum to four assistant directors authorizing requests for additional services of up to $20,000 per request without the need to have such requests subsequently reviewed by the School Board. As a result of the erroneous memorandum from Mr. Mione, some G-604s were approved by directors and were not subsequently reviewed by the School Board. This practice was in derogation of the memorandum issued by Respondent. When the discrepancy was discovered, several investigations were ordered by former Superintendent Mills and Deputy Superintendent Daniels. There were approximately 30 people at staff meetings two times a month. All of them review School Board reports. None of them discovered the discrepancy in the conflicting memoranda until after the violations had occurred. Respondent was not charged with wrongdoing or incompetence and was not found incompetent. An independent outside consultant confirmed the need for the G-604s and the procedure authorized by Respondent. Gratuities Former Superintendent Mills established a policy that required all senior administrative personnel, including Respondent, to promote the involvement of members of the business community in the school system. The policy was designed to obtain the aid of business in solving problems such as overcrowding, lack of materials and text books, a lack of funding, and an increasing drop out rate. The policy was a high priority for former Superintendent Mills. Respondent performed the duties required under the policy established by former Superintendent Mills. Respondent entertained members of the business community and was entertained by them. The gratuities accepted by Respondent generally involved free lunches, dinners, and golf outings. Policy Directive Respondent's activities did not violate the policy directive of former Superintendent Mills. Former Superintendent Mills knew of Respondent's activities and approved of those activities. Upper management was encouraged to socialize with members of the business community, including contractors and architects, in an effort to get them involved in solving problems facing the school system. Business Judgment And Impropriety Respondent's business judgment was not adversely affected by his association with vendors of the school system. Respondent's association with such members of the business community did not create the appearance of impropriety. The award of contracts to vendors was the responsibility of Purchasing. Purchasing was under the control of Dr. Boekhoff, the Associate Superintendent of Administration. Ms. Helser was the Director of Purchasing. Respondent did not have the authority to influence decisions made in Purchasing. Incompetence Respondent carried out the policy directive of former Superintendent Mills competently with no adverse affect on his business judgement and without the appearance of impropriety. The business community became actively engaged in solving problems of the school district. Companies such as Motorola, Pratt Whitney, and IBM provided opportunities for speakers to address employees to promote the bond issue. The bond issue was approved by the voters. A program known as "Cities in Schools" was developed as a business partnership to prevent drop out. Funds were raised for programs and materials. Respondent did not improperly promote a particular vendor or product in connection with the business of the School Board. Respondent never violated any administrative directive or established standard of conduct of the Department of Education. Evaluations 128. The Amended Petition For Demotion alleges that Respondent was incompetent in evaluating two employees. Those employees were Mr. Goode and Mr. Hukill. No credible and persuasive evidence was submitted by Petitioners to support their allegations in this regard. Attorney Fees And Costs The parties' request for attorney fees and costs are addressed in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of any of the allegations in the Amended Petition For Demotion, award Respondent back salary with applicable interest for the entire period of his demotion, immediately reinstate Respondent to a salary level comparable to that received as Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations in accordance with Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, dismiss the request to return Respondent to annual contract status under Section 231.35(4)(c), and maintain Respondent on continuing contract. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of July, 1993.
