01-004891 Gilchrist County School Board vs. Dan Taylor Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, June 26, 2002.

Summary: Respondent terminated from employment as teacher due to his insubordination and his use of unprofessional language.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GILCHRIST COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 01 - 4891

)

DAN TAYLOR, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this case on March 7 - 8,

April 8, and May 8, 2002, in Trenton, Florida, before Suzanne F.

Hood, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William H. Andrews, Esquire

Coffman, Coleman, Andrews

& Grogan, P.A.

Post Office Box 40089

Jacksonville, Florida 32203

For Respondent: Dan Taylor, pro se

Post Office Box 657

Bell, Florida 32619 - 0657

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate

Respondent's employment pursuant to Sections 231.36(1)(a) and

231.35(6)(a), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By le tter dated December 7, 2001, Don Thomas, as

Superintendent of Schools of Gilchrist County, Florida, advised

Respondent Dan Taylor (Respondent) that he was suspended with

pay pending a decision by Petitioner Gilchrist County School

Board (Petitioner) regard ing the termination of Respondent's

employment as a teacher at Bell High School. The letter alleged

that Respondent had engaged in misconduct in office, gross

insubordination, and/or disregard for professional

responsibilities.

Superintendent Thomas's D ecember 7, 2001, letter

specifically accused Respondent of engaging in the following

conduct: (a) using profane or obscene language in the

classroom; (b) condoning students' use of profane or obscene

language in the classroom; (c) intimidation and embarra ssment of

students; (d) unprofessional language and conduct towards

co - workers and/or administrators; and (e) continual refusal to

obey direct orders from school board personnel.

Superintendent Thomas also furnished Respondent with a copy

of a forma l Petition dated December 7, 2001. In the Petition,

Superintendent Thomas recommended that Petitioner terminate

Respondent's employment for the same reasons set forth in the

December 7, 2001, letter. The Petition specifically alleged

that Respondent's co nduct included the following:

A. On several occasions, on dates up to

and including October 10, 2001, the use of

profanity in the classroom and condoning

students' use of profanity in violation of

School Board Policy;

B. Acting in such a way as to cause

unnecessary embarrassment and intimidation

of students, including, but not limited to:

i. Singling out a student as a recurring

example of failure;

ii. Telling students that if they don't

want to be at school, then they can drop out

and go on welfare;

iii. Reprimanding a student in front of

the class based upon that student's parent

calling during scheduled class time; and

iv. Criticizing a student for having

misaligned priorities because said student

was leaving class early to attend a sc hool

sponsored event.

C. Unprofessional interaction and

language directed towards fellow teachers,

administrators and other individuals,

including, but not limited to:

i. In October 1999, the embarrassment of

fellow teachers Chris Handy and Brad

Sur rency in front of Respondent's class;

ii. On or about June 5, 2001, statements

made to Vice Principal Robert Rankin in

connection with Respondent's end of the year

evaluation;

iii. On or about October 2001,

unprofessional and harassing statement to a

parent regarding that parent's concern over

her child's performance in the classroom;

and

iv. In October 2001, statements made to

Superintendent Don Thomas regarding

Respondent's opinion of the School Board

procedures and of Principal Buddy Schofield.

D. Disregard for or refusal to follow

direct orders, including, but not limited

to:

i. Failure to approve classroom speakers

as per School Board procedure, after

repeatedly being instructed as to such;

ii. Refusal to follow school policies

suc h as keeping doors locked during class,

keeping doors closed for security reasons,

checking in at the main office, and proper

fire alarm procedures, after repeatedly

being instructed as to required conduct; and

iii. Failure to refrain from using

derogato ry and unprofessional language

towards fellow teachers and/or

administrators after being specifically

reprimanded from previous behavior and

instructed not to repeat inappropriate

conduct.

In the Petition, Superintendent Thomas recommended that

Petition er continue Respondent's salary and benefits until

completion of a formal hearing if Respondent requested same.

Petitioner considered Superintendent Thomas's

recommendation at a meeting on December 11, 2001.

On December 19, 2001, Respondent requested a formal hearing

to contest the charges against him. On December 21, 2001,

Petitioner referred the case to the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

The Parties' Response to Initial Order was filed on

January 7, 2002. A Notice of Hearing dated January 10 , 2002,

scheduled the case for hearing on March 7 - 8, 2002.

On January 25, 2002, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss

the Petition, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite

Statement and a Motion for Continuance of Hearing. Petitioner

filed a response in opposition to these motions on January 30,

2002. An Order dated February 1, 2002, denied the motions.

On February 27, 2002, Respondent filed a letter requesting

the following: (a) suppression of all evidence prior to

Respondent's evaluation dated Ju ne 5, 2001; (b) admission of

exhibits for impeachment purposes; and (c) permission for the

public to make comments during the hearing.

The undersigned conducted a telephone conference with the

parties on February 27, 2002. During the conference, Respond ent

was advised that his requests to suppress evidence or admit

exhibits would be considered during the hearing as each

evidentiary question arose.

The parties could not complete the presentation of their

cases during the hearing on March 7 - 8, 2002. Pur suant to the

agreement of the parties, a Notice of Hearing dated March 11,

2002, scheduled April 8, 2002, for continuation of the

proceeding.

On April 8, 2002, Petitioner presented the testimony of

three out - of - state or out - of - town witnesses. However, b ecause

of a tragic accident in the community, the undersigned granted

another continuance. A Notice of Hearing dated April 10, 2002,

scheduled May 8 - 10, 2002, for continuation of the proceeding.

The hearing was concluded on May 8, 2002.

During the hearin g, Petitioner presented the testimony of

16 witnesses in its case in chief. Petitioner offered

31 exhibits (P1 through P31) that were accepted into evidence.

Petitioner withdrew the offer of an exhibit identified as P32.

Respondent presented the testimony of 14 witnesses in his

case in chief. Respondent offered 24 exhibits (R1, R3 - R21,

R25 - R28) that were accepted into evidence. Respondent's

Exhibits R2, R22 - R24, and R30 were excluded for lack of

authentication. Respondent's Exhibit R29 is her eby admitted

over Petitioner's objection of lack of authentication.

Pursuant to Respondent's request and Petitioner's

agreement, the undersigned permitted members of the general

public to testify, under oath and subject to cross - examination,

for one hour on May 8, 2002. A total of seven witnesses

testified during this time.

The four - volume Transcript of the March 7 - 8, 2002,

proceeding was filed on March 22, 2002. The one - volume

Transcript of the April 8, 2002, proceeding was filed on

April 17, 2002. The one - volume Transcript of the May 8, 2002,

proceeding was filed on May 17, 2002.

On May 21, 2002, Petitioner requested an extension of time

to file proposed recommended orders. On May 21, 2002,

Respondent filed a response in opposition to the request. An

Order dated May 21, 2002, granted an extension of time,

requiring the parties to file their proposed recommended orders

on June 7, 2002.

Respondent filed his Proposed Recommended Order on June 6,

2002, together with a 52 - page composite consisting of l etters

from the general public on Respondent's behalf. Petitioner

filed its Proposed Recommended Order on June 7, 2002.

On June 13, 2002, Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike

exhibits attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and

portions of th e proposed findings of fact in Respondent's

Proposed Recommended Order. On June 14, 2002, Respondent filed

Motions to Accept Proposed Recommended Order as Submitted, and

Reject Petitioner's Recommended Order. Petitioner's motion is

granted and Respondent 's motions are denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent has been employed as a social studies

teacher at Bell High School since 1988. He is employed under a

professional services contract for instructional personnel.

2. At all times material to this pr oceeding, Respondent

has received satisfactory performance appraisals. He was

selected Bell High School Teacher of the Year and Gilchrist

County Teacher of the Year in 1996.

3. Respondent's competency as a teacher is not at issue

here. It is undisputed that Respondent is an effective teacher

except as alleged by Petitioner in this case.

1998/1999 School Year

4. On January 26, 1999, Superintendent Thomas

(Superintendent) wrote a letter recommending Respondent for the

James Madison Fellowship Program. In the letter, the

Superintendent stated that Respondent is an outstanding teacher

who is academically strong in the field of social studies,

American History, and American Government. The letter recounts

Respondent's involvement as the senior class spo nsor and in

developing a cultural exchange program and a junior achievement

program.

5. Respondent was the senior class sponsor in the Fall of

1998. In the first days of school, Respondent prepared and

presented the seniors with a detailed letter conta ining

information, including, but not limited to, officer duties and

responsibilities. The section on officer duties and

responsibilities stated, in part, that the senior sponsor

reserved the right to remove officers for incompetence or

inappropriate beha vior.

6. Subsequently, a certain female student was elected

senior class president. She and Respondent had a personality

conflict from that time forward. Part of the problem involved

the student's initiation of class projects without Respondent's

appr oval, which was contrary to Respondent's procedures outlined

in the letter referenced above.

7. Respondent often found fault with the senior class

president's performance of her duties and her inability to

devote full time to her elected position becaus e of

extracurricular activities. On several occasions, Respondent

made comments to the senior class president that embarrassed her

in front of other students and teachers, embarrassing her to the

point of tears. One time Respondent told the student that he

was not going to chaperon "some damn carwash" and miss his

football game. The student complained to her parents about the

way Respondent treated her.

8. In November 1998, the student and her parents requested

a parent/teacher conference with Respond ent. The assistant

principal also attended the meeting. After Respondent offered

to shake the father's hand, the conversation almost immediately

resulted in a heated discussion between the student's father and

Respondent. During the conversation, Respon dent informed the

parents that he had students in his class that were more

important than their daughter's feelings and that if the

daughter was going to complain to her parents, she was fired

from her position as senior class president.

9. The student' s father then accused Respondent of being

disrespectful of the daughter and objected to Respondent's use

of curse words in front of the daughter. Respondent stated that

he did not consider "damn" a curse word.

10. On November 9, 1998, the parents made a written

complaint about Respondent's conduct before and after the

parent/teacher conference. They requested that the letter be

placed in Respondent's personnel file.

11. Respondent responded with a letter dated November 8,

1998. He claimed that he h ad been summoned to the office for a

meeting with a hostile parent for which he had been completely

unprepared. Respondent denied that he had ever cursed the

student. Respondent stated that he did not ever intend to be

"bushwhacked" again.

12. Respond ent later told the principal that the student

was fired as class president. The principal said that she would

not be removed from her elected office. Respondent then

resigned his position as senior sponsor.

13. In January 1999, Respondent wrote a lett er to the

Superintendent and members of the school board. The letter

outlined a series of events and incidents alleged by Respondent

to represent the inadequacies of the school system. For

example, the letter includes, but is not limited to, the

followin g: (a) allegations of nepotism and incompetent

teachers; (b) allegations that a student broke the nose of

Respondent's daughter after a coach told her to hit the student

if he sexually harassed her again; (c) allegations that a coach

had walked into the g irls locker room while they were changing;

and (d) allegations that the coach had retaliated against

Respondent by falsifying his daughter's grades because

Respondent complained about the locker room incident.

14. Apparently the Superintendent did not r eply in writing

to Respondent's January 1999 letter or require any employee to

write a letter of apology. Nevertheless, competent evidence

indicates that the Superintendent investigated Respondent's

concerns and properly resolved all issues, including the

disciplining of employees where necessary.

15. Respondent was responsible for the establishment of a

World War II (W.W. II) Monument on the grounds of the Gilchrist

County Courthouse in honor of the veterans who fought in that

war. Respondent often in vited veterans to speak in his class

regarding their wartime experiences.

16. Mr. Cody Bennett, a W.W. II veteran, spoke to

Respondent's class approximately 16 times. On one occasion, the

principal questioned whether Mr. Bennett had signed in at the

of fice and whether Respondent had requested pre - approval of

Mr. Bennett's presentation according to the school's policy.

17. Bell High School policy requires a visitor to sign in

at the main office and to be approved by an administrator. The

policy st ates that guest speakers should be pre - approved by an

administrator.

18. Mr. Bennett's class presentation was not pre - approved

by an administrator. Because Mr. Bennett had not signed in at

the office before visiting Respondent's classroom, Respondent

s igned him in as he was leaving the campus.

1999/2000 School Term

19. In the Fall of 1999, Respondent requested another male

teacher to demonstrate something for Respondent's students. The

male teacher agreed and went into Respondent's class.

Responden t then requested his colleague to show the class the

"three point stance" of a football player. After the teacher

bent over with his hands on his knees, Respondent asked the

teacher to spell the word "r - u - n." As the class burst out

laughing, the embarras sed teacher quickly left the class. The

teacher later realized that he had been requested to demonstrate

a homosexual act in front of the class.

20. Respondent made the same request of another male

teacher. After asking his colleague to show the class a

football lineman's position (knees bent ready for a block),

Respondent requested the teacher to spell the word "r - u - n."

Once again the class burst out laughing. The second teacher did

not fully understand the inappropriate joke until he left

Responden t's classroom.

21. By letter dated October 22, 1999, the principal of

Bell High School wrote a letter to Respondent reprimanding him

for the inappropriate sexual implication of Respondent's

behavior. The principal directed Respondent to write letters t o

the teachers, apologizing for his conduct that constituted

extreme misconduct for a teacher. The principal warned

Respondent that such conduct in the future could result in

discharge.

22. The principal noted in his October 22, 1999, letter

that Respo ndent had shown a negative attitude toward the

principal as Respondent's supervisor. The principal stated that

he expected Respondent to show a more positive attitude in the

future. The principal placed the letter of reprimand in

Respondent's personnel f ile.

23. As requested by the principal, Respondent wrote

letters of apology dated October 22, 1999, to the teachers.

Both letters stated Respondent's regrets for causing his co -

workers embarrassment for the incident that he referred to as a

"spontaneou s practical joke."

24. Respondent admits that the practical joke was in bad

taste and demonstrated a lapse of judgment on his part. During

the hearing, the teachers testified that they maintained good

professional and personal relationships with Responde nt despite

the incidents.

25. One day before class in April 2000, one of

Respondent's students told him that she needed to leave his

class early to attend a school softball game. Respondent was

unnecessarily harsh and embarrassed the student when she

r eminded him during class that she had to leave the class. In

chastising the student, Respondent emphasized that the student

did not need softball to graduate but that she did need his

class. The incident was videotaped because a group of students

were ab out to make a class presentation at the time.

26. The student's parent wrote a letter to Respondent,

complaining about Respondent's treatment of the student. The

complaint alleged, among other things, that Respondent had

humiliated the student about he r work and yelled and screamed at

the student for interrupting class when leaving for the game.

27. Respondent replied to the parent's complaint by letter

dated April 28, 2000. Respondent objected to being slandered by

a student. He stated that the st udent's grade for incomplete

work would stand as recorded. Respondent admitted that he did

not like interruptions in his class due to sports events. He

said he would no longer give the student a "mild scolding" to

enhance her performance. According to R espondent's letter, he

felt the parent's letter was hostile, unfounded, and personally

insulting.

28. On May 1, 2000, the principal advised Respondent that

he was transferring the student out of Respondent's class due to

the strained relationship on the p art of the student. The

letter requested that Respondent furnish the principal with the

student's grades and a copy of the videotape of the incident

involving the student's interruption of class.

29. Respondent complied with the principal's request to

provide the principal with the student's grades. There is no

persuasive evidence that Respondent altered the student's grades

before doing so. However, there is competent evidence that

Respondent never complied with the principal's request to

produce the videotape.

2000/2001 School Term

30. Petitioner requires its teachers to maintain a

portfolio containing examples of assignments and student work

samples. One purpose of the portfolio is to assist supervisors

in assessing the teachers' performance at the end of the year.

31. On May 2, 2001, the teachers at Bell High School were

advised that their portfolios would be due on May 18, 2001.

Respondent did not turn in a portfolio by the required date.

32. Toward the end of the 2000/2001 school year, the fire

alarm was activated at Bell High School. The record is unclear

whether the alarm was the result of a planned fire drill or a

false alarm due to recurring problems with the fire alarm

system. In any event, Respondent did not interrupt his class t o

take his students outside as required by school policy.

33. In June 2001, the assistant principal at Bell High

School and Respondent met to review Respondent's end - of - the -

year performance evaluation. Petitioner's signature on the

evaluation would ha ve indicated only that the assistant

principal had reviewed it with Respondent.

34. During the meeting, the assistant principal explained

that Respondent's score would have been higher but for

Respondent's failure to turn in a portfolio and his failure to

take his class outside during a fire alarm during semester

exams. Respondent disagreed with the assistant principal over

his evaluation, in part, because a one - point higher would have

resulted in an increase in Respondent's salary. The assistant

princ ipal responded to Respondent's objections stating, "You

made it easy."

35. Because he did not agree with the evaluation,

Respondent told the assistant principal that he was wasting

Respondent's time and that he did not "want to listen to any

more of thi s." Respondent then requested that he be dismissed

so that he could attend a school board meeting.

36. Respondent started to leave the room. When the

assistant principal requested Respondent to return to discuss

the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Why listen to more of this

bullshit?" Respondent then told the assistant principal that he

was a "spineless lizard." Respondent then wrote "I do not

concur" on the evaluation and without signing his name on the

evaluation, left the room.

37. By letter da ted June 6, 2001, the principal of Bell

High School reprimanded Respondent for his inappropriate,

unprofessional, and insubordinate conduct toward the assistant

principal. The principal reminded Respondent that he previously

had been reprimanded for his a ttitude to the former principal.

The principal stated that such conduct in the future could

result in discharge.

38. The principal's letter of reprimand directed

Respondent to write a letter of apology to the assistant

principal. Before the letter was placed in Respondent's

personnel file, Respondent signed it, including the statement "I

spoke only the truth."

39. On June 6, 2001, Respondent wrote a one - sentence

letter of apology to the assistant principal. The letter simply

stated, "I am sorry."

40. Respondent subsequently wrote a letter dated June 8,

2001, directed to the principal and others, including the

Superintendent, but not including the assistant principal.

Respondent's letter listed a number of incidents in which

Respondent felt that he had been unfairly treated.

41. Respondent's June 8, 2001, letter asserts that a

teacher twice called him a "son of a bitch" without receiving a

reprimand. That incident involved a situation where Respondent

told a teacher that he was not going to en gage in a battle of

wits with an unarmed person. The teacher then called him a "son

of a bitch." Respondent asked his colleague to repeat what she

said in front of witnesses and she did. The principal

subsequently counseled with Respondent and the teach er, giving

them both a verbal reprimand, and telling them not to make such

inappropriate comments to each other in the future.

42. In his June 8, 2001, letter, Respondent requested an

investigation of each of the incidents. Respondent also stated

in th e letter that he was sorry if he hurt the assistant

principal's feelings. The assistant principal never received a

copy of the letter containing Respondent's apology.

43. The Superintendent subsequently performed an

investigation. By letter dated Octo ber 11, 2001, the

Superintendent advised Respondent that the issues raised in his

June 8, 2001, letter had been reviewed. Competent evidence

supports the Superintendent's conclusion in the letter that the

former or current principal at Bell High School ha d properly

addressed each of Respondent's concerns.

2001/2002 School Term

44. On August 6, 2001, the Superintendent signed and

issued to Respondent a Professional Service Contract of

Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools for

the 2 001/2002 school term. The contract states that Petitioner

had determined that Respondent had satisfactorily completed all

requirements of law for such a contract.

45. On August 10, 2001, Respondent signed a form

indicating that he had received a copy o f Bell High School's

Teacher Handbook. The handbook included an emergency plan that

required teachers to keep their classroom doors locked each

period of the day. The policy was created as a safety measure

after the "Columbine" shooting spree.

46. Res pondent generally followed the locked - door policy.

However, occasionally he would leave the door open so that

students could go and come from the restroom without

interrupting the class. Respondent also left his door open for

about 10 or 15 minutes in th e morning because one student from

another school zone arrived late every morning and Respondent

did not want the class interrupted. Despite the inconvenience

to Respondent in having his class interrupted, leaving the door

open was contrary to established policy.

47. Sometime prior to August 15, 2001, Respondent extended

an invitation to Brett Hillman to visit his class. Mr. Hillman

was a former student of Respondent and on leave from active

military service. When Mr. Hillman arrived on campus, he was

arrested for trespassing on school property.

48. Respondent subsequently wrote a letter dated

September 14, 2001, to the county judge assigned to hear the

criminal trespass case against Mr. Hillman. Respondent's letter

explained to the judge that he felt responsible because he had

neglected to have Mr. Hillman's visit to the campus approved

through the office.

49. An assistant state attorney subsequently wrote a

letter dated October 18, 2001, advising the principal that

Mr. Hillman's case was re solved in a deferred prosecution

procedure. The assistant state attorney explained the problems

associated with the prosecution not being aware of Respondent's

invitation for Mr. Hillman to visit Respondent's classroom.

50. One of Respondent's classes in the Fall of 2001 was an

eighth - grade American History class. The students ranged in

ages from 14 to 17. The following incidents occurred with

students in that class.

51. Several times Respondent asked students if they had a

date for the weekend. If the student replied that he or she did

not, Respondent would respond, "Oh, I didn't think so" or

"Ha - Ha, I didn't think so." On one occasion, Respondent

replied, "I figured not because you're so ugly." The regularity

in which Respondent made these st atements and manner in which

the students understood them indicates that the students were

not offended and understood that Respondent was joking.

52. On at least one occasion, Respondent discussed the

difference in Democrats and Republicans with two of his

students. Respondent told the students that Democrats are

asses, not donkeys, and Republicans are elephants. The evidence

is not clear and convincing that Respondent made this comment

intentionally to slander or make a profane statement about

either of the political parties.

53. At times, Respondent used inappropriate language in an

attempt to motivate his students individually. For example,

Respondent called one student who was rather large, "Bigun,"

meaning no disrespect to the student. Howeve r, on at least one

occasion, Respondent told "Bigun" that he was lazy and should

drop out and shovel shit if he did not want to stay in school.

On another occasion, Respondent told "Bigun" to get his fat ass

out of his (Respondent's) class.

54. Respond ent told a bashful student that if he did not

want to participate in class, he could get the hell out of the

class, drop out, and flip burgers. Respondent made this comment

because the student did not want to read out loud in class.

55. Respondent also m ade the following statements to

students: (a) a student should drop out and get a job flipping

burgers so she would not be on welfare for others to support;

(b) a student should get out of school and stop stinking it up

if they did not want to learn; (c) two students were a pain in

the ass because they had not finished a report and did not want

to learn; (d) it was bullshit for a student not to want to

participate in a project; (e) a student should shut up; and (f)

a student should get the hell out of here .

56. Sometimes Respondent made inappropriate comments to

the class at large. Respondent told the class he knew he was an

asshole but the class would have to live with it because he did.

Respondent also said he "could be a nice person, but just don't

piss him off." Respondent would remind his class that if they

dropped out of school and got a job, their boss would yell at

them and tell them to get off their fat ass.

57. Respondent made some of these comments in the context

of a lesson on illiteracy . Nevertheless, Respondent's choice of

words to make his point regarding the importance of an education

in getting and keeping a good job was inappropriate.

58. On two occasions, Respondent told a student to "get

the hell out of this classroom" if the student did not want to

learn. The second time that Respondent made this statement, the

student left the class, spoke to the principal, and spent a

couple of days in the In - School Suspension (ISS) room.

59. When the student returned to Respondent's cla ss,

Respondent learned that the student had spoken to the principal.

Respondent then stated, "All this crap is happening all over

again."

60. On another occasion, Respondent used the word "damn"

in a conversation with a student. During the conversatio n,

Respondent also stated, "[t]his is my class and I'm running the

show here. And if you don't want to go along with it, you can

get out." After making this statement, another student in the

same area of the classroom started laughing and making fun of

t he first student.

61. In discussing the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution, Respondent told his students that they could say

anything because they had a right to freedom of speech. To make

his point, Respondent told the class that they c ould curse each

other or him outside of class and he would not write them up

because of their right to speak freely. However, there is no

clear and convincing evidence that Respondent condoned student

use of curse words in class.

62. On September 11, 2 001, the atmosphere in Respondent's

class was emotionally charged as everyone learned about the

attack on New York City. Later in response to a student's

questions, Respondent used the words "rag heads," referencing

the terrorists responsible for the coll apse of the World Trade

Center towers. Respondent used the same terms in discussing the

terrorists with the principal.

63. In the Fall of 2001, one eighth - grade student

complained to his mother that Respondent was singling him out

and embarrassing him in class. The mother told her son to tough

it out for another week because Respondent might have been

having a bad day.

64. The student later complained again to his mother about

Respondent's embarrassing treatment in the classroom. Based on

the stude nt's repeated complaints, the mother sent a message to

Respondent asking him to call at his convenience.

65. After receiving the message, Respondent immediately

returned the mother's call. During the conversation, Respondent

stated that the student was "not completing his work. . . . I

chewed him out really good yesterday so maybe he'll do something

today." When the mother inquired about the student's

allegations that Respondent was singling the student out in

class and embarrassing him to the point o f tears in front of the

other students, Respondent replied, "Yes, that's true, but I am

a hard teacher and I am not gonna cuddle and baby [the student]

in my classroom. He either does what I say or he fails." When

the mother questioned whether Respondent had told his students

to quit school and stop wasting Respondent's and the school's

time if they did not want to work, Respondent admitted that he

had made such a statement. When the mother asked Respondent not

to embarrass her son in front of the class, Respondent stated,

"[y]ou wouldn't call up your doctor or your lawyer and harass

them, and I don't expect you to do this to me." When the mother

responded that she was just trying to find out what was going

on, noting that Respondent was chewing her out, Respondent

replied, "If there is nothing else, I have a class to teach so

you can make an appointment like everybody else" then hung up

the phone.

66. Respondent appeared to be angry when he returned to

the classroom after speaking with the mother. Re spondent then

requested to see the student's work folder. After making a

derogatory comment about the work in the folder, Respondent told

the student to get it organized and tossed it down on the

student's desk, causing the papers to fall on the floor. T here

is no clear and convincing evidence that the folder hit the

student in the chest, but the incident did cause the student

embarrassment in front of his classmates.

67. The mother subsequently called the assistant principal

to complain about Responde nt's unprofessional behavior.

Specifically, the mother stated that Respondent had hung up on

her and that she wanted her son removed from Respondent's class.

After receiving written complaints from the mother and her son,

both of which contained allegati ons that Respondent used curse

words in class, the assistant principal gave the information to

the principal.

68. Based on the complaints from the mother and her son,

the principal initiated an investigation on October 11, 2001.

He first talked to seve ral students in the class.

69. The students did not know why they were being

questioned. Without naming Respondent, the students were asked

whether any teachers used profanity in the classroom. The

students named Respondent as the only teacher who did so.

70. Each student was talked to separately, sequestered,

and asked to write a statement concerning Respondent's conduct

in the classroom. There is no competent evidence that the

students were unduly influenced or coached regarding the content

of th eir statements. Two students, who did not want to get

involved, were allowed to return to class.

71. The student's initial statements and the mother's

statement were submitted to the Superintendent. Because the

statements warranted further investigati on, the Superintendent

appointed a committee to look into the matter.

72. Respondent sent a memorandum dated October 16, 2001,

to the members of the school board. In the memorandum,

Respondent complained that he was being harassed because

students from his at - risk class were being summoned from class

to provide statements regarding his classroom activities without

his knowledge. According to Respondent, the administration's

current investigation was consistent with past personal attacks

on Respondent. Respondent demanded that Petitioner provide him

with all written statements by students, teachers, and parents

and any notes in the possession of administrators but not

included in his personnel file. He demanded that Petitioner

refer the alleged harassm ent to the Educational Practices

Commission. He insisted that he receive prior notification of

any subsequent investigations.

73. The Superintendent appointed an outside investigator

as soon as he learned that Respondent believed the investigation

was politically motivated and in retribution for Respondent

running against the Superintendent in the most recent election.

74. During the investigation, Petitioner once again pulled

the students who had signed previous statements from class. At

that time , Petitioner requested the students to sign affidavits

that their initial statements were true. The only other times

that Petitioner pulled students from class in relation to this

case was to speak with an investigator or attorney in

preparation for trial . On one occasion a student asked to call

her father. At that point Petitioner's counsel stopped talking

to the student.

75. On or about October 15, 2001, Respondent called the

Superintendent at home one night, demanding copies of all

documents being considered in the investigation. During this

conversation, Respondent told the Superintendent that the

investigation was all a bunch of crap, that the principal at

Bell High School was an idiot, and that he (Respondent) was not

interested in the Superinte ndent's bullshit procedures.

76. When the independent investigation was completed, the

Superintendent reviewed all of the information. He considered

Respondent's years of service, his satisfactory performance

evaluations, and his personnel file, which contained two letters

of reprimand. The Superintendent concluded that termination of

Respondent's employment was appropriate after considering all

aggravating and mitigating factors.

77. By letter dated October 29, 2001, Respondent was

invited to a mee ting to discuss the allegations against him,

which at that point included misconduct in office and/or gross

insubordination. Specifically, the letter stated that

Respondent had: (a) used profane or obscene language;

(b) encouraged or condoned stud ent's use of profanity;

(c) intimidated and embarrassed students; and (d) continued

refusal to obey direct orders from school board personnel. The

Superintendent's letter advised Respondent of his rights under

the Collective Bargaining Agreement, g iving him a five - day

notice of the meeting scheduled for November 5, 2001. The

purpose of the meeting was to allow Respondent an opportunity to

rebut the allegations against him.

78. In a letter dated November 1, 2001, Respondent

objected to the meetin g scheduled for November 5, 2001, because

it did not provide him with a five - day notice from the time that

he received the October 29, 2001, letter. Respondent also

requested that the Superintendent furnish Respondent with copies

of certain documents, inc luding his personnel file, all written

complaints from students, parents, and teachers, and a copy of

Petitioner's policies.

79. Respondent's November 1, 2001, letter stated that the

eighth - grade class had been exploited and that the student's

affidavit s had been solicited under duress. There is no

persuasive evidence to support these allegations.

80. Respondent claimed that the classroom was hostile and

not conducive to effective education. Respondent asserted that

he was not certified to teach the eighth - grade class because it

was not a mainstream class. He requested that he be assigned to

teach another class for that time block.

81. By letter dated November 1, 2001, the Superintendent

rescheduled the meeting for November 7, 2001, to ensure tha t

Respondent was given adequate notice. The Superintendent also

reminded Respondent that he had been furnished a copy of his

entire personnel file and copies of affidavits obtained during

the preliminary investigation. The Superintendent's letter

enclose d a copy of the parent's letter that initiated the

investigation. The letter sets forth the conditions under which

a copy of Petitioner's policies would be made available to

Respondent.

82. Finally, the Superintendent's November 1, 2001, letter

denied Respondent's request for reassignment as premature.

However, that request was subsequently granted.

83. On November 4, 2001, Respondent wrote a letter to the

Superintendent. The letter states, among other things, that a

student had called his home to tell him that his daughter was

threatening other students. Respondent demanded a written

explanation from the Superintendent regarding the persons who

assisted the student in using the office phone to make the call

and insisting that the Superintendent in vestigate the incident.

There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent's daughter ever

threatened her classmates.

84. Respondent attended the meeting with the

Superintendent on November 7, 2001. During the meeting, the

Superintendent granted Responde nt's request for additional time

to respond to the allegations in writing. Respondent made his

written response in a letter dated November 12, 2001.

85. In Respondent's November 12, 2001, letter, Respondent

apologized for using certain inappropriate word s in class but

argued that technically they were not defined as "profanity."

He denied that he had ever disobeyed a direct order but

apologized for offending the Superintendent in a heated

conversation. He denied intimidating and embarrassing students,

c laiming that he only administered warranted admonishments.

Respondent could not recall what he had said to students about

the terrorists on September 11, 2001. He condoned the division

of the word "assassination" into syllables to help the students

learn to spell it. He denied that he called a student fat but

admitted that he may have used the work lazy. Respondent

accused a student of using the word ass instead of donkey to

describe Democrats, stating that he thought nothing of the

student's comment at the time.

86. By letter dated December 7, 2001, the Superintendent

suspended Respondent's employment with pay. The letter stated

that the suspension would be effective until Petitioner's next

board meeting on December 11, 2001.

87. Respondent and a nother school employee ran against the

Superintendent for the elected position of Superintendent of

Gilchrist County Schools in 2000. The Superintendent was

reelected in the first primary. There is no persuasive evidence

that the Superintendent's investi gation and ultimate decision to

recommend suspension of Respondent's employment was politically

motivated.

88. There have been other incidents where the

Superintendent has had to discipline teachers for using

profanity. There has been no situation wher e the Superintendent

has failed to take some disciplinary action against these

teachers. The type of discipline in each incident was decided

on a case - by - case basis, depending on the circumstances.

89. Petitioner has a policy entitled "Profane or Obscene

Language," which states as follows in pertinent part:

Under no condition shall any School Board

employee be permitted to use profane or

obscene language in his or her relationship

with students. Any employee who uses

profane or obscene language while s peaking

to, communicating with or in the presence of

students shall be guilty of misconduct in

office, conduct which seriously reduces

his/her effectiveness as an employee and

failure to comply with a School Board rule.

On every occasion in which a viol ation of this policy has been

brought to the attention of the Superintendent, he has issued

some form of discipline. There is no policy requiring the

Superintendent to inform anyone about the discipline of another

teacher.

90. During the public input p eriod of the hearing, the

general public was given an opportunity to present oral or

written communications. Five individuals spoke on Respondent's

behalf. Some of these witnesses could not believe that

Respondent would engage in the conduct of which he was accused

but conceded that if Respondent had behaved in such

inappropriate conduct, it might change their opinion of him.

91. Two citizens testified on behalf of Petitioner during

the public input period. One witness was a former student of

Responde nt who presented credible testimony that Respondent

called him a "swinging dick" on one occasion and threw the

student's shoe out the window on another occasion because the

student had his foot on his desk.

92. The other public input witness testifying for

Petitioner was the father of a former student. This witness

presented credible evidence that Respondent engaged in degrading

and humiliating behavior toward his family, by insulting them

during a parent/teacher meeting. During this meeting,

Responden t accused the father of not having the ability to

comprehend or deal with the situation and that the father was

not mentally capable of carrying on a conversation with him.

93. Respondent used many posters as visual aides in his

classroom. For example, Respondent had pictures of every

president of the United States up on the walls. One of

Respondent's classes in 1992 hung President Clinton's picture

upside down until the assistant principal required Respondent to

turn the picture right side up in 1998.

94. Respondent routinely placed a Groucho Marx nose on the

picture of the President when the class was studying about that

president. There is no clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent used the nose to disparage one president over

another. Howev er, there is competent evidence that Respondent

did not immediately remove the nose from President Clinton's

picture when the assistant principal requested him to do so.

95. In the Fall of 2001, the principal found one poster on

the outside of Responden t's classroom door. The posted depicted

a crying baby and a picture of the official seal of the United

States Democratic Party, with the caption "Don't be a cry baby."

The principal removed the picture from Respondent's door because

the principal did not believe the poster was politically

neutral.

96. In prior years, the principal twice instructed

Respondent to remove a car tag from his bulletin board. The car

tag showed a person urinating on President Clinton's name. The

second time that Respondent was directed to remove the tag, he

covered the tag with a paper containing the word "censored"

on it.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

97. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. Sec tions 120.569, 120.57(1), and 231.29(3)(d)3.b.,

Florida Statutes.

98. Petitioner has the burden of proving by the

preponderance of the evidence that it has just cause to

terminate Respondent's employment. Dileo v. School Board of

Dade County , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).

99. A school board's contracts with instructional staff

must contain provisions for dismissal only for just cause

pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which states

as follows in part:

Just cause includes, but is not limited to,

misconduct in office, incompetency, gross

insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or

conviction of a crime involving moral

turpitude.

100. Respondent argues that Petitioner violated

Respondent's substantive and procedural due process r ights

during the investigation of this case. The Division of

Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction to rule on

constitutional issues. Department of Revenue of Florida v.

Young American Builders , 330 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

However, t he Division of Administrative Hearings may consider

whether a school district has complied with notice and

procedural requirements for conducting a performance assessment

procedure set forth in Section 231.29, Florida Statutes. The

Court in Witgenstein v. School Board of Leon County , 347 So. 2d

1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), held that "if there exists a disputed

issue of material fact as to whether certain teachers on annual

contract had been appropriately assessed in accordance with the

provisions of section 2 31.29, Florida Statutes , the board was

required to hold a section 120.57(1) hearing to resolve the

disagreement" (emphasis supplied). Martin v. School Board of

Gadsden County , 432 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA (1983)(dissenting

opinion). For similar reasons, the Division of Administrative

Hearings may also determine whether a school board has

inconsistently applied statutes, rules, and/or policies in

derogation of a teacher's rights. Amos v. Department of Health

and Rehabilitative Services, District IV , 444 S o. 2d 43, 47

(Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

101. In this case, Respondent does not argue that

Petitioner failed to follow the procedures set forth in the

Collective Bargaining Agreement. The record here does not

include a copy of that agreement. The only compe tent evidence

in the record indicates that Petitioner complied with all

provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Accordingly,

there is no basis for concluding that Petitioner violated any

procedural or substantive requirements set forth in the

a greement.

102. Respondent does argue that Petitioner failed to

provide him with adequate notice of the charges against him and

failed to follow the procedures set forth in Section 231.29(3),

Florida Statues, which states as follows in relevant part:

(3) The assessment procedure for

instructional personnel shall comply with,

but not be limited to, the following

requirements:

(a) An assessment shall be conducted for

each employee at least once a year. . . .

The assessment criteria must include, bu t

are not limited to, indicators that relate

to the following:

1. Ability to maintain appropriate

discipline.

2. Knowledge of subject matter. . . .

3. Ability to plan and deliver

instruction.

4. Ability to evaluate instructional

needs.

5. Ability to communicate with parents.

6. Other professional competencies,

responsibilities, and requirements as

established by rules of the State Board of

Education and policies of the district

school board.

* * *

(c) The individual responsible for

supervising the employee must assess the

employee's performance. . . . The employee

shall have the right to initiate a written

response to the assessment, and the response

shall become a permanent attachment to his

or her personnel file.

(d) If an e mployee is not performing his

or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the

evaluator shall notify the employee in

writing of such determination. The notice

must describe such unsatisfactory

performance and include notice of the

following procedural require ments:

1. Upon delivery of a notice of

unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator

must confer with the employee, make

recommendations with respect to specific

areas of unsatisfactory performance, and

provide assistance in helping to correct

deficiencies within a prescribed period of

time.

2. The employee shall be placed on

performance probation and governed by the

provisions of the section for 90 calendar

days from receipt of the notice of

unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate

corrective action. . . .

3. Within 14 days after the close of the

90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess

whether the performance deficiencies have

been corrected and forward a recommendation

to the superintendent. Within 14 days after

receiving the evaluator's recom mendation,

the superintendent must notify the employee

in writing whether the performance

deficiencies have been satisfactorily

corrected and whether the superintendent

will recommend that the school board

continue or terminate his or her employment

contra ct. . . .

103. The failure of a school district to follow the

procedures set forth in Section 231.29(3), Florida Statutes,

does not prevent a school board from terminating a teacher's

employment where evidence in an administrative proceeding

establishes just cause based on extraordinary matters that arise

outside the scope of the mandated assessment procedures or where

the record in an administrative proceeding contains a "just

cause" showing why the assessment procedures were ignored. See

Buckner v. Sch ool Board of Glades County, Florida , 718 So. 2d

862, 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("any determination of 'good cause'

by a school board for a rejection of a superintendent's

nomination shall at least contain a 'good cause' showing as to

why the assessment proced ures were ignored").

104. There is no evidence relative to the Superintendent's

failure to give Respondent a probationary period to correct his

deficiencies. Nevertheless, it is apparent from the record that

Respondent was not granted the probationary pe riod as required

by Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes.

105. Under the facts of this case, competent evidence

indicates that Petitioner provided Respondent with all notice

and procedural protections to which he was entitled. Adequate

notice was pro vided in the Superintendent's letters dated

October 29, 2001, and December 7, 2001, and in the Petition

recommending that Petitioner terminate Respondent's employment.

Respondent was given an opportunity to rebut the allegations at

the November 7, 2001, m eeting and in writing. Respondent also

had an opportunity to address Petitioner at one or more board

meetings.

106. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the

Superintendent acted appropriately in suspending the procedures

set forth in Section 231 .29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. As

discussed below, Respondent's conduct was sufficiently egregious

and continuous over many years for Petitioner to conclude that

granting Respondent time to correct his attitude and conduct

during a probationary period would have been to no avail.

107. Respondent received satisfactory performance

evaluations as a teacher up though and including his annual

evaluation for the 2000/2001 school term. Respondent's conduct

subsequent to that evaluation, and apart from his compe tency as

a classroom teacher, forms the basis of the allegations against

him in this case. Allegations relating to Respondent's behavior

occurring prior to the completion of his most recent performance

appraisal are considered here only to show a pattern of such

conduct or in aggravation or mitigation of discipline.

108. Respondent asserts that the Superintendent unfairly

discriminated against him for political reasons and applied the

school district's policies and procedures in an inconsistent

manner. To support these allegations, Respondent presented some

evidence of isolated incidences involving students, parents, and

Respondent's own family that he claims were not properly

investigated. He presented other isolated incidences involving

teachers tha t he states were not properly disciplined.

Respondent's arguments in this regard lack merit for several

reasons.

109. First, there is insufficient evidence to determine

whether Respondent's complaints involving students, parents, his

family, and other teachers were comparable to the situations

where Respondent was investigated and disciplined. Second,

there is competent evidence that the Superintendent properly

investigated every complaint made by Respondent involving

students and parents and appropria tely disciplined teachers when

discipline was required. Finally, there is no evidence to

indicate that persons, other than Respondent, who were involved

in an investigation or required discipline, repeated the

complained of behavior after completion of th e investigation or

imposition of discipline.

110. Respondent also alleges that Petitioner unduly

influenced the students who wrote statements and testified about

his inappropriate behavior. Competent evidence refutes this

allegation.

111. Responden t's allegations that Petitioner improperly

allowed unauthorized persons to view his personnel file or

improperly maintained his file are also unfounded. There is no

competent evidence that Petitioner violated the provisions of

Section 231.291, Florida Sta tutes, relating to personnel files

of school board employees. To the extent that such a violation

may have occurred, Respondent presented no evidence showing how

the violation was relevant to this proceeding.

112. Turning to the merits of the case, te achers are

charged by Sections 231.09 and 231.2615, Florida Statutes, with

providing leadership and maintaining effectiveness as teachers.

By virtue of their leadership capacity, teachers are

traditionally held to a higher moral standard in the community.

See Adams v. State Professional Practices Council , 406 So. 2d

1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

113. Rule 6B - 1.001, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth

the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and

provides as follows in relevant part:

( 1) The educator values the worth and

dignity of every person . . . .

* * *

(3) Aware of the importance of

maintaining the respect and confidence of

one's colleagues, of students, of parents,

and of other members of the community, the

educator str ives to achieve and sustain the

highest degree of ethical conduct.

114. Rule 6B - 1.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets

forth the Principals for the Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida and provides as follows in

relevant part:

3. Obligation to the student requires

that the individual:

(a) shall make reasonable effort to

protect the student from conditions harmful

to learning and/or to the student's mental

or physical health and/or safety.

* * *

(e) shall not intent ionally expose a

student to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement.

* * *

(5) Obligation to the profession requires

that the individual:

* * *

(d) shall not engage in harassment or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably

interfer es with an individual's performance

of professional or work responsibilities or

with the orderly processes of education or

which creates a hostile, intimating,

abusive, offensive, or oppressive

environment; and further, shall make

reasonable effort to assu re that the each

individual is protected from such harassment

or discrimination.

(e) Shall not make malicious or

intentionally false statement about a

colleague.

115. Misconduct in office is defined in Rule 6B - 4.009(3),

Florida Administrative Cod e, as follows:

(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a

violation of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession as adopted in Rule

6B - 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

6B - 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to

impair the individual's effectiveness in the

school system.

116. Gross insubordination is defined in Rule 6B - 4.009(4),

Florida Administrative Code, as follows:

(4) Gross insubordination or willful

n eglect of duties is defined as a constant

or continuing intentional refusal to obey a

direct order, reasonable in nature, and

given by and with proper authority.

117. The greater weight of the evidence shows that

Respondent engaged in personal conduct, which constitutes

misconduct in office because it was serious as to impair his

effectiveness as a teacher. Specifically, in the Fall of 2001,

Respondent repeatedly used profane and obscene language in the

classroom and condoned the use of such language by students.

These actions violated Petitioner's policy regarding profane and

obscene language and Rules 6B - 1.001(1), 6B - 1.001(3),

6B - 1.006(3)(a), and 6B - 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.

118. A preponderance of the evidence shows that, in the

Fall of 2001, Respondent repeatedly humiliated and embarrassed

students, singling them out for ridicule in front of their

classmates, and creating a hostile and abusive learning

environment. Respondent's conduct in this regard constituted

miscondu ct in office and violated Rules 6B - 1.001(1),

6B - 1.006(3)(a), and 6B - 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.

119. The greater weight of the evidence shows that, in the

Fall of 2001, Respondent used unprofessional language, which was

profane a nd/or obscene, towards the Superintendent. This

abusive language, and Respondent's hostile and aggressive

conduct towards his superior, constitutes misconduct in office

in violation of Rules 6B - 1.001(1), 6B - 1.001(3), 6B - 1.006(5)(d),

and 6B - 1.006(5)(e), Fl orida Administrative Code.

120. In light of Respondent's previous written and verbal

reprimands, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that

Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination. In the Fall of

2001, Respondent used profane and abusive la nguage and

demonstrated an unprofessional attitude towards his superior,

disobeying prior direct orders to refrain from such language and

conduct, in violation of Rules 6B - 1.001(1), 6B - 1.001(3),

6B - 1.006(5)(d), and 6B - 1.006(5)(e), Florida Administrati ve Code.

121. Respondent's actions in the Fall of 2001 had a

detrimental effect upon students, set a poor example and harmed

the professional work environment at Bell High School. The

conduct ran counter to Petitioner's policies and procedures and

did not project the image of professionalism and confidence to

the school community that Petitioner strives to direct and

expects of its instructional employees. Respondent's conduct in

the Fall of 2001, without more, creates just cause for

Petitioner to dis charge Respondent.

122. In determining whether discharge is the appropriate

result in this case, one must consider aggravating and

mitigating circumstances. The mitigating factors are:

(a) Respondent is and has been a competent teacher for many

years; (b) some students, parents, and members of the community

hold Respondent in high regard in the community as a teacher;

and (c) Respondent has been actively involved in establishment

of a W.W. II Veteran's Memorial and other extracurricular and/or

c ommunity projects.

123. On the other hand, a preponderance of the evidence

demonstrated the following aggravating factors:

(a) Respondent's history of not being able to control his temper

in parent/teacher conferences; (b) Respondent's his tory of

singling students out and/or embarrassing them in class; (c)

Respondent's repeated failure to show proper respect for

colleagues; and (d) Respondent's failure to follow Petitioner's

policies regarding guest speakers, fire alarms, portfolios, and

t he locking doors of doors for security purposes.

124. Respondent's failure to control his temper and his

tongue over time has created embarrassing situations that were

harmful to students. Respondent's malicious verbal attacks on

his colleagues show a pattern of lack of respect for his

co - workers. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that

Petitioner has just cause and should discharge Respondent for

misconduct in office and gross insubordination in the Fall of

2001.

RECOMMENDATION

Base d on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent

from his employment as a teacher in the Gilchrist County School

System.

DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

SUZANNE F. HOOD

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 26th day of June, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Honorable Charlie Crist

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

The Capitol, Pl aza Level 08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Don Thomas, Superintendent

Gilchrist County School Board

310 Northwest 11th Avenue

Trenton, Florida 32693 - 3804

William H. Andrews, Esquire

Coffman, Coleman, Andrews

& Grogan, P.A.

Post Office Box 40089

Ja cksonville, Florida 32203

Dan Taylor

Post Office Box 657

Bell, Florida 32619 - 0657

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.