02-003449 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Stephen J. Starr, Jr. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, March 31, 2003.

Summary: Teacher refused to follow discipline plan at school, refused to complete perscriptive activities and openly defied principal and refused to obey his directives. Teacher committed gross insubordination and misconduct; employment should be terminated.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 3449

)

STEPHEN J. STARR, JR. )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

on Novem ber 18 and 19, 2002, in Miami, Florida, before Patricia

Hart Malono, a duly - designated Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Denise Wallace, Esquire

Miami - Dade County Pu blic Schools

1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue

Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Stephen J. Starr, Jr., pro se

1900 South Treasure Drive, #1 - H

North Bay Village, Florida 33141

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in

the letter from the Petitioner dated August 22, 2002, and in the

Notice of Specific Charges filed October 12, 2002, and, if so,

whether dismissal from employment is the appropriate penalty.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In a letter dated August 22, 2002, the Miami - Dade County

School Board ("School Board") notified Stephen J. Starr, Jr.,

that the School Board had taken action at its August 21, 2002,

meeting to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings

against him for gross insubordination, misconduct in office, and

violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21 , Responsibilities

and Duties. Mr. Starr timely requested an administrative

he aring, and the School Board forwarded the matter to the

Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an

administrative law judge.

On October 21, 2002, the School Board filed its Notice of

Specific Charges, in which it included 26 paragraphs of fac tual

allegations to support its contention that Mr. Starr's

employment with the School Board should be terminated. The

School Board included three counts in the Notice of Specific

Charges to support its contention that it has just cause to

terminate Mr. S tarr's employment: In Count I of the Notice of

Specific Charges, the School Board incorporated all

26 paragraphs of factual allegations and charged that

Mr. Starr's conduct, as described in these paragraphs,

constituted a violation of School Board Rule 6G x13 - 4A - 1.21 ; in

Count II, the School Board incorporated all 26 paragraphs of

factual allegations and charged that Mr. Starr's conduct

constituted gross insubordination; and, in Count III, the School

Board incorporated all 26 paragraphs of factual allegatio ns and

charged that Mr. Starr's conduct constituted misconduct in

office.

At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of

Alvin Brennan, Ph.D., Principal of Lake Stevens Middle School

("Lake Stevens"); Arnold Montgomery, Assistant Principal of Lake

Stevens; and Barbara Moss, District Director of the School

Board's Office of Professional Standards. Petitioner's Exhibits

1, 2, 5 through 7, 9, and 12 were offered and received into

evidence. Mr. Starr testified in his own behalf, and

Respondent's Exhibit 1 was offered and received into evidence.

At the School Board's request, official recognition was taken of

Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (2002), 1 and Rules 6B - 4.009 and

6B - 1.001, Florida Administrative Code.

The two - volume transcript of the pro ceedings was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 20, 2003, and

the School Board timely filed proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Mr. Starr did not file a post - hearing

proposal.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the oral an d documentary evidence presented at the

final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the

following findings of fact are made:

1. 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;

Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).

2. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Starr was

employed by the School Board as a social studies teacher at Lake

Stevens. After receiving a degree in political science from

Loyola University, Mr. Starr enrolled in the social studies

education program at Florida International University.

Mr. Starr completed this program in the summer of 1998 and

applied for a teaching position with the Miami - Dade County

public school system. He was hired as a substitute teacher and

placed in a substitute teacher pool so that he worked at various

schools, and he also taught in the Adult Education Program at

No rth Miami Senior High School.

3. Dr. Alvin Brennan became the principal of Lake Stevens

in January 2000. In or around November 2000, he hired Mr. Starr

to teach social studies at Lake Stevens.

4. At the times material to this proceeding, Arnold

Montgome ry was the assistant principal at Lake Stevens who,

among other duties, supervised the social studies program,

observed teachers' classroom performance, and acted as a

resource person regarding curriculum, instructional, and

academic issues at the school.

5. In a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post -

Observation Report dated January 18, 2001, Dina Carretta, an

assistant principal at Lake Stevens, rated Mr. Starr acceptable

in all six categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development

System eval uation instrument.

Mr. Starr's failure to keep a standard grade book.

6. In early November 2001, Dr. Brennan learned that the

State Department of Education intended to include Lake Stevens

in a Full - Time Equivalency audit. The grade books of the

teacher s at Lake Stevens were to be reviewed as part of the

audit to ensure that Lake Stevens accurately reported its full -

time equivalents to the district so that the State could

ultimately determine the accuracy of the number of full - time

equivalents reported b y the various school districts to the

State.

7. On or about November 2, 2001, Dr. Brennan instructed

all of the teachers at the school to turn over their grade books

to him for review so that he could prepare for the audit. It is

one of the responsibilit ies of a teacher to maintain a grade

book that contains the attendance record and grades for each

student in his or her classes.

8. Mr. Starr did not submit a grade book to Dr. Brennan in

response to this instruction, and Dr. Brennan called Mr. Starr

to h is office and directed him to turn over his grade book.

Mr. Starr told Dr. Brennan that he was experimenting with a

computerized grade book and that only he could understand it. 2

Dr. Brennan explained to Mr. Starr that each teacher is required

to keep co mplete and accurate grade books because funding is

dependent on the number of students attending a school and

because grade books are official documents that must be produced

to parents who ask about their children's grades and attendance.

Mr. Starr still did not provide his grade book to Dr. Brennan as

instructed.

9. During roughly this same timeframe, Mr. Montgomery

began preparations for an observation of Mr. Starr's classroom

performance in accordance with the Professional Assessment and

Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES"), which is a tool for

evaluating teachers that came into use in the Miami - Dade County

public school system in or about 1999. Mr. Montgomery intended

to conduct an observation of Mr. Starr's classroom in late

November 2001, and, in accordance with procedure, Mr. Montgomery

scheduled a pre - observation conference with Mr. Starr for

November 19, 2001.

10. In the notice of the pre - observation conference,

Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Starr to bring his grade book, lesson

plans, and three student folders to the conference. Mr. Starr

did not attend the pre - observation conference and did not

provide the materials that Mr. Montgomery had requested.

11. Mr. Montgomery followed up with Mr. Starr and asked

him again to provide the requested do cuments; Mr. Starr

responded that he would provide the documents, including the

grade book, at a later time. Mr. Starr did not provide his

grade book to Mr. Montgomery prior to or at the November 26,

2001, observation.

12. Dr. Brennan held a Conference - f or - the - Record with

Mr. Starr on December 7, 2001, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to

comply with Dr. Brennan's directive to provide him with a proper

grade book; Ms. Carretta was also in attendance. It is noted in

the Summary of the Conference - for - the - Reco rd, dated December 13,

2001, that Mr. Starr was asked whether the United Teachers of

Dade represented him, and he responded that he was not a member

of the union.

13. In the Summary of the Conference - for - the - Record,

Dr. Brennan recorded that the purpose o f the conference was to

discuss Mr. Starr's non - compliance with School Board Rule 6Gx13 -

4 - 1.21 and with administrative directives requiring that he

properly maintain a grade book. Dr. Brennan explained to

Mr. Starr during the conference the importance of maintaining a

grade book to record daily attendance and grades for his

students and advised him that one of his responsibilities as a

teacher was to maintain a proper grade book.

14. At the December 7, 2001, Conference - for - the - Record,

Dr. Brennan advised Mr. Starr that, although there were

authorized computer grade book programs, the program with which

Mr. Starr was experimenting was not authorized. Dr. Brennan

directed Mr. Starr not to use any computerized or computer -

assisted grade books without first o btaining Dr. Brennan's

approval and instructed him to ask Arnold Montgomery, an

assistant principal at Lake Stevens, to help him set up and

maintain a standard grade book.

15. Mr. Starr did not believe that he was required to get

Dr. Brennan's approval fo r the use of a computer grade book

"right off the bat." 3 In his view, the rules provided that

Dr. Brennan had the authority to demand that he not use a

computer grade book but that the School Board allowed computer

grade books in general.

16. Mr. Starr c ontinued to use his computerized "grade

book," and he did not provide a grade book to Dr. Brennan or to

Mr. Montgomery during the 2001 - 2002 school year, despite being

instructed to do so on numerous occasions. 4 At some point,

Mr. Starr provided Dr. Brenna n with sheets of paper that

Mr. Starr identified as his computerized grade book, but

Dr. Brennan was unable to understand the documents that

Mr. Starr presented to him.

Mr. Starr's failure to adhere to Lake Stevens' discipline plan.

17. Currently, and at the times pertinent to this

proceeding, Lake Stevens has in place a discipline plan

developed by the school's Discipline Committee pursuant to which

teachers are required to go through five steps before taking the

sixth step of requesting administrative a ction with respect to

students who presented discipline problems. This six - step

discipline plan has the approval of the teachers and

administrators at Lake Stevens.

18. Pursuant to the plan, the teachers at Lake Stevens are

grouped into teams of six teac hers, who work in collaboration in

carrying out each step of the six - step discipline plan. It is

Dr. Brennan's responsibility to ensure that the six - step

discipline plan is implemented.

19. The main elements of the six - step discipline plan are

as follows : When a student misbehaves in a teacher's classroom,

the teacher first initiates a discussion about the student at

the daily team meeting to determine whether any other teachers

on the team have a problem with that student. If necessary, the

team moves to the second step, which requires that the team

conduct a conference with the parent(s) of the student. If the

problem still is not resolved, the third step is initiated and

the student is required to confer with a school counselor. The

fourth step in t he six - step plan requires that the student meet

with both the school counselor and the team. The fifth step is

a parent/student conference with the school counselor and the

team. If the problem has not been resolved after these five

steps have been compl eted, the team then moves to the sixth step

and the teacher is permitted to complete a referral sending the

student to a school administrator for intervention. 5

20. The referral must be routed through the team leader.

Once the team leader approves a refe rral, the team leader meets

with the administrator for the particular grade - level, and they

decide the appropriate punishment for the student. If a teacher

refers a student for administrative action before the first five

steps in the plan are completed, t he team leader sends the

referral back to the teacher with instructions to follow the

appropriate procedure.

21. According to Mr. Starr, there was chaos in his

classroom by December 2001. Prior to this time, he had spoken

with Dr. Brennan about the probl ems he was having maintaining

discipline, and Dr. Brennan told him he needed to learn to

handle the problems himself. Dr. Brennan insisted that

Mr. Starr strictly adhere to the six - step discipline plan, and

Dr. Brennan refused to provide direct assistance to Mr. Starr

even though Mr. Starr repeatedly requested his assistance. In

Dr. Brennan's view, it is the teacher's responsibility to manage

the learning environment, and it is not the responsibility of

the principal to help the teachers maintain discipli ne in their

classrooms.

22. To this end, Dr. Brennan encouraged Mr. Starr to work

with the team of teachers on his grade level on a daily basis

for assistance in managing his classroom. In addition,

Dr. Brennan directed Mr. Starr to discuss techniques fo r

classroom management with the members of a Professional Growth

Team that was appointed in December 2001 to assist Mr. Starr and

with Mr. Montgomery, who was available to assist Mr. Starr.

23. Mr. Starr resisted all efforts to assist him in

managing his classroom. Mr. Starr absolutely refused to adhere

to the six - step discipline plan during the entire 2001 - 2002

school year and repeatedly prepared referrals and sent students

to the administrative offices without having completed even the

first step of the six - step plan. Mr. Starr did not attend team

meetings and isolated himself from the team. Because of his

refusal to work with his team, it was very difficult for anyone

to help Mr. Starr deal with students that he considered

disruptive and defiant.

24. Mr. Starr refused to adhere to the six - step discipline

plan because he disagrees with the philosophy of the plan; he

believes that misbehavior must be addressed with immediate

consequences and that, because it took days to complete the five

steps required before a referral could be made, the plan

reinforced his students' perceptions that there were no

consequences to defiance and disruption in his classroom. 6

25. Mr. Montgomery had numerous conferences with Mr. Starr

about his failure to follow the six - st ep discipline plan,

specifically about his not following the first five steps in the

plan, but, rather, going directly to the sixth step and

referring misbehaving students to Dr. Brennan's office.

Mr. Starr told Mr. Montgomery periodically throughout the 2001 -

2002 school year that the six - step discipline plan did not work

for him and that he was not going to follow the plan.

26. Mr. Starr described the conditions in his classroom in

a memorandum to Dr. Brennan dated March 5, 2002:

The situation in my clas sroom has become

dangerous and untenable due to rampant

student defiance. Students no longer obey

what the instructor directs them to do, and

they are no longer in compliance with any

class rules. Lesson objectives are not

being met due to the chaos, and there is a

potential that student[s] may be injured.

Mr. Starr referred in his memorandum to a number of "management

referrals" that he contended had not been processed by the

administration, and he attributed the chaos in his classroom to

"administrativ e neglect." Mr. Starr concludes his memorandum by

stating: "The weakness in my management is due to lack of

administrative support because of inadequate follow - up."

Mr. Starr sent copies of this memorandum to the district office,

the regional superinten dent and the district superintendent of

schools. 7

27. Dr. Brennan responded to Mr. Starr's memorandum by

discussing the situation in Mr. Starr's classroom with the

administrator handling discipline matters for the sixth grade; 8

during the discussion, Dr. Brennan "question[ed] the validity of

the statements that Mr. Starr was making in his letter." 9

Dr. Brennan then referred Mr. Starr to the leader of his team

and to the grade - level administrator for the sixth grade for a

review of the six - step discipline plan. Dr. Brennan also

instructed Mr. Starr to work with his team on discipline

problems.

28. Dr. Brennan found it very difficult to assist

Mr. Starr, however, because, in Dr. Brennan's view, Mr. Starr

resisted all of the administration's efforts to help him with

the discipline problems in his classroom and refused to

implement the six - step discipline plan. In addition, many of

the students identified by Mr. Starr as discipline problems were

not causing problems for any of the other teachers on

Mr. Starr 's team.

Mr. Starr's refusal to complete prescriptive activities.

29. Mr. Starr was in his second year of an annual contract

during the 2001 - 2002 school year and was, therefore, considered

a new teacher subject to two formal PACES observations each

year .

30. Whenever a PACES observation is scheduled, the teacher

is notified at least a week in advance, and a pre - observation

conference is scheduled. The teacher is told to bring to the

pre - observation conference his or her grade book, lesson plans,

and ot her materials for review so that everything will be in

order at the time of the observation, and the teacher and the

administrator who is to conduct the observation discuss the

observation procedures.

31. Currently, and at the times material to this

proce eding, new teachers at Lake Stevens are given a "free"

observation, if necessary, in addition to the two required

formal observations. The purpose of the free observation is to

allow the administrator observing the teacher to identify the

teacher's defici encies, to discuss the deficiencies with the

teacher, and to provide the teacher with assistance to remedy

the deficiencies prior to the formal observation. A teacher who

has deficiencies in the first observation is given a week or

more to work on correct ing any deficiencies before an official

observation is conducted.

32. Mr. Montgomery scheduled a PACES observation of

Mr. Starr's classroom performance for November 26, 2001. In

preparation for this observation, Mr. Montgomery scheduled a

pre - observation conference for November 19, 2002, and he

directed Mr. Starr to bring with him to the meeting his grade

book, his lesson plans, and three student folders. As noted

above in paragraph 10, Mr. Starr did not attend the conference,

and he did not produce any of the materials requested by

Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery, therefore, did not have an

opportunity to review these items prior to the observation.

33. Mr. Montgomery determined during the PACES observation

on November 26, 2001, that Mr. Starr's classro om performance was

deficient in a number of the components of the PACES evaluation

instrument. Mr. Montgomery attributed these deficiencies in

large part to Mr. Starr's failure to have a lesson plan prepared

for his classes and to his inability to manage his classroom.

34. Had Mr. Starr's classroom performance been acceptable

during the November 26, 2001, observation, that observation

would have been considered his formal PACES observation.

Mr. Starr's classroom performance had serious deficiencies,

howe ver, and the November 26, 2001, observation was treated as a

"free" observation.

35. Mr. Montgomery met with Mr. Starr after the

November 26, 2001, observation, discussed the deficiencies in

his classroom performance, and instructed him to provide the

gra de book, lesson plans, and student folders that

Mr. Montgomery had previously requested before the formal PACES

observation of his classroom performance.

36. Mr. Montgomery conducted a formal observation of

Mr. Starr's classroom performance on December 3, 2001, after

having given Mr. Starr one week's notice. Mr. Starr again

failed to provide his grade book, lesson plans, or student

folders, and Mr. Montgomery found his classroom performance

deficient in five out of the seven PACES domains:

Mr. Montgomery found that Mr. Starr was deficient in planning

for teaching and learning; managing the learning environment;

enabling thinking; classroom - based assessment of learning; and

professional responsibility. 10

37. On or about December 13, 2001, Mr. Montgomery an d

Dr. Brennan conferred with Mr. Starr to discuss his December 3,

2001, observation. Mr. Starr was provided with a copy of the

observation and was told to work with a Professional Growth Team

for assistance in correcting the deficiencies in his classroom

performance. He was also directed to work with a buddy, a peer,

and a master teacher to learn how to set up a grade book and to

learn what must be included in a lesson plan.

38. A Professional Growth Team consists of two teachers,

one selected by the tea cher and one selected by Dr. Brennan.

Mr. Starr selected Ms. Davis and Dr. Brennan selected

Ms. Scriven - Husband as members of the Professional Growth Team. 11

Dr. Brennan gave Ms. Davis and Ms. Scriven - Husband a general

outline of Mr. Starr's deficiencies and advised them of the

areas in which they were to work with Mr. Starr. The work of

the Professional Growth Team was done under the supervision of

Dr. Brennan, and he was advised that Mr. Starr was not

completing the tasks given him by the Professional G rowth Team.

39. One of the items Mr. Starr was to produce for the

Professional Growth Team was a long - range plan. Dr. Brennan

wanted Mr. Starr to produce a long - range plan so the

Professional Growth Team could determine whether he knew how to

plan a less on. Dr. Brennan was advised that Mr. Starr did not

provide such a plan to the Professional Growth Team. When

Dr. Brennan questioned Mr. Starr about the plan, Mr. Starr

replied that he intended to prepare it over the Christmas

holidays. Dr. Brennan told him to provide the plan by the end

of the day; Mr. Starr did not do so.

40. Mr. Montgomery scheduled an informal observation of

Mr. Starr's classroom performance on or about February 8, 2002.

Mr. Montgomery had spoken periodically with members of

Mr. Sta rr's Professional Growth Team between the December 3,

2001, and February 8, 2002, observations and had been advised

that Mr. Starr had not provided the Professional Growth Team

with his grade book, lesson plans, or student folders and that

Mr. Starr had no t sought the team's assistance in correcting the

deficiencies identified in the December 3, 2001, observation.

41. Mr. Montgomery again instructed Mr. Starr to provide

his grade book, lesson plans, and student folders prior to the

February 2002 observatio n. In response to this instruction,

Mr. Starr advised Mr. Montgomery that he used an electronic

grade book and that his lesson plans were on his Palm Pilot

because he felt that he had more flexibility using these tools

than trying to work with written doc uments. Mr. Montgomery told

Mr. Starr to provide hard copies of the lesson plans and the

grade book, as required by the Miami - Dade County public school

system procedures; Mr. Starr did not provide the requested

documents to Mr. Montgomery.

42. Mr. Montgo mery observed numerous deficiencies in

Mr. Starr's classroom performance during the February 8, 2002,

observation, and Mr. Montgomery discussed the results of the

observation with Dr. Brennan.

43. Mr. Montgomery conducted a formal observation of

Mr. Starr 's classroom performance on March 1, 2002. Again,

Mr. Montgomery noted a number of deficiencies in Mr. Starr's

classroom performance, specifically in seven components of

Domain I, Planning for Teaching and Learning; eight components

of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; two components

of Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and one component of Domain VI,

Classroom - Based Assessment of Learning.

44. Dr. Brennan discussed the results of the March 1,

2002, observation with Carnel White, the Region Superin tendent

for Lake Stevens, who instructed Dr. Brennan to proceed to

develop a Professional Improvement Plan. 12 Dr. Brennan was, by

this time, certain that Mr. Starr was not going to correct the

deficiencies in his classroom performance, since the

deficienci es noted in the March 1, 2002, observation were the

same deficiencies noted in previous observations.

45. Mr. Starr met with Dr. Brennan and Mr. Montgomery in a

Conference - for - the - Record on March 15, 2002, to discuss the

results of the March 1, 2002, obse rvation. 13 An extensive

Professional Improvement Plan was developed for Mr. Starr during

the Conference - for - the - Record: Mr. Starr was required to

complete course work for Domains I, II, V, and VI; he was

required to discuss with the Professional Growth Te am

17 assigned readings and to submit written summaries of these

readings to Dr. Brennan for his approval; and he was required to

discuss with Dr. Brennan and identify for him techniques and

strategies for 14 components in which he was deficient, to apply

the new techniques and strategies, and to maintain and submit to

Dr. Brennan logs charting the successes and failures in his

application of these new classroom techniques and strategies.

All of the courses and plan activities in the Professional

Improveme nt Plan were to be completed by April 9, 2002. 14

46. Mr. Starr was advised at the March 15, 2002,

Conference - for - the - Record that he should speak to Mr. Montgomery

if he had any concerns about the Professional Improvement Plan.

47. Mr. Starr did not comple te the plan activities set

forth in the Professional Improvement Plan by the April 9, 2002,

deadline. On April 9, 2002, Dr. Brennan called Mr. Starr to the

office to ask him to submit the written plan activities required

by the Professional Improvement Pl an; although Mr. Starr

presented himself at the main office, he refused to go into

Dr. Brennan's office to meet with him. According to

Dr. Brennan, Mr. Starr also advised him at this time that he did

not intend to comply with any further administrative di rectives.

48. On April 10, 2001, after conferring with Dr. Brennan,

Mr. White placed Mr. Starr in an alternate work assignment at

his residence, pending a district - level Conference - for - the -

Record requested by Mr. White. The district - level Conference -

for - the - Record was held at the Office of Professional

Responsibilities on April 12, 2002, to discuss Mr. Starr's

failure to comply with the Professional Improvement Plan; his

insubordination; his violation of Rule 6B - 1.001, Florida

Administrative Code; and his future employment status with the

School Board.

49. The April 12, 2002, Conference - for - the - Record was

conducted by Barbara Moss, District Director of the Office of

Professional Standards, and Ms. Moss prepared a Summary of the

Conference - for - the - Record d ated May 3, 2002. In the summary,

Ms. Moss noted that, prior to the conference, Mr. Starr asked to

bring an attorney to the Conference - for - the - Record and to tape

the proceedings and that he was told that attorneys and tape

recordings were not permitted. Ms. Moss also noted that

Mr. Starr accused Dr. Brennan of harassing him and that she

discussed with Mr. Starr the procedure for reporting harassment

and gave him an Equal Employment Opportunity packet. Ms. Moss

further noted that Mr. Starr stated that he wanted to file a

grievance against Dr. Brennan and that she explained the

procedure for filing a grievance and gave him a copy of the

Contract between the Miami - Dade County Public Schools and the

United Teachers of Dade, which contained the formal union

gr ievance procedure. Mr. Starr was not, however, a union member

and did not have access to this procedure.

50. Mr. Starr's failure to comply with the plan activities

specified in the Professional Improvement Plan dated March 15,

2002, was discussed at the April 12, 2002, Conference - for - the -

Record. It is reported in the summary that Mr. Starr stated

that he believed the evaluation process was designed to make him

fail and that there was a conspiracy against him.

51. According to the Summary of the Conferen ce - for - the -

Record, Mr. Starr confirmed during the conference that he had

told Dr. Brennan that he wouldn’t comply with Dr. Brennan's

directives, explaining that he defied Dr. Brennan because

Mr. Starr perceived that Dr. Brennan was abusive and belligerent

in his dealings with him. The summary also reflects that

Mr. Starr's failure to provide Dr. Brennan with a student grade

book and with attendance records was specifically discussed at

the Conference - for - the - Record.

52. The summary of the April 12, 2002, Conference - for - the -

Record reflects that Mr. Starr was issued the following

directives: He was directed to comply with all administrative

directives; to complete all Professional Improvement Plan

activities and to submit them to Dr. Brennan by the end of t he

workday on April 15, 2002; to maintain a grade book, a record of

students' attendance, and lesson plans; and to implement Lake

Stevens' discipline plan to effect classroom management.

Mr. Starr was also told to submit to Dr. Brennan by April 15,

2002, an updated grade book and student attendance records.

Finally, Mr. Starr was advised that he could return to Lake

Stevens and resume his teaching duties on April 15, 2002.

53. Mr. Starr indicated at the conclusion of the April 12,

2002, Conference - for - th e - Record that he would comply with the

directives.

54. Finally, Mr. Starr requested at the April 12, 2002,

district - level Conference - for - the - Record that Mr. White order

Dr. Brennan to relieve him of the sixth period class, stating,

according to the summar y, that he was not capable of teaching

six periods. Mr. White instructed Dr. Brennan to assign the

sixth period to another teacher, which Dr. Brennan did. 15

55. When Dr. Brennan did not receive Mr. Starr's completed

Professional Improvement Plan activitie s by April 15, 2002, he

extended the deadline to April 16, 2002. Mr. Starr did not

provide the materials on April 16, 2002, and Dr. Brennan

summoned Mr. Starr to his office. 16

56. According to Dr. Brennan, Mr. Starr was disruptive

when he arrived at the a dministrative offices in response to

Dr. Brennan's summons on April 16, 2002. Mr. Starr announced in

the main office, in front of several members of the school

staff, that he was not going into Dr. Brennan's office, and he

told Dr. Brennan not to summon h im to Dr. Brennan's office

again. 17

57. Dr. Brennan telephoned Ms. Moss on April 16, 2002,

after this incident, and advised her that Mr. Starr "had been

blatant in his insubordination" and that either Mr. Starr would

have to leave the Lake Stevens campus o r he, Dr. Brennan, would

leave. 18

58. On April 17, 2002, Dr. Brennan conducted a PACES

observation of Mr. Starr for his annual evaluation. The

Observation Form for Annual Evaluation indicates that

Dr. Brennan observed Mr. Starr's classroom performance fro m

"12:30 to 12:50." 19 Mr. Starr again failed to have a lesson

plan, and Dr. Brennan found that Mr. Starr was deficient in

every component of the six PACES domains evaluated. The

evaluation form reflects that a post - observation meeting was

held on April 19 , 2002, at which time Mr. Starr signed the

evaluation form and wrote on the form that he did not agree with

the evaluation.

59. On April 18, 2002, Dr. Brennan issued a notice

advising Mr. Starr that a Conference - for - the - Record had been

scheduled for April 22, 2002, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to

comply with the Professional Improvement Plan, gross

insubordination, violation of the Code of Ethics and Principles

of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida,

and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21 .

60. According to the Summary of the Conference - for - the -

Record, the conference was held in Mr. Starr's absence because

of "his refusal to comply with an administrative directive."

Dr. Brennan referred in the summary to Mr. Starr's "ref usal to

report to the principal's office" and categorized the refusal as

insubordination and conduct unacceptable for a School Board

employee. Assistant Principal Dina Carretta was the only person

other than Dr. Brennan attending the Conference - for - the - Re cord.

61. During the April 22, 2002, Conference - for - the - Record,

Dr. Brennan prepared a Professional Improvement Plan for PACES

Domain VII, Professional Responsibilities, having found

Mr. Starr deficient in that domain, because he failed to comply

with the March 15, 2002, Professional Improvement Plan; failed

to submit by the required date the activities set out in the

Professional Improvement Plan; and failed to comply with

"district and school site requirements regarding grade book and

student's attendanc e records."

62. Mr. White again placed Mr. Starr on alternate work

assignment at his residence, effective April 24, 2002. Ms. Moss

included in the Summary of the Conference - for - the - Record held

April 12, 2002, which she prepared on May 3, 2002, a notation

that, on or about April 24, 2002, she spoke with Mr. Starr and

advised him that he could resign his position if he did not wish

to comply with administrative directives and the Professional

Improvement Plan activities. According to the notation in the

su mmary, Mr. Starr again affirmed that he would comply with the

directives and the plan activities.

63. After she prepared the summary of the April 12, 2002,

Conference - for - the - Record, Ms. Moss submitted it to the School

Board's attorneys for review because Dr. Brennan and Mr. White

had recommended that Mr. Starr's employment with the Miami - Dade

County public school system be terminated. The bases for the

termination recommendation included gross insubordination,

violation of School Board rules, and violati on of the Code of

Ethics of the Education Profession.

64. In July 2002, after it was decided that a

recommendation would be made to the School Board that Mr. Starr

be terminated as a teacher with the Miami - Dade County public

school system, Ms. Moss met wi th Mr. Starr to advise him of the

recommendation; she also gave Mr. Starr another opportunity to

resign his position, which he refused.

Summary.

65. The evidence presented by the School Board is

sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certai nty

that Mr. Starr repeatedly refused to comply with directives and

instructions from Dr. Brennan and Mr. Montgomery that were

reasonable and within the scope of their authority and that, in

at least one instance, Mr. Starr openly and publicly defied an

or der given by Dr. Brennan. Mr. Starr freely admits that there

was a serious lack of discipline among the students in his

classroom and that the problems were so severe that he was

unable to teach and the students were unable to learn.

Mr. Starr also admit s that he defied Dr. Brennan in almost

everything that Dr. Brennan directed him to do and that he was

repeatedly insubordinate towards Dr. Brennan. Although

Mr. Starr's defiance of Dr. Brennan's directives consisted, for

the most part, of a stubborn refus al to do as Dr. Brennan

directed, Mr. Starr did cause a public disturbance in the main

office by refusing to enter the principal's office when summoned

on April 16, 2002, thereby openly defying Dr. Brennan's

authority to summon Mr. Starr to his office. Mr . Starr's

refusal to comply with reasonable administrative directives and

his blatant defiance of Dr. Brennan reflected discredit on

Mr. Starr as a teacher.

66. The evidence is also sufficient to establish with the

requisite degree of certainty that, from December 2001, until he

was removed from the classroom on April 24, 2002, Mr. Starr did

not make any effort to work with Mr. Montgomery or with his

Professional Growth Team to improve his teaching and class

management deficiencies, nor did he make any eff ort to complete

the activities set forth in the Professional Improvement Plan

that were designed to assist him in achieving professional

growth. Mr. Starr's failure to strive for professional growth

by working to correct the deficiencies identified in

Mr. Montgomery's December 3, 2001, and March 1, 2002,

observations negatively affected his ability to teach his

students.

67. Mr. Starr refuses to accept responsibility for the

lack of discipline in his classroom. Rather, he faults

Dr. Brennan for failing t o help him impose discipline on those

students who were misbehaving and defying Mr. Starr's authority.

According to Mr. Starr, the six - step discipline plan did not

work, and, once the students realized that there were no

consequences if they behaved badly , it was impossible for him to

manage the students in his classes. Mr. Starr also believes

that, if Dr. Brennan cared about Mr. Starr's professional

development, Dr. Brennan would have "developed a specific

strategy of corrective action for students that were defiant"

towards him. 20

68. Mr. Starr considers his defiance of and

insubordination towards Dr. Brennan "principled," and he

believes that he had "no other reasonable recourse" but was

forced by Dr. Brennan to defy Dr. Brennan's administrative

directi ves. 21 Additionally, Mr. Starr justifies his refusal to

complete the Professional Improvement Plan activities, to keep a

standard grade book, to adhere to the six - step discipline plan,

and to prepare lesson plans on the grounds that Dr. Brennan

behaved tow ards him in an abusive and belligerent manner and

attempted to set him up for termination. It may well be, as

Mr. Starr contends, that Dr. Brennan began losing patience with

Mr. Starr, as the 2001 - 2002 school year progressed; it may well

be that Dr. Brenn an's manner towards Mr. Starr became

increasingly abrupt; and it may well be that Dr. Brennan could

have provided Mr. Starr with more assistance than he was willing

to provide. Whatever Dr. Brennan's failings as Mr. Starr's

principal, however, Mr. Starr w as not justified in defying

Dr. Brennan, in refusing to obey Dr. Brennan's directives, and

in generally behaving in a manner inappropriate for a teacher.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

69. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject mat ter of this proceeding and of

the parties thereto pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2002).

70. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate

Mr. Starr's employment with the School Board and does not

involve the loss of a licen se or certification, the School Board

has the burden of proving the allegations in the Notice of

Specific Charges by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v.

Pinellas County School Board , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996);

Allen v. School Board of Dade County , 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla.

3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Board of Lake County , 569 So. 2d

883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

71. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires

proof by "the greater weight of the evidence," Black's Law

Dictionary 1201 (7 th ed. 1999), or evidence that "more likely

than not" tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v.

Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000)(relying on American

Tobacco Co. v. State , 697 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)

quoting Bourjaily v. Un ited States , 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)).

72. Section 230.23(5), Florida Statutes (2001), provides

that a school board has the power to suspend and dismiss

employees as follows:

(f) Suspension and dismissal and return

to annual status. -- Suspend, dismiss, or

return to annual contract members of the

instructional staff and other school

employees; however, no administrative

assistant, supervisor, principal, teacher,

or other member of the instructional staff

may be discharged, removed or returned to

annual c ontract except as provided in

chapter 231.

73. Prior to his suspension, Mr. Starr was employed with

the School Board under an annual contract as a second - year

teacher. Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001), provides in

pertinent part:

(1)(a) Each p erson employed as a member

of the instructional staff in any district

school system shall be properly certificated

pursuant to s. 231.17 or employed pursuant

to s. 231.1725 and shall be entitled to and

shall receive a written contract as

specified in chapt er 230. All such

contracts, except continuing contracts as

specified in subsection (4), shall contain

provisions for dismissal during the term of

the contract only for just cause. Just

cause includes, but is not limited to, the

following instances, as de fined by rule of

the State Board of Education: misconduct in

office, incompetency, gross insubordination,

willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a

crime involving moral turpitude.

* * *

(6)(a) Any member of the instructional

staff, excluding an emp loyee specified in

subsection (4), may be suspended or

dismissed at any time during the term of the

contract for just cause as provided in

paragraph (1)(a). . . .

74. In Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges, the

School Board charged Mr. Starr with violating School Board

Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21 , Responsibilities and Duties, by engaging in

conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21

provides in pertinent part:

I. Employee conduct.

All persons employed by The School

Board of Miami - Dade County, Florida, are

representatives of the Miami - Dade County

Public Schools. As such, they are expected

to conduct themselves, both in their

employment and in the community, in a manner

that will reflect credit upon themselves and

the school system .

Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive

and/or profane language in the workplace is

expressly prohibited.

75. Based on consideration of the elements that must be

proven to establish a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A -

1.21 and on the finding s of fact herein, it is concluded that

the School Board has satisfied its burden of proof by a

preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Starr engaged in conduct

in his employment that did not reflect credit on him as a School

Board employee.

76. In Count II of the Notice of Specific Charges, the

School Board charged Mr. Starr with gross insubordination.

Rule 6B - 4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code, defines "gross

insubordination" as "a constant or continuing intentional

refusal to obey a direct order, reas onable in nature, and given

by and with proper authority." Based on consideration of the

elements that must be proven to establish gross insubordination,

and on the findings of fact herein, it is concluded that the

School Board has satisfied its burden of proof by a

preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Starr is guilty of gross

insubordination. The record is replete with evidence that

Mr. Starr consistently refused to comply with the reasonable

directives given him by Dr. Brennan and Mr. Montgomery durin g

the 2001 - 2002 school year, and, indeed, Mr. Starr admits that he

willfully defied Dr. Brennan's directives on numerous occasions.

77. In Count III of the Notice of Specific Charges, the

School Board charged Mr. Starr with misconduct in office, which

is defined in Rule 6B - 4.009, Florida Administrative Code, 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, FAC., and the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the E ducation

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B -

1.006, FAC., which is so serious as to

impair the individual's effectiveness in the

school system.

78. Based on the representation of the School Board at the

final hearing, the School Board's charge th at Mr. Starr

committed misconduct in office is predicated on allegations that

he violated Rule 6B - 1.001(1),(2) and/or (3), Florida

Administrative Code. 22 Rule 6B - 1.001, Florida Administrative

Code, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, provides:

(1) The educator values the worth and

dignity of every person, the pursuit of

truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition

of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic

citizenship. Essential to the achievement

of these standards are the freedom to learn

a nd to teach and the guarantee of equal

opportunity for all.

(2) The educator's primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the student's

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth an d will seek

to exercise the best professional judgment

and integrity.

(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 strives to achi eve and sustain the

highest degree of ethical conduct.

79. Based on consideration of the elements that must be

proven to establish misconduct in office, and on the findings of

fact herein, it is concluded that the School Board has satisfied

its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that

Mr. Starr committed misconduct in office. The School Board has

proven by the greater weight of the evidence that Mr. Starr

consistently refused to take advantage of the assistance offered

to him to improve hi s classroom performance and that he,

therefore, failed to strive for professional growth.

Mr. Starr's refusal to comply with administrative directives and

with the activities set forth in the Professional Improvement

Plan dated March 15, 2002, constitute violations of Department

of Education Rule 6B - 1.001(2), Florida Administrative Code.

80. The offense of misconduct in office has two elements,

however. In order to prove that Mr. Starr is guilty of

misconduct in office, the School Board must also prove t hat the

violations of Rule 6B - 1001(2), Florida Administrative Code, were

so serious that the violations caused Mr. Starr's effectiveness

as an employee of the School Board to be impaired. See McNeill

v. Pinellas County School Board , 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (F la. 2d

DCA 1996)("The School Board bears the burden of proving, by a

preponderance of the evidence, each element of the charged

offense which may warrant dismissal.") Based on the findings of

fact herein, the School Board has satisfied its burden of proof

by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Starr's offenses

were so serious that his effectiveness as a teacher employed by

the School Board was impaired. By his own admission,

Mr. Starr's classroom was chaotic by March 5, 2002, rendering it

impossible for him to teach or for the students to learn. By

April 17, 2002, when Dr. Brennan performed his annual evaluation

of Mr. Starr, Mr. Starr's classroom performance was deficient in

every component of every domain of the PACES evaluation,

notwithstanding th e efforts made during the 2001 - 2002 school

year to assist Mr. Starr in improving his teaching skills.

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 or der

(1) Finding that Stephen J. Starr, Jr., violated School

Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21 and committed gross insubordination and

misconduct in office;

(2) Sustaining his suspension; and,

(3) Terminating his employment as a teacher with the

Miami - Dade County public school system.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

PATRICIA HART MALONO

Admi nistrative 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 31st day of March, 2003.

ENDNOTES

1 / Chapters 230 and 231, Flori da Statutes were repealed

effective January 7, 2003, after the events that gave rise to

this proceeding.

2 / Mr. Starr learned of the electronic grade book from

colleagues. Mr. Starr could not afford the computer program

that his colleagues were using fo r their grade books, so he set

about devising his own using the Excel program and developing

his own code to record the students' grades. When he tried to

print out the grade book, Mr. Starr had problems translating his

code into grades and so was unable to generate an intelligible

hard copy of the grade book.

3 / Transcript at page 318.

4 / Mr. Starr testified that, although he never provided a grade

book to Dr. Brennan, he did prepare a standard grade book, that

he showed the grade book to "them" in De cember 2001, and that

Mr. Montgomery approved the grade book. Having considered this

testimony and the testimony of Mr. Montgomery that he never

received a grade book from Mr. Starr, Mr. Starr's testimony is

rejected as not persuasive.

5 / A "referral" i s an official action taken by a teacher to

request administrative intervention with respect to a student

who behaves inappropriately in the classroom. The referral is

made on an official School Board form, and, once the referral

document is submitted, the administrator is required by School

Board procedures to respond. The Code of Student Conduct

specifies several types of discipline that may be imposed after

a referral, including suspension. In most cases, a school

administrator will not discipline a st udent without a teacher

referral.

6 / Mr. Starr also thinks the discipline plan was not adopted in

accordance with state statutes and School Board rules.

Mr. Starr contends that the discipline plan is illegal because

it violates Section 232.271, Florida Statutes (2001), by denying

teachers the right to remove disruptive students from their

classrooms. Even if the six - step discipline plan were not

consistent with the provisions of Section 232.271, Florida

Statutes (2001), it is not within the jurisdiction of the

Division of Administrative Hearings to determine the legality of

the Lake Stevens discipline plan in this proceeding.

7 / Mr. Starr testified that he was reluctant to prepare this

memorandum because he did not want to go over Dr. Brennan's

head; h e had hoped that Dr. Brennan would "eventually come

around and do something about the defiance in my classroom."

Transcript at page 322.

8 / Most probably, this administrator was Mr. Montgomery, though

Dr. Brennan did not mention by name the administrator to whom he

spoke.

9 / Transcript at page 56.

10 / Mr. Starr testified that, for the December 3, 2001,

observation, he "didn't want to put on a show for Mr. Montgomery

. . . and I did not give him a lesson plan. I did not give him

the three folders that he requested and I continued as I taught,

just like how I was teaching everyday, barely getting the kids

to sit down." Transcript at page 322. Mr. Starr claims,

however, that the students behaved very well during

Mr. Montgomery's observations.

11 / Mr. S tarr describes Ms. Davis as being very helpful and

sympathetic towards him, and he testified that he cooperated

with her. He objected to Dr. Brennan's appointment of

Ms. Scriven - Husband to his Professional Growth Team because they

had a bad working relati onship. Mr. Starr believes her

appointment to his Professional Growth Team was another attempt

by Dr. Brennan to ensure Mr. Starr's failure and to set him up

for termination.

12 / Dr. Brennan first discussed his concerns about Mr. Starr

with Mr. White at the monthly meeting held at the School Board's

Office of Professional Standards, after Mr. Starr's December 3,

2001, formal observation. Thereafter, Dr. Brennan kept

Mr. White informed about certain of Mr. Starr's behaviors that

caused Dr. Brennan concern , especially because, in Dr. Brennan's

view, these behavior patterns were having a negative impact on

Lake Stevens's instructional program. Specifically, Dr. Brennan

testified that parents were requesting that Dr. Brennan remove

their children from Mr. St arr's classes and place them in the

classes of the other sixth - grade social studies teacher.

13 / Dr. Brennan noted in the Summary of the Conference - for - the -

Record that the conference was originally scheduled for March 7,

2002, but could not be held at tha t time due to Mr. Starr's

"unauthorized absences from the workplace" from Thursday,

March 7, 2002, through Thursday, March 14, 2002.

14 / Dr. Brennan advised Mr. Starr at the March 15, 2002,

Conference - for - the - Record that his 90 - Calendar Day Performance

Pr obation period was to begin the following day and that a

determination would be made at the conclusion of the probation

period whether he had satisfactorily corrected the performance

deficiencies. Mr. Starr's termination was not, however, based

on his fai lure to correct performance deficiencies.

15 / At the beginning of the 2001 - 2002 school year, Dr. Brennan

asked Mr. Starr to give up his planning period and teach a sixth

class in exchange for a supplement to his pay. Mr. Starr had

misgivings about accept ing the assignment because he considered

himself a beginning teacher and felt that he needed his planning

period. In spite of his misgivings, Mr. Starr agreed to accept

the additional class because he wanted to assist Dr. Brennan.

Mr. Starr stated i n his grievance, Respondent's Exhibit 1,

that he repeatedly asked Dr. Brennan to relieve him of the

additional teaching period so that he would have a planning

period and could devote more time to lesson planning and other

school duties and that Dr. Brenna n repeatedly refused to assign

the additional teaching period to another teacher. There is

insufficient persuasive evidence in the record to permit this

assertion to be the basis for a finding of fact. Rather, the

evidence suggests that Mr. Starr apparen tly believed that, as

the school year progressed and it became apparent to Dr. Brennan

that Mr. Starr was experiencing more and more difficulties

controlling his classroom and presenting his lessons,

Dr. Brennan should have taken the initiative and relieve d him of

the extra class.

16 / Mr. Starr testified that he refused to complete the

Professional Improvement Plan because he believed that

Dr. Brennan gave him an insurmountable task in the March 15,

2002, plan, especially since he was teaching six classes and had

no planning period and was also acting as chess coach.

Mr. Starr interpreted the Professional Improvement Plan as just

another instance of abuse by Dr. Brennan.

17 / Mr. Starr disputes Dr. Brennan's assessment that he was

"disruptive" at his offic e on April 16, 2002: "I tried to --

well, at this point I was aware that Dr. Brennan was out to fire

me and I wasn't necessarily cooperative, but I was not

disruptive. I was reasonably in defiance to some of his abusive

policies and directives. Particul arly, the discipline policy."

Transcript at page 330.

18 / Transcript at page 280.

19 / Appendix B to Respondent's Exhibit 1.

20 / Transcript at page 325.

21 / Transcript at page 306. Mr. Starr filed a grievance against

Dr. Brennan with the School Board' s office of Legislative and

Labor Relations and Governmental Affairs. The grievance was

dated May 28, 2002, and was filed on the School Board's

Grievance Form, with a narrative of the bases for Mr. Starr's

charges against Dr. Brennan and several other doc uments included

as attachments. Among other things, Mr. Starr charged

Dr. Brennan with gross negligence and maleficence toward the

students and Mr. Starr, accusing Dr. Brennan of ignoring the

"rampant defiance, disorder, and otherwise chaos in my

classroo m"; he charged Dr. Brennan with violations of the Code

of Student Conduct and the Florida School Code, accusing

Dr. Brennan of violating laws specifically designed to guarantee

rights to teachers in disciplinary matters and of violating the

state laws rega rding the responsibilities of the Educational

Excellence School Advisory Council at Lake Stevens; he charged

Dr. Brennan with violations of the state law permitting teachers

to send students to the principal's office to maintain effective

discipline in the classroom, accusing Dr. Brennan of not

allowing him or other teachers to send students to his office

when they created problems in the classroom; he charged

Dr. Brennan with abuse of power, accusing Dr. Brennan of setting

out "predetermined and premeditat edly to fail me in his personal

observation" by finding Mr. Starr deficient in every component

of all six domains of the PACES annual evaluation after a 20 -

minutes observation and by refusing Mr. Starr's repeated

requests that he be relieved of the sixth c lass he agreed to

teach at the beginning of the school year, and he charged

Dr. Brennan with harassing him on the basis of his religious and

political beliefs. Mr. Starr concluded his complaint with the

following: "Throughout this entire year, Principal Brennan has

never given me one encouraging word or positive complement

[sic]. Working under his authority has not been in any way

uplifting; the atmosphere is one of intimidation and fear."

Respondent's Exhibit 1.

In a letter to the Superintendent of the Miami - Dade County

public school system dated May 29, 2002, Mr. Starr requested a

conference to discuss "the topic of a false visage appearing

functionality established by a vindictive leader," and he stated

that he had "boldly defied this man [Dr. B rennan] at the risk of

my own career. His attitude and treatment towards teachers is

demeaning and degrading." Mr. Starr attached a copy of his

official grievance to the letter to the Superintendent.

Mr. Starr was aware that his grievance was not a labor

matter, but he did not know how to get his complaints heard.

Mr. Starr was not a member of the union and, therefore, did not

have access to the union grievance procedures. He contends,

however, that, had he known about the Whistleblower law, he

wo uld have called and gotten help in dealing with Dr. Brennan.

Nonetheless, Mr. Starr hoped that someone in the Miami - Dade

County public school system who received a copy of his grievance

would direct him to the appropriate place to file his complaint,

but no one did.

Finally, Mr. Starr prepared a memorandum directed to

Ms. Moss dated July 17, 2002, entitled Statement for the

Conference - for - the - Record. Mr. Starr prepared this statement

for the conference that Ms. Moss scheduled to advise him of the

re commendation for his termination mistakenly thinking that it

was a formal Conference - for - the - Record. In the memorandum,

Mr. Starr states:

Anytime I have acted contrary to a directive

of Principal Brennan; the law has been on my

side. . . . When after an e xtended period of

abating the very essence of my commission as

a Florida Teacher and the Law itself, I

should have no recourse but to disobey the

cause of the abuse. Therefore, the events

that have taken place, my actions, are

objective and not rebellious ; as

Dr. Brennan's directives no longer posses

[sic] moral authority.

22 / The School Board did not identify in Count III of the Notice

of Specific Charges the violations on which it predicated its

charge that Mr. Starr's conduct constituted misconduct i n

office. At the hearing, the School Board's attorney was asked

to identify the provisions of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession and of the Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida on which the

School Board ba sed its charge of misconduct in office.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Denise Wallace, Esquire

Miami - Dade County Public Schools

1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue

Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

Stephen J. Starr, Jr.

1900 South Treasure Drive, #1 - H

North Bay Village, Florida 33141

Merritt R. Stierheim

Interim Superintendent

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912

Miami, Florida 33132 - 1394

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit wri tten 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.