05-002367 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Ronnie R. Bell Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, June 5, 2006.

Summary: Respondent failed to perform his duties and failed to comply with attendance protocols. After numerous attempts to remediate, Petitioner has just cause to terminate his employment.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 05 - 2367

)

RONNIE R. BELL, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a formal hearing was held in this case

on April 25, 2006, by video teleconference with the parties

noticed to appear from Miami, Florida, before J. D. Parrish, a

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

School Board of Miami - Dade County

Suite 400

1450 Northeast Second Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: No Appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether there is just cause to terminate the Respondent,

Ronnie Bell (Respondent), from his employment with the

Petitioner, Miami - Dade County School Board (Petitioner or

School Board).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 15, 2005, the School Boar d of Miami - Dade County,

Florida, took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against

the Respondent. The Petitioner alleged that it had just cause

to terminate the Respondent for his non - performance and

deficient performance of job responsibilities, gro ss

insubordination, and violation of School Board rules.

Thereafter, the Respondent timely requested an administrative

hearing to contest the dismissal and the matter was forwarded

to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal

proceedings on July 5, 2005.

The Notice of Specific Chargers, filed on July 27, 2005,

alleged that the Respondent had a long history of deficient

work performance and failures to follow directives regarding

work protocols. Based upon the allegations, the School Board

maintai ned that the Respondent had failed to perform

appropriately, was guilty of gross insubordination, had

violated School Board rules, and had disregarded directives

that were reasonable by continuing to take leave without

notice or approval. As a result of t he foregoing, the

Petitioner maintains that the Respondent should be terminated

from his employment.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented testimony from

Nick JacAngelo, the principal of Miami Coral Park Senior High

School; Robert Kalinsky, personnel di rector for the

Petitioner’s Regional Center 3; Julio Carrera, principal at

South Hialeah Elementary School; and David Cadaval, assistant

principal at South Dade Senior High School. The Petitioner’s

Exhibits 1 - 26 were admitted into evidence. The Responden t did

not appear. No evidence was presented on behalf of the

Respondent.

The transcript of the proceeding was filed with the

Division of Administrative Hearings on May 4, 2006. The

Petitioner timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order that has

been consid ered in the preparation of this order. The

Respondent did not file a post - hearing proposal.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with

the responsibility to operate, control and supervise the

public schools within the Miami - Dade County school district.

Such authority includes the discipline of employees of the

School Board.

2. At all times material to the allegations of this

case, the Respondent was an employee of the School Board.

3. As an employee of the School Board, th e Respondent

was subject to the laws, rules, and terms of the union

contract pertinent to employment with the Petitioner.

4. Nick JacAngelo is the principal of Miami Coral Park

Senior High School. Mr. JacAngelo was directly responsible

for the employees at the school and personally knows the

Respondent.

5. The Respondent began work at Miami Coral Park Senior

High School on October 11, 2004. Employed as a custodian at

the school, the Respondent was responsible for cleaning the

areas assigned to him.

6. According to Mr. JacAngelo, it came to his attention

that the Respondent’s work area was not being properly cleaned

and maintained. On November 19, 2004, Mr. JacAngelo informed

the Respondent that his work was substandard and unacceptable.

7. Mr. JacAng elo informed the Respondent that his work

would need to improve. Additionally, the Respondent was

advised as to the standard of work that would be required and

expected of him in fulfilling his custodial responsibilities

including job attendance.

8. A se cond conference was conducted with the Respondent

on December 7, 2004, to again reiterate the duties and

expectations for him. The Respondent did not improve his job

performance.

9. In addition to his failure to maintain his assigned

area, the Responde nt was excessively absent from the work

site. On January 13, 2005, the Respondent was again informed

of a need to improve his job attendance and work performance.

10. Moreover, the Respondent was advised that he could

not leave the work site without auth orization prior to the

termination of his workday. It was expected that the

Respondent perform his duties and attend to his assigned area

for the entire workday.

11. The Respondent’s work performance and attendance did

not improve. On January 28, 2005, the Respondent was cited

for poor job performance and insubordination in his continued

refusal to improve his effort.

12. On February 14, 2005, Mr. JacAngelo met with the

Respondent to address his insubordination, defiance of

authority, failure to complet e assigned areas of custodial

responsibility, and his unauthorized departure from the work

site. Because the Respondent wanted to have his union

representative present during the discussion the meeting was

rescheduled.

13. The parties met on February 15, 2005, to review the

items noted above. At that time, the Respondent was reminded

that his workday departure time was 11:30 p.m. He was to

present for work at 2:00 p.m., take no more than half an hour

break for his meal, and remain onsite the entire time .

14. The Respondent’s work performance did not improve

over time. On May 12, 2005, he was observed to be in his

vehicle the majority of the work shift. He did not perform

his work assignment and made no explanation for his failure to

clean his area. T his incident was memorialized in a

memorandum dated May 18, 2005. As to this and other previous

incidents, the Respondent did not deny the conduct complained.

15. Based upon the Respondent’s failure to improve, his

continued poor work performance, his nu merous opportunities to

correct the deficiencies, and his insubordination, Mr.

JacAngelo recommended that the Respondent be terminated from

his employment with the school district.

16. Mr. JacAngelo had attempted verbal counseling,

written memorandums, an d official conferences with the

Respondent. None of the efforts to remediate Respondent’s

work performance proved successful.

17. Mr. Carrera is the principal at South Hialeah

Elementary School. Mr. Carrera was the Respondent’s

supervisor at a work assi gnment prior to his reassignment to

Miami Coral Park Senior High School.

18. According to Mr. Carrera, the Respondent constantly

left his work site early, failed to clean his assigned area,

and admitted to stealing a police surveillance camera (there

had been 70 cases of theft in the area the Respondent was

responsible for so the police set up a camera). In short, the

Respondent’s work performance at South Hialeah Elementary

School was unacceptable.

19. The Respondent was warned during his tenure at Sout h

Hialeah Elementary School that continued failure to perform

his work appropriately would lead to disciplinary action.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of

these pr oceedings. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).

21. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this

matter to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that

the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice

of Specific Charges. See McNeill v. Pinellas County School

Board , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996). It has met that

burden.

22. Section 1012.22, Florida Statutes (2005), authorizes

the School Board to take disciplinary action against its

employees. Remedies available to the Petitioner include

dismissal of its employees.

23. The union contract between the Petitioner and its

employees (Petitioner’s Exhibit 35) authorizes disciplinary

action, including dismissal, for “just cause.”

24. The term “just cause” as used in the union contract

c ontemplates that an employee may be dismissed for the

nonperformance of job responsibilities ( See Art. XI, Section

4C of the contract — Petitioner’s Exhibit 35). Additionally,

insubordination is defined as a “constant or continuing

intentional refusal to ob ey a direct order, reasonable in

nature, and given by and with proper authority” ( See Florida

Administrative Code Rule 6B - 4.009) and may also support “just

cause” for termination or dismissal of a School Board

employee.

25. In this case, the Respondent wa s afforded numerous

opportunities to improve his work performance. He was

reassigned to new work sites to provide him with additional

chances to improve. Throughout his work history, the

Respondent failed or refused to appropriately perform his

duties as a custodian. The Respondent failed to follow

directives given to him by persons with proper authority. The

Respondent violated the attendance policies of the schools by

either failing to report for work, failing to work his entire

shift, or failing to c all in when he would not be working.

Finally, the Respondent provided no credible explanation for

why he could not or did not perform his duties appropriately.

Despite numerous opportunities to improve, the Respondent did

not.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami - Dade County School

Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent from his

employment with the school district.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2006, in

Tall ahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. D. PARRISH

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.sta te.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5th day of June, 2006.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912

Miami, Florida 33132 - 1394

Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Ronnie R. Bell

16220 Northwest 28th Court

Miami, Florida 33054

Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

School Board of Miami - Dade County

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

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 thi s Recommended Order should be filed with the

agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.