06-003301 James E. Mccalister, Sr., As Superintendent Of The Bay County School District vs. Bay County School Board Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, January 22, 2007.

Summary: Respondent had good cause to reject Petitioner`s recommended transfer of a high school principal to a middle school.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JAMES E. MCCALISTER, SR., AS )

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BAY )

COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06 - 3301

)

BAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

LARRY BOLINGER, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this case on November 1,

2006, in Panama City, Florida, before Suzanne F. Hood,

Administrative Law Judge with the Divi sion of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Daniel Hernandez, Esquire

Michael Olenick, Esquire

Carlton Fields, P.A.

Post Office Box 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0190

For Respondent: Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire

Robert A. Flemming, III, Esquire

Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Thompson

and Duncan, Chtd.

Post Office Drawer 1579

Panama City, Florida 32402 - 1579

For Intervenor: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire

Mary F. Aspros, Esquire

Meyer and Brooks , P.A.

2544 Blairstone Pines Drive

Post Office Box 1547

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent School Board of Bay County

(the “School Board”) h as good cause under Section

1012.22(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2006), to reject the

recommendation of Petitioner James E. McCalister, Sr.,

Superintendent of the Bay County School District (the

“Superintendent”), to transfer the Intervenor Larry Bolinger

(“ Bolinger”) from the position of principal of Bay High School

(“Bay High”) to the position of principal of Jinks Middle School

(“Jinks”).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 28, 2006, the School Board voted unanimously to

reject the Superintendent’s recommenda tion to transfer Bolinger

from Bay High to Jinks. The Superintendent filed a Petition for

Formal Administrative Hearing with the School Board on July 27,

2006. The School Board referred the case to the Division of

Administrative Hearings on September 1, 2006.

The undersigned issued a Notice of Hearing dated

September 18, 2006. The notice scheduled the hearing for

November 1, 2006.

On October 5, 2006, Bolinger filed a Motion to Intervene.

In an order dated October 18, 2006, the undersigned granted the

motion, subject to proof of standing at hearing.

On October 22, 2006, the School Board and Bolinger jointly

moved for a continuance of the final hearing and for an order

requiring the parties to submit to mediation. The motion was

denied in an Orde r dated October 24, 2006.

On October 30, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Prehearing

Stipulation. In the stipulation, the parties agree that

Bolinger has standing to participate in this proceeding.

During the hearing, the parties offered the following

exhibits: Joint Exhibit Nos. 1 - 4; Superintendent’s Exhibit Nos.

1 - 5; and School Board’s Exhibit Nos. 2 - 4 and 6 - 7. All of the

exhibits were accepted as evidence.

The School Board presented the testimony of nine witnesses.

The Superintendent testified o n his own behalf and presented the

testimony of one additional witness.

Bolinger presented no exhibits and called no witnesses.

However, Bolinger was called as a witness during the School

Board’s case.

On November 15, 2006, the parties filed a Joint M otion for

Additional Time to File Post - hearing Submittals. The

undersigned granted the motion on November 27, 2006, in a

Corrected Order Granting Extension of Time.

On November 15, 2006, the court reporter filed the two -

volume transcript of the final he aring. The parties filed their

proposed orders on December 5, 2006.

All references hereinafter shall be to Florida Statutes

(2006) unless otherwise specified.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Superintendent is the duly elected superintendent

of the Bay County S chool District. He is serving his second

consecutive term in that capacity.

2. The School Board consists of five duly elected members:

Thelma Rohan, Ron Danzey, Johnny Brock, Jon McFatter, and Donna

Allen.

3. Bolinger is an employee and former superi ntendent of

the Bay County School District. The Superintendent defeated

Bolinger for the superintendent’s office in the 2000 general

election. Bolinger was principal at Merritt Brown Middle School

(Merritt Brown) during the 2004 - 2005 school year. He was

principal at Bay High for the 2005 - 2006 school year. His

proposed reassignment from Bay High to Jinks for the 2006 - 2007

school year is the subject of this proceeding.

4. Bay High, Jinks, and Merritt Brown are located in

Panama City, Bay County, Florid a.

5. Florida has an “A Plan for Education” that grades

schools based on student performance. The school grade is

determined by student scores on the Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test (“FCAT”).

6. Fred Goodwin was the principal at Bay High for 27

years. Mr. Goodwin’s final year at Bay High was the 2004 - 2005

school year. He retired after Bay High received a school grade

of “D” for two consecutive years.

7. Bay High’s 2004 - 2005 school score improved by 28 points

over the score received during the previous year. The school

would have received a grade of “C” for the 2004 - 2005 school term

but for the failure of more than 50 percent of the lowest

scoring 25 percent of Bay High’s students (“the lowest

quartile”) to make gains on the FCAT exam.

8 . Relevant to the subject of Bay High’s performance on

the FCAT in recent years, the School Board opened Arnold High

School (“Arnold”) on Panama City Beach in 1998. The new high

school resulted in a significant reduction in Bay High’s student

population because all of the beach students previously had

attended Bay High. In order to increase the student population

at Bay High and the school’s academic performance, the School

Board started a Magnet program at Bay High.

9. Bay High was given $250,000 thr ough a grant to get the

Magnet program started. The School Board also provided Bay High

with extra teaching units for every year of the Magnet program’s

existence.

10. Along with the Magnet program, the Advanced

International Certificate of Education ( “AICE”) program was

initiated at Bay High. One purpose of starting the AICE program

at Bay High was to attract high - performing students. Despite

such efforts, Bay High received a school score of “D” during the

2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005 school years.

11. In the years prior to Goodwin’s retirement, Bay High

experienced significant problems in areas other than academics.

The problems included, but were not limited to the following:

(a) the school grounds and facilities were deplorable; (b) many

students w andered campus during class time unattended; (c)

teacher morale was low; (d) administrators, including Goodwin,

were not visible on campus or at school events; (e) students and

teachers were disciplined inconsistently; and (f) instructional

class time was interrupted for nonacademic events.

12. Knowing that the principal position at Bay high would

be vacant after the 2004 - 2005 school year, the Superintendent

advertised the position. Bolinger did not apply to fill the

position.

13. The general practi ce is that during the advertising

process, some applicants for a position are screened out simply

based upon an assessment of the application. A committee then

selects and interviews five applicants. After the interviews,

the committee sends the Superint endent the names of three

applicants for the position advertised.

14. In the case of the vacancy for principal at Bay High,

the Superintendent did not select any of the top three

applicants. Instead, he placed the applicants at other schools.

15. On June 21, 2005, the Superintendent contacted

Bolinger. The Superintendent requested Bolinger to meet at the

Superintendent’s office.

16. At the meeting, the Superintendent offered the Bay

High principal position to Bolinger. The Superintendent’s offe r

did not foreclose Bolinger’s option to remain as principal at

Merritt Brown.

17. In the course of their discussion regarding the Bay

High position, Bolinger told the Superintendent that he had four

years left in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”).

Bolinger stated that he would take the job at Bay High with the

understanding that he would be the Bay High principal for the

remaining four years before his retirement. 1/ The Superintendent

agreed that Bolinger would be allowed to stay at Bay High until

his time in the DROP program was complete.

18. Bollinger also told the Superintendent that if he was

going to Bay High as principal, he must have two assistant

principals. The Superintendent agreed to this condition.

19. Randall McElhe ney and William Harrison are businessmen

in Panama City, Florida, with close connections to Bay High as

alums, parents, and volunteers. For the 2005 - 2006 school year,

Mr. McElheney and Mr. Harrison served as business partners in

the Partnership to Advance School Success (PASS) program. The

PASS program is a cooperative effort between the State, the

School Board, Bay High, and the business partner to improve the

academic status of individual schools.

20. Prior to the June 21, 2005, meeting between the

S uperintendent and Bolinger, the Superintendent told

Mr. McElheney that there was only one person that could turn Bay

High around. That person was Bolinger.

21. After Bolinger accepted the position at Bay High, the

Superintendent contacted several othe r School Board members to

inform them of his decision. The Superintendent told Mr. Danzey

that Bolinger was the one person in the school district that

could lead Bay High. The Superintendent told Ms. Allen that

Bolinger was the best person for the Bay Hi gh job. Mr. McFatter

understood the Superintendent to believe that there was no one

else in the district other than Bolinger who could handle the

Bay High job. All of the School Board members supported the

Superintendent’s decision to transfer Bolinger t o Bay High.

22. Not everyone in the community agreed with the

Superintendent’s decision. The Superintendent knew that some

people, unidentified here, opposed the transfer in part for

political reasons. The Superintendent also knew that Bolinger

would “ruffle some feathers” and upset certain individuals as he

made needed changes at Bay High.

23. On or about June 23, 2005, the Superintendent

transferred Bolinger from Merritt Brown to Bay High for the

2005 - 2006 school year. Bolinger started working at Bay High

that same day. The School Board subsequently voted unanimously

to approve the reassignment.

24. Bolinger signed a one - year written contract with the

School Board for the 2005 - 2006 school year. The written

contract provides as follows in pertinent part:

THIS CONTRACT entered into between THE

SCHOOL BOARD OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, party

of the first part, hereinafter called “the

School Board,” and Larry Bolinger (0061),

party of the second part, hereinafter called

“the Employee.”

* * *

1. The School Board agrees to employ the

Employee in a position of PRINCIPAL for a

period of 12 calendar months beginning

July 1, 2005 (same being hereinafter

referred to as the “employment period”) . .

. .

* * *

10. It is expressly understoo d and agreed

by and between the parties hereto . . . that

neither the Employee nor the School Board

owes any further contractual obligation to

the other after the last day of the

employment period.

25. The Superintendent has never recommended that the

School Board contract with administrative personnel in excess of

one year.

26. During his first year at Bay High, Bolinger was able

to resolve many of the school’s past problems. With the help of

the PASS program business partners, the grounds and fa cilities

were cleaned. The business partners also worked with Bolinger

to implement incentive programs to motivate student academic

achievement. Attendance improved and students were in class

during instructional time.

27. Bolinger established clear d efinitive roles for each

administrator. Teacher and staff morale increased as a clear

chain of command and written policies eliminated favoritism.

Student discipline became consistent and non - discriminatory.

Bolinger and other administrators were visibl e on campus and at

school events. All administrators were accessible to faculty,

students, and parents. The faculty was included in decisions

regarding the school.

28. Most important, during the 2005 - 2006 school year, Bay

High improved its school sco re from a “D” to a “C”. The school

was eligible to receive a score of “B” on the FCAT, with a

numeric score that was 11 points higher than the score received

in 2004 - 2005. However, because less than 50 percent of the

lowest quartile made adequate gains o n the test, Bay High

received a “C”.

29. Beginning around the start of 2006, Bolinger heard

rumors that he was going to be removed from his position because

he had ruffled some feathers at Bay High. Certain individuals

had complained to the Superinten dent when they became upset with

Bolinger for changing the status quo.

30. Through out the year, Bolinger frequently consulted

with the Superintendent about problems at the school. The

Superintendent always reassured Bolinger that he was “doing the

ri ght thing” and needed to “keep on track.” The Superintendent

encouraged Bolinger to be sensitive to students, teachers, and

staff, but to keep his focus on improving student performance,

especially the performance of the lowest quartile.

31. In May 20 06, the Superintendent met with Bolinger. At

the meeting, the Superintendent stated that he would recommend

Bolinger back as a principal, but not at Bay High. Bolinger

stated that he felt betrayed because he had been loyal to the

Superintendent. The Sup erintendent stated that he did not see

it that way. The Superintendent never gave Bolinger any other

reason for the decision.

32. Once the transfer became public knowledge, the

Superintendent and School Board members received e - mails from

Bay High stu dents, staff, parents, and community members. A

significant majority of these e - mails discussed the improvements

that Bay High made under Bolinger’s leadership. They expressed

support for his remaining at Bay High. School Board members

also received tel ephone calls from the public for and against

Bolinger’s impending transfer from Bay High.

33. The School Board members and Bay High’s business

partners questioned the Superintendent’s decision to remove

Bolinger as principal at Bay High. The Superinte ndent would not

give anyone a reason, except to say to a couple of people, “That

man is going to do what I tell him to do.”

34. Mr. McElheney, one of Bay High’s business partners,

funded a radio and sign campaign advocating that Bolinger remain

at Bay Hi gh. The radio messages urged the public to attend the

School Board meeting on May 30, 2006.

35. After speaking with the School Board members, the

Superintendent instituted a teacher hiring freeze. The hiring

freeze allowed teachers to interview for p ositions throughout

the district but prohibited anyone from being hired. The

Superintendent did not want a teacher being hired at a school

expecting certain individuals to be the administrators and then

change his or her mind after an administrative chang e.

36. At the May 30, 2006, School Board meeting, the

Superintendent recommended the retention of Bolinger, and

several other principals and assistant principals, as employees

of the School District for the 2006 - 2007 school year. The

Superintendent’s recommendation did not identify the particular

school to which Bolinger, or any other principal or assistant

principal, would be assigned. This was a departure from the

custom of making administrative recommendations, including the

school assignment for e ach administrator.

37. At the May 30, 2006, meeting, the School Board allowed

for public comment. At times growing heated, 47 people,

consisting of students, parents, teachers, staff, and community

members, spoke at the meeting. Again, a significant majority

spoke positively of Bolinger and the difference he was making at

Bay High. Many people requested that the Superintendent

reconsider his decision.

38. After the public comment portion of the meeting, the

Superintendent stated that he did not i ntend to reconsider his

decision about transferring Bolinger and would not give a reason

for his decision. The School Board then unanimously voted to

approve the recommendations as submitted without school

assignments and with the understanding that no pr incipals or

administrators would be transferred from their current

assignments without School Board approval.

39. The School Board met again on June 28, 2006. At that

time, the Superintendent made a recommendation to the School

Board to transfer five administrators, one of which was the

transfer of Bolinger to the position of principal at Jinks.

Once again, the Superintendent refused to give the School Board

a reason for his decision to transfer Bolinger. The

Superintendent would not reveal the name of the person who would

replace Bolinger as principal at Bay High.

40. Mr. McFatter made the following motion at the June 28,

2006 meeting:

A transfer of the principal from Bay High

School this close to the beginning of the

school year, coupled with the

Superintendent’s hiring freeze, will in a

number of ways adversely affect the student

and staff of Bay High School and will

severely disrupt the operation of the school

for the upcoming year. Given the history of

Bay High School, it is particularly cr ucial

that this not occur. It is a school that

has experienced two “D” school years, and

under Mr. Bolinger’s leadership, started

down the right road to recovery becoming a

“C” school for the 2005 - 2006 school year.

This eleventh hour disruptive recommend ation

will have an adverse effect on student

achievement at Bay High School for the 06 - 07

school year. Based upon these findings of

good cause, I move that the School Board

reject the Superintendent’s recommendation

that Larry Bolinger be laterally moved from

the principal - ship at Bay High to the

principal - ship at Jinks Middle School.

41. The School Board unanimously voted in favor of the

motion and to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to

transfer Bolinger. This was the first time Mr. Brock,

M s. Allen, and Mr. McFatter had ever voted to reject an

administrative personnel recommendation made by any school

superintendent. Mr. Brock has served on the School Board for 10

years, Ms. Allen for four years, and Mr. McFatter for two years.

42. Ms. Rohan voted to reject the recommended transfer

because of her belief that the Superintendent breached his oral

contract with Bolinger regarding Bolinger’s length of stay as

principal of Bay High.

43. At the meeting, Mr. McFatter voted to reject the

rec ommended transfer of Bolinger for the following reasons: (a)

the transfer would have occurred too close to the beginning of

the school year and that, coupled with the hiring freeze, would

adversely affect the students and staff at Bay High; (b) the

transf er would interrupt operations at the school; and (c)

improvement was made at Bay High under Bolinger’s leadership

after it experienced two “D” years.

44. During the hearing, Mr. McFatter stated that he voted

to reject the recommendation because “everyth ing [at Bay High]

was positive in regard to the kids and their achievements. And

to derail it without explanation was unacceptable and to my mind

was good cause.”

45. At the June 28, 2006, meeting, Mr. Danzey voted to

reject the Superintendent’s recom mendation to transfer Bolinger

because there were improvements at Bay High under Bolinger.

Mr. Danzey thought it was too soon for another change in

principals at Bay High and that the leadership at the school

needed to stay in place.

46. Ms. Allen vot ed to reject the recommended transfer of

Bolinger because keeping the leadership at Bay High was best for

the future of the school, its students, and faculty. Ms. Allen

did not believe that anyone but Bolinger could implement his

plan for improvement of B ay High as well as Bolinger himself.

47. Mr. Brock voted to reject the Superintendent’s

recommended transfer of Bolinger because improvements were being

made at Bay High, students were feeling better about themselves,

and removing Bolinger would harm t he students. Mr. Brock stated

that the Superintendent’s action was the equivalent of

“pull[ing] the carpet” out from under the Bay High students.

48. At some point in time after recommending the transfer

of Bolinger, the Superintendent proceeded to ad vertise the

principal’s position at Bay High as open for the 2006 - 2007

school year. During his deposition and at the hearing, the

Superintendent revealed for the first time that he considered

two applicants to be qualified for the Bay High job: Bill Payn e

and Mackie Owens. At the time of the rejection of Bolinger’s

recommended transfer, the School Board members were not aware

that the Superintendent might consider one of these two

individuals to be the principal of Bay High.

49. Payne had applied for the same position in 2005 and

had not been selected by the Superintendent. For the 2005/2006

school term, Payne served as an assistant principal at Bay High

under Bolinger.

50. If the School Board had approved the recommended

transfer of Bolinger, the School Board members would not have

had an opportunity to consider the assignment of a Bay High

principal until the July School Board meeting.

51. Due to the School Board’s rejection of the

Superintendent’s recommended transfer, Bolinger remains

princi pal of Bay High. The Superintendent has not revealed the

name of the person he would recommend to be principal at Bay

High should Bolinger be transferred.

52. During his deposition and during the hearing, the

Superintendent testified that there were m ultiple factors that

precipitated his decision to transfer Bolinger. First, there

was an incident that involved the announcing of Bay High’s Top

ten seniors for 2006.

53. In late April or early May 2006, the Superintendent

requested that Bolinger dela y announcing the ten seniors with

the highest cumulative grade point average because one student

erroneously believed that he should be valedictorian at Bay

High. The student’s parents wanted an opportunity to appeal the

issue to the School Board on the f ollowing Wednesday. The

Superintendent and Bolinger agreed that the announcement would

not be made until the end of the week after the School Board

meeting.

54. On Wednesday, the School Board listened to the

parents’ appeal. The School Board took no action to change the

decision of the school and the Superintendent that the student

academically ranked third behind co - valedictorians.

55. That evening after the School Board meeting,

Ms. Rohan, Chairperson of the School Board, went to Bay High

where some teachers and staff members were planning an awards

ceremony for Thursday morning. Learning that the decision was

final, the teachers requested permission from Bollinger to

include the Top 10 announcement in the Thursday awards program.

56. Boling er agreed to make the Top 10 announcement on

Thursday. He made this decision because he thought the issue

regarding the identity of the valeditorian was resolved and

because some of the Top 10 students were not going to be in

school on Friday.

57. On Thursday after the announcement, the Superintendent

received a call from a parent of the disappointed student. The

parent was upset because Bay High announced the Top 10 on

Thursday instead of waiting until Friday as anticipated by the

parent.

58. The Superintendent contacted Bolinger to inquire about

the decision to make the announcement on Thursday. Bollinger

explained that it was just a spur of the moment decision.

Bolinger offered to apologize to the student’s parents over any

misunderstanding ab out the timing of the announcement.

59. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Rohan informed the

Superintendent that she had been to Bay High on Wednesday

evening planning for the Top 10 announcement the next day.

Ms. Rohan’s statement led the Superintendent to err oneously

believe that Bolinger had lied when he said the announcement was

a spur of the moment decision.

60. The incident involving the Top 10 announcement was the

biggest factor that the Superintendent considered when deciding

to transfer Bolinger. I f Bolinger had waited until Friday to

make the academic awards, the Superintendent probably would have

recommended that Bolinger return to Bay High for additional

years.

61. Another factor that motivated the Superintendent to

transfer Bolinger involved a facilities improvement request from

Bay High, which the Superintendent rejected. The Superintendent

erroneously believed that Bolinger sent parents to pressure him

to change his mind.

62. In April 2006, Bay High’s PASS business partners spoke

to th e Superintendent about some needed facility improvements at

Bay High. The Superintendent agreed to send the district’s

Director of Facilities to review a list of suggested needs. One

of the improvements was a new baseball dugout, with lockers and

a batti ng cage, as requested by Bay High’s baseball boosters.

The Superintendent asked the business partners to follow up with

him about the dugout issue in the future.

63. Bolinger, as principal of Bay High, approved the

facilities request before sending it t o the Superintendent. The

Superintendent rejected any request for improvements that were

not academically related. Bolinger did not request that the

business partners pressure the Superintendent about his

rejection of any part of the facilities request, much less a

baseball dugout.

64. Bay High’s business partners had a follow - up

appointment with the Superintendent on the morning that

Bolinger’s recommended transfer became public knowledge. The

business partners intended to discuss alternative means of

funding the construction of the new dugout. However, the sole

issue addressed at the meeting was Bolinger’s transfer. There

was no pressure applied to the Superintendent about his

rejection of any improvement at Bay High.

65. A third factor that t he Superintendent considered was

that he thought the district would be better served if Bolinger

served as a middle school principal. According to the

Superintendent, Bolinger had been very successful as principal

at Merritt - Brown. The Superintendent kne w Bolinger was a good

disciplinarian and believed he could solve some alleged problems

at Jinks. However, the Superintendent subsequently had a

conversation with the principal at Jinks which resolved any such

problems.

66. During the hearing, the Supe rintendent presented the

expert testimony of William Montford, former Leon County School

Superintendent and currently Executive Director of Florida

Association of District School Superintendents. Mr. Montford’s

expert testimony is accepted, limited to his experience as a

school superintendent.

67. A school superintendent serves the role of Chief

Executive Officer of the school district. For that reason, a

superintendent needs control over district personnel and the

discretion regarding the placement of those employees. In

making those decisions, a superintendent should consider the

input from school board members, teachers, parents, and student.

Ultimately, it is the superintendent’s responsibility to

recommend what he or she believes is best – in ter ms of

personnel placement - for the entire school district.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

68. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

S tatutes.

69. The Superintendent has standing to initiate this

proceeding. Bollinger has standing to participate as a party

intervenor.

70. The School Board has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that it had good cause to reject

the Superintendent’s recommendation to transfer Bolinger. See

Dileo v. School Board of Dade County , 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla.

3d DCA 1990).

71. A school superintendent has statutory authority to

recommend the transfer of the school district’s employe es. See

§ 1012.27(4), Fla. Stat.

72. The School Board’s responsibilities are set forth in

Section 1012.22(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which states as follows

in pertinent part:

(a) Positions, qualifications, and

appointments. —

1. The distri ct school board shall act

upon written recommendations submitted by

the district school superintendent for

positions to be filled, for minimum

qualifications for personnel for the various

positions, and for the persons nominated to

fill such positions.

2. The district school board may

reject for good cause any employee

nominated.

73. Case law has held that the aforementioned good cause

standard applies when a school board rejects the recommended

transfer of personnel by a superintendent. See V on Stephen v.

School Board of Sarasota County , 338 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1976).

74. “Good cause” has not bee statutorily defined.

Historically, the question of good cause has dealt with whether

a nominee is “morally or professionally disqualifi ed” for a

certain position. See Von Stephens , 338 So. 2d at 895.

75. In Spurlin v. School Board of Sarasota County , 520 So.

2d 294, 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the court stated that “ Von

Stephens does not attempt to define ‘good cause’ within any

boundary.” The Court explained further that

[a]s amorphous and unbounded as the words

“good cause” may seem when not specifically

elaborated upon by the legislature, we are

unwilling to ascribe to the expression a

limitation which forecloses a school board

from exe rcising its ability to decline a

recommendation for a lawful, rational, non -

arbitrary, non - statutory reason.

See Spurlin , 520 So. 2d at 296. Thus, good cause is not

confined to whether an individual recommended by a

superintendent in morally or profess ionally qualified for the

position to which the individual was nominated.

76. In this case, the School Board had reason to believe

that Bolinger’s transfer after one very successful year at Bay

High, so close to the beginning of the next school year, wou ld

adversely impact the forward progress of the school under the A

Plan. The transfer would damage the morale of the students,

faculty, staff, parents, and community members, who had rallied

to improve Bay High academically and in other areas such as

att endance, discipline, and pride in the physical facility under

Bolinger’s strong leadership. In the absence of any reason for

the Superintendent’s action, the School Board was not required

to risk Bay High’s future by approving the Superintendent’s

propose d transfer of Bolinger, the one person that the

Superintendent recently considered the best and only person who

could “fix” Bay High. In one year, Bolinger may have “ruffled

some feathers” but he certainly made substantial gains towards

“fixing” Bay High.

77. There is no legal prohibition against a school board

rejecting for “good cause” a superintendent’s recommended

transfer based upon the performance of the school and the impact

such transfer would have on the school. Under the facts of this

case, the School Board had “good cause” not to approve

Bolinger’s transfer based on lawful, rational, non - arbitrary,

non - statutory reasons.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That the School Boa rd enter a final order rejecting the

Superintendent’s recommendation to transfer Larry Bolinger.

DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE F. HOOD

Administrative La w 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 22nd of January, 2007.

ENDNOTE

1/ The following hearing testimony provides the most persuasive

evidence regarding the details of the June 21, 2005,

conversation between the Superintendent and Bollinger:

A He then said, “Yes, I’d like you to take

over Bay High. I’ll let you have one

assistant principal of your choosing.”

And I said, “Well Mac, I’ve done some

thinking about this since the rumors have

been out about who would and who would not

be principal.” And I said, “I like to thi nk

ahead, and if the possibility come (Sic) up,

I wanted to know.” I said, “I’m going to

need two assistant principals and a few

other things.” And so we began discussing

it.

Q And was this just kind of a back and

forth discussion of what is would ta ke to

induce you to accept the position at Bay

High School?

A Yes. And, in fact, I had already

accepted it. I told him, I said, “Mac”, I

said, “I’m going to do this for three

reasons.” I said, “Number one, you asked

me. You succeeded me in this offic e. I

used to sit in that chair, and when I asked

a principal to do a job, I expected him or

her to go do it.” And I said, “I will do it

for you.”

And I said, “Secondly, I love Bay High.

I taught there for ten years. I have many

relative that have gone through Bay High.”

I said, “I know or feel like I know what

some of the problems are, and I believe I

can lend a contribution.”

And, thirdly, this is my fourth year at

Merritt Brown. I believe the school is

running well. I believe that I can honestly

leave it an go on and take on another

challenge.

Q When you discussed taking on that other

challenge with the superintendent, was there

any discussion of your retirement status,

the number of years you had to remain in the

district, things of that nature?

A Yes, that was the other issue. I said,

“now, my” — I believe my exact words, “well

now, Mac, this is my big one now, this is

the last big one.” I said, “I’ve just

finished my first year of DROP, you asked me

to go to Merritt Brown four years ago, I

went that at your request. This is it. Now,

I don’t want to move. Because,” I said,

“besides that, it’s going to take four

years. If half of what I hear is wrong with

Bay High, it’s going to take somebody at

least four years to clean it up. ”

And he nodded and agreed and said yes.

I said, “So, this is it.”

He said, “I have no problem with that

at all, no problem with that at all.”

Q And when he said that, that was in

response to your saying this is the last

move and you have fo ur more years, and it

will take at least that long to turn the

school around.

A That is correct. I went on to say, I

like to joke around, and I said, “Mac,

besides that, it I can’t clean it up in four

years, you need to fire me anyway.”

And he laughed, too, and he said,

“You’re right.”

COPIES FURNISHED :

Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Carlton Fields, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0190

Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire

Harrison, Sale, McCloy

Thompson and Duncan

Post Office Drawer 1579

Panama City, Florida 32401

Mary F. Aspros, Esquire

Meyer and Brooks, P.A.

2544 Blairstone Pines Drive

Post Office Box 1547

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All partie s 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.