12-002309 Nassau County School Board vs. D. Lynn Owen Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, February 5, 2013.

Summary: Teacher's falsification of student attendance records provided just cause for a one-year suspension.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

NASSAU COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 12 - 2309

)

D. LYNN OWEN , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a for mal hearing was held in this case

on August 27, 2012, in Fernandina Beach, Florida, before

Lawrence P. Stevenson, the designated Administrative Law Judge of

the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. Ray Poole, Esquire

J ohn Sikes Gibbs, Esquire

Constangy, Brooks and Smith, LLP

200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 1700

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Respondent: Harrison W esley Poole, Esquire

Poole and Poole, P.A.

303 Centre Street, Suite 200

Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner, the Nassau County School

Board, has just cause t o terminate the employment of Respondent,

D. Lynn Owen, a teacher on a professional services contract.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 18, 2012, Petitioner Nassau County School Board

("School Board") sent written notice, signed by John L. Ruis as

Superintend ent of Schools, to Respondent , D. Lynn Owen , of its

intent to terminate Ms. Owen's employment. The notice stated as

follows, in relevant part:

Pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida

Statutes and Nassau County School Board Rule

3.19, please be advised that I intend to

recommend to the Nassau County School Board

at its meeting on Thursday, June 28, 2012,

that it suspend you without pay pending the

termination of your employment with the

Nassau County School District. The proposed

suspension and terminat ion of your employment

is due to misconduct in office, incompetency,

and willful neglect of duty under section

1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as defined

by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B -

4.009[ 1 / ] and violation of Nassau County

School Board Rule 3.4 9. Specifically, during

the fall semester of the 2011 - 2012 school

year, it appears that you falsified and/or

negligently failed to maintain accurate

records pertaining to your fifth period

Debate 4 class. Moreover, during that time

period it does not app ear that you had

established or followed any discernible

academic standards for that class. Pursuant

to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes,

should you wish to contest the charges

against you, you shall have fifteen (15) days

in which to submit a writ ten request for a

hearing. . . .

On June 22, 2012, counsel for Respondent timely requested a

hearing pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a). On July 5, 2012, the

School Board forwarded Respondent's hearing request to the

Division of Administrative Hearings (" DOAH") for the assignment

of an Administrative Law Judge and the conduct of a formal

evidentiary hearing.

On July 11, 2012, the School Board filed a formal

Administrative Complaint at DOAH that made the same essential

allegations as found in the June 18, 2012, notice to Respondent.

On August 13, 2012, the School Board filed a motion for

leave to file an Amended Administrative Complaint based on

documentation discovered after the filing of the Administrative

Complaint. Respondent objected to the motion but filed no

written statement in opposition. By order dated August 16, 2012,

the motion was granted.

The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged, in addition to

the allegations regarding Respondent's fifth - period Debate 4

class during Fall S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school year, that

Respondent "falsified and/or negligently failed to maintain

accurate grading records for her fourth - period Speech I class"

during the Spring S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school year.

The matter was set for hearing on August 27 , 2012, on which

date the hearing was convened and completed.

At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of

Cynthia Grooms, assistant principal at West Nassau High School;

Julie Brown, a technology integration specialist for the School

Board; William Eason, a teacher and band director at West Nassau

High School; C.P., a student at West Nassau High School; John L.

Ruis, Superintendent of Schools for the Nassau County School

Board; and Respondent. The School Board's Exhibits 1 through 8,

11 thr ough 13, and 17 through 27 were admitted into evidence.

School Board Exhibits 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, and 17 through 25 contain

the unredacted names of students at West Nassau High School and

have therefore been placed under seal.

Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the

testimony of Ronald Booker, former principal of West Nassau High

School; Iris Coleman, a retired teacher, administrator, and

behavior analyst for the School Board; Tammy Roberts, a teacher

at West Nassau High School; Robin Sparkman , a data entry operator

at West Nassau High School; Melody Spruell, an English teacher at

West Nassau High School; and Maureen Lullo, an English teacher at

West Nassau High School. Respondent's Exhibits 5 through 8 were

admitted into evidence.

At the clos e of the hearing, the parties agreed to a period

of 20 days after the filing of the transcript within which to

file their proposed recommended orders. The two - volume

T ranscript of the hearing was filed at DOAH on September 18,

2012. On October 3, 2012, R espondent filed an unopposed motion

for enlargement of time, requesting an additional 14 days within

which to file proposed recommended orders. The motion was

granted by order dated October 3, 2012. In accordance with the

order granting the extension of time, the parties filed their

Proposed Recommended Orders on October 22, 2012.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The School Board employs Respondent D. Lynn Owen as a

teacher. Dr. Owen holds a professional service contract with the

School Board pursuant to section 101 2.33, Florida Statutes. 2 /

2. During the 2011 - 2012 school year, Dr. Owen taught at

West Nassau High School ("West Nassau") in Callahan.

Fall 2011 - 2012 Debate 4 class

3. During the 2011 - 2012 school year, West Nassau operated

on a four - period block schedule rather than the six - period

schedule followed by most Florida public schools. Under the

block schedule, the school year consisted of two semesters, f all

and s pring. Students took four classes per day, each class

lasting 90 minutes. Students received a f ull credit per semester

for each of the four classes.

4. In addition to her qualifications as an English teacher,

Dr. Owen is a nationally ranked speech and debate coach. During

the 2010 - 2011 school year, Dr. Owen started a debate team at West

Nassau. S he taught Debate 3 during the 2010 - 2011 school year

with a class consisting largely of freshmen recruited from her

honors English class. The debate team enjoyed some success in

debate competitions and the students wanted to continue taking a

debate class in the 2011 - 2012 school year.

5. West Nassau P rincipal Ronald Booker was amenable to

establishing a Debate 4 class, but was concerned that Dr. Owen's

other duties would preclude her teaching the class given the

limits of a four - period school day. After some discussion,

Dr. Owen volunteered to teach Debate 4 class as a "fifth - period"

class to be held after the close of the regular school day. The

regular school day began at 9:05 a.m. and ended at 3:25 p.m.

6. Thus, during the Fall S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school

year, Dr. Owen taught Debate 4 as an elective honors class that

convened daily from 3:30 until 4:15. In the block schedule

system, this class was referred to as a "skinny" block. Unlike

the regular block courses, a skinny block met every day for 45

minutes for the full 180 days of the school year. The skinny

block class was graded in quarters rather than semesters, and a

full credit was earned only if the student remained in the class

for the entire school year.

7. Because the Debate 4 class was taught outside of regular

school hours, Dr. Owen was not paid to teach the course.

8. West Nassau had several "zero - period" classes that met

before the start of the regular school day. Mr. Booker testified

that Debate 4 was the only fifth - period cla ss he knew of at the

start of the 2011 - 2012 school year. He testified that he only

learned about another fifth - period class, Band 2, after the

school year began.

9. William Eason, the band director at West Nassau,

testified that he taught Band 2 as a fif th period class during

the Fall S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school year. Mr. Eason

testified that Mr. Booker approved the class for credit during

the summer before the start of the school year. Mr. Eason stated

that he was paid for the class, receiving a s tipend for after -

school instruction.

10. Mr. Eason's testimony regarding the provenance of the

Band 2 class is credited. Both Mr. Eason and Mr. Booker appeared

to be testifying honestly, but Mr. Booker's recollection on this

point was imprecise. Mr. Boo ker clearly recalled his approval of

Debate 4 but was fuzzy as to when Band 2 came about, though he

recalled discussions about the need for the class. Mr. Eason

taught the class and naturally had a more specific recollection

of the approval process than d id the principal.

11. Band 2 met daily at 3:45 p.m. until roughly 5:00 p.m.

This was the time during which the marching band rehearsed for

its appearances at West Nassau football games and for band

competitions. Mr. Eason testified that he had no attend ance

problems with his Band 2 students. He took regular attendance at

the start of the class. Also, if a student were missing, the

hole in the marching band formation would be obvious.

12. Three students, A.H., L.C., and C.P., were enrolled in

Dr. Owen' s Debate 4 class and in Mr. Eason's Band 2 class. It

fell to Dr. Owen to fashion a solution to this conflict because

it was critical that these students attend band practice every

day after school, particularly A.H., who was the band's drum

major. No fle xibility could come from the Band 2 side of the

conflict.

13. Mr. Booker asked Dr. Owen to "work with" these students

to provide a way for them to make up missed class time in

Debate 4. If they had to miss two days because of band, then

Dr. Owen should meet with them for a longer class period on the

remaining three days to make sure they met the seat time

requirement. 3 /

14. Dr. Owen testified that she understood Mr. Booker's

instruction to mean that she should be flexible regarding regular

class attend ance for her Debate 4 students, provided they put in

the time required to receive credit for the course. Eight

students were in the course at the start of the year, and three

dropped out. Dr. Owen stated that the five who remained in

Debate 4 met their s eat time requirement for the 2011 - 2012 school

year.

15. C.P., now a tenth grader at West Nassau, was in the

marching band during Fall S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school year.

He was enrolled in Band 2 and stated that the marching band

practiced every day a t 4:00 p.m., except for Thursdays when band

practice convened at 4:30. C.P. enrolled in Debate 4 during

September 2011 , on Dr. Owen's recommendation, creating a conflict

with his attendance at Band 2.

16. On a few occasions, C.P. split his time at Band 2 and

Debate 4. On most days, he would attend Debate 4 from 3:30 until

4:00 p.m. and then go to band practice. If there was no band

practice, he would stay in Debate 4 until 5:00 p.m. On Thursdays

he was able to stay in Debate 4 for a full hour, but on F ridays

during the football season he was not able to attend Debate 4 at

all due to his band commitments.

17. C.P. testified that Dr. Owen allowed him to make up the

missed time by coming in early in the morning, before first -

period began at 9:05 a.m. In this way, C.P. was able to put in

at least 30 minutes daily on his Debate 4 assignments.

18. C.P. estimated that 95 percent of his class time was

spent performing research on debate topics with his debate

partner, which facilitated working independently o f the regular

class period. C.P. testified that his grade in Debate 4 was

based on class participation, including debate practice once a

week, and that there were no term papers or written assignments

in the conventional sense.

19. Dr. Owen testified tha t sixty percent of the grade for

Debate 4 was based on class work, twenty percent was based on

writing, and twenty percent was based on her assessments of the

students. She stated that C.P. was not doing things that he

would normally do in an English clas s for "writing," but that she

graded the students based on their research, their notes, and

their debate outlines, all of which are components of "writing"

under the Sunshine State Standards. Her assessments were based

on weekly practice debates.

20. C .P. stated that his classmates A.H. and L.C.

eventually dropped out of Debate 4 because they were unable to

keep up with the requirements of the class in addition to their

Band 2 commitments.

21. The School Board has alleged that although C.P., A.H. ,

and L.C. attended fifth - period band practice virtually every day

during the Fall S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school year, and

although band practice directly conflicted with Dr. Owen's fifth

period Debate 4, those students were marked "present" in the

Debate 4 c lass when they were not present.

22. In fact, the fifth - period classes overlapped but did

not conflict at all points. Mr. Eason testified that the band

class began at 3:45, but C.P. testified that in practice the

class did not commence until 4:00 p.m. C .P. was able to attend

debate for thirty minutes, from 3:30 until 4:00 p.m., and then

attend the band class starting at 4:00 p.m. C.P.'s testimony was

entirely credible on this point. The evidence establishes that

it was possible for the three students e nrolled in both classes

to attend at least portions of both classes. Assuming that the

"flexibility" urged by Mr. Booker included the ability for

students to make up class time at other times of the day, it was

possible for C.P., A.H. , and L.C. to meet th e seat time

requirements for Debate 4 while also maintaining their attendance

at the fifth - period Band 2 class.

23. A.H. and L.C. dropped out of Debate 4 halfway through

the school year, each receiving a half - credit for the class.

C.P. remained in Debat e 4 for the entire school year. C.P.

testified that A.H. and L.C. dropped the debate class because

they were unable to put in the time to meet the seat requirements

for the class while maintaining their level of participation in

band.

24. Dr. Owen's hand written attendance sheets for August 29

through October 13, 2011, indicate a total of 16 absences from

Debate 4, including five absences for A.H., the band's drum

major. However, the attendance records submitted by Dr. Owen for

the school's official recor ds show no absences at all from Debate

4 until October 19, 2011. Dr. Owen did not have an adequate

explanation for this discrepancy. In response to a direct

question as to whether she had marked the students absent on the

official attendance sheet, Dr. O wen said, "I don't know.

Probably not."

25. Because Dr. Owen was teaching the Debate 4 class

voluntarily, without pay, the school would not pay for a

substitute teacher. Therefore, Dr. Owen did not have a

substitute teacher to fill in for her when she m issed Debate 4.

26. Records produced at the hearing indicated that Dr. Owen

was absent from the West Nassau campus on September 14 and 23,

October 4, November 9, December 8 and 9, and December 14 through

16, 2011.

27. However, Dr. Owen's handwritten at tendance sheets show

that on September 14, when Dr. Owen was at the hospital for her

husband's surgery, four students spent the entire class period in

Debate 4 and four others at least checked in with Dr. Owen. The

attendance sheets show that on September 23, when Dr. Owen was

attending a conference in Baltimore, three students spent the

entire fifth - period in Debate 4, three other students checked in,

and two were absent. Dr. Owen had no adequate explanation for

these discrepancies.

28. On October 4, Dr . Owen was out of school for AVID

professional training. Dr. Owen was the AVID coordinator for

West Nassau. AVID, or Advancement Via Individual Determination,

is the curriculum component of GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness

and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs), a grant program

established by the U.S. Department of Education to increase the

number of low income students who are prepared to enter and

succeed in postsecondary education. West Nassau was part of a

three - year GEAR UP grant.

29. Dr. Owen's handwritten attendance sheets for October 4

indicate that six students were present for the entire class

period and two others checked in with Dr. Owen. In this

instance, Dr. Owen explained that the AVID training session in

Jacksonville concluded at the end of the school day and that she

immediately drove to Callahan to be there for the Debate 4 class.

30. As to Dr. Owen's other listed absences, the record

contains no handwritten attendance sheets with which to compare

them. In her deposition, Dr. Owen testified that she kept

handwritten attendance sheets for the entire school year, but

that during its initial investigation the School Board asked only

for her attendance sheets for the first quarter of the 2011 - 2012

school year. She was subsequently susp ended and barred from the

West Nassau campus and therefore unable to provide the rest of

the attendance sheets in response to the School Board's discovery

request.

31. West Nassau also generated a daily "subsequent period

absentee report." The first - peri od teacher would take the roll

of the students in her class and send the results to the school

office. The office would then generate a report of absent

students that would be distributed the next day to teachers of

subsequent classes. Those teachers wou ld check their own

attendance record against the report and mark whether the

students were present or absent for their classes.

32. The subsequent period absentee reports for November 9,

and December 14 and 15, 2011, each indicate that A.H. was marked

abs ent for her first period class but was marked "present" for

Debate 4. On all three of these dates, Dr. Owen was not present

at the school.

33. West Nassau maintains a "teacher sign - in sheet for

payroll" that is treated as the official record of when a te acher

comes into and leaves the school every day. Several of these

sheets for the 2011 - 2012 school year were submitted into

evidence. The sheets indicate that on most days, Dr. Owen worked

well in excess of eight hours, often well into the evening hours.

However, the sheets also indicate several days during the Fall

semester on which Dr. Owen signed out of the school at 3:30 p.m.

or before, indicating that she could not have been present to

teach Debate 4: August 16, September 1, October 26 and 27, and

November 2, 2011. There were also a few dates on which Dr. Owen

left school after 3:30 but before the 4:15 dismissal time for

Debate 4: September 20, October 25, and November 3, 2011.

34. The handwritten attendance sheets for Debate 4 indicate

that the c lass convened on August 16 and September 1, 2011,

despite the fact that Dr. Owen had signed out of the school at

3:30 p.m.

35. The evidence indicated that on at least two occasions

Dr. Owen chaired meetings of the West Nassau AVID teachers at

3:45 p.m., i n conflict with Debate 4. Dr. Owen testified that

the AVID meetings occurred 15 minutes after the start of

Debate 4, and that she was able to take roll and get the class

started on independent work before the AVID meeting started. The

AVID meetings were in the same connected suite of classrooms in

which Dr. Owen conducted her classes, so that she was at all

times within earshot of the Debate 4 class. She could not ,

however, state with certainty that the students were in the class

and working during the c lass period.

36. The School Board has also alleged that Dr. Owen did not

establish or follow any discernible academic standards for the

Debate 4 class. The School Board offered little evidence to

support this allegation. 4 / Dr. Owen provided a detailed course

syllabus that included cognitive and behavioral objectives,

targets for subject matter mastery, and the specific Sunshine

State Standards met by the course. She also provided the

students with a classroom management plan with clear rules for

the fu nctioning of the classroom and a set of student, parent and

teacher expectations requiring the signatures of all parties.

37. Regarding the lack of traditional writing assignments

in the Debate 4 class, Dr. Owen testified as follows:

If I had any less ex perience, maybe I would

have to have a piece of paper for every

single thing that they did. But I didnÓt

have to have that because I have been trained

to assess everything a student has learned in

ten minutes or less. And the minute they

start talking, w hether it's a national

competition or in my classroom, in ten

minutes or less I can tell you whether

they've done any or all of the work that they

have been given to do. It's part of knowing

how to judge and coach debate.

38. Dr. Owen's testimony on thi s point is credible. Debate

4 was a performing arts class, and as such did not fit the

profile of a standard academic classroom course. To prepare for

debates, students were required to perform extensive research and

to demonstrate complete mastery of th e materials they compiled.

At the suggestion of the West Nassau principal, Dr. Owen provided

the students some flexibility in making up their seat time due to

the recognized conflict during the fifth - period. C.P., for

example, made up his seat time by co ming in early in the mornings

and staying past 4:15 on afternoons when he could be in the

class. Dr. Owen estimated that C.P. put in 130 hours of seat

time during fourth quarter alone as he prepared for a national

competition, when only 135 hours were req uired to obtain credit

for the entire school year.

39. Dr. Owen's clear mastery of the subject matter entitled

her to some deference as to the extent to which the students were

able to work independently of her. However, on this point,

Superintendent of Schools John Ruis testified persuasively that

regardless of how much independent study the student is

responsible for, there is an expectation that instruction will

occur in the classroom and that the students will be under the

supervision of the teacher w ho is responsible for them. Dr. Ruis

believed that some arrangement should have been made for

supervision of the class in Dr. Owen's absence, regardless of the

time the class convened.

40. In summary, as to the allegations regarding the Debate

4 class, t he School Board failed to demonstrate that Dr. Owen did

not establish or follow any discernible academic standards for

the class during the Fall S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school year.

41. The School Board did demonstrate that Dr. Owen

falsified records pertaining to the fifth - period Debate 4 class.

It is understood that "falsification" carries a connotation of

intentional action. Based on all the evidence, there is simply

no way to find that Dr. Owen's actions constituted anything other

than an intenti onal misreporting of student attendance in her

Debate 4 class. Dr. Owen submitted attendance reports that were

clearly incorrect, showing students present for classes that

could not have taken place because Dr. Owen was not present on

the West Nassau camp us at the time in question. 5 / When she filled

out the attendance reports, Dr. Owen had to know that she was

submitting inaccurate records.

Spring 2011 - 2012 Speech 1 class

42. During the Spring S emester of the 2011 - 2012 school

year, Dr. Owen taught an AVI D Speech 1 class at West Nassau.

43. As noted above, AVID is the curriculum component of the

federal GEAR UP grant program, the purpose of which is to

increase the number of low - income students who are prepared to

succeed in postsecondary education. The program's emphasis is on

students who show the potential to do college work but who lack

the financial and family resources to prepare in the manner

available to their more well - to - do classmates. The elective AVID

program aims to nurture these students an d inculcate in them a

desire to succeed in college. 6 /

44. The final exam for the S pring S emester AVID Speech 1

class consisted of four parts, each worth 200 points. The

800 - point final exam counted for roughly one quarter of the

student's grade for the nine - week period. 7 /

45. One of the 200 - point segments of the final exam was a

written essay test. The exam's instructions provided as follows:

Please choose ONE (1) essay question. Your

essay response should be a minimum of three

(3) pages, and a maximu m of four (4) pages.

Please include an introduction, body, and

conclusion. Your response is based off of

your own experiences, not just the class's as

a whole. Write your responses on a separate

sheet of notebook paper.

46. There followed a lis t of five essay questions:

1. Compare and contrast your 1st semester at

WNHS to your 2nd semester. What has changed?

How have you improved, and what can you do to

continue to improve?

2. What recommendations would you give to

the freshman class next y ear to prepare them

for high school?

3. Describe your experience with your first

AP/Honors class. What do you think you could

have done differently to help your grade?

How do you think you could have been prepared

in 8th grade, to be ready to go, when the

class started?

4. Describe what you think your life is to

be like in 15 years. Where do you see

yourself? Be as descriptive as possible.

5. Do you believe that a person is born with

individual determination, or is it acquired

over time? What mak es individual

determination such a good thing but also a

very bad thing? Give examples.

47. Twenty - two students took the essay test. Twenty - one of

the students received the same grade, 186 points out of a

possible 200. The remaining student received a grade of 160. 8 /

48. Dr. Owen made no marks on any of the exams, most of

which were replete with spelling errors, grammatical errors and

sentence fragments. Three of the essays did not meet the three

page minimum, and one of the essays was five and one - h alf pages

long, in excess of the four - page maximum.

49. In explaining her actions, Dr. Owen testified that some

of the students were very concerned about their grades as they

approached the written essay portion of the exam. Two parts of

the final exam had been completed and were "non - negotiable as far

as AVID was concerned," in Dr. Owen's words. One of these was

the Tutorial Request Form, which Dr. Owen described as a "very

stylized Socratic methodology form that they have to use Costa's

higher - level order of thinking in order to put together. 9 / And

that is a killer sheet that they had to do twice a week all

year." The second "non - negotiable" part of the final exam was a

grade for the binders that the students were required to keep all

year.

50. D r. Owen testified that some of the students had not

done well on these two portions of the final exam, for which the

AVID program allowed her no leeway to adjust the grades. She

testified that these students "needed something to mitigate the

damage that h ad been done in . . . the other two parts of the

exam." Some of the students were further concerned that they

could not write three pages on the essay test. Therefore, she

orally amended the exam instructions, telling the class, "I will

look at your essa ys to determine if you have addressed the prompt

and if you have reflected on what you're doing. And if you've

worked the whole period and you're working hard and I can tell,

then I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their

grades."

51. Dr. Ow en testified that she had taken this essay test,

including the instructions, from an AVID website. She stated

that she had never written an exam that called for a minimum or

maximum number of pages, and that she did not believe that such a

requirement sho uld be strictly enforced. Dr. Owen noted that she

had one student whose handwriting became larger and larger as she

became more nervous, which caused her to fill more than four

pages on the essay test. Another student's primary language was

Spanish, but he managed to write a page and a half in English

that addressed the prompt. In both of these instances, Dr. Owen

declined to discount the students' grades for failure to meet the

three - page minimum or four - page maximum.

52. Dr. Owen testified that she has been trained as a

professional test scorer and did not need to place marks on the

papers. She stated that she took notes on a separate note pad to

assist her in grading the papers, though she was unable to

produce these notes at the hearing. She also knew that this was

the last exam before summer break and that the students would not

be coming back for the tests. She intended to place the exams in

the students' permanent AVID folders to use as part of their

first project for the next school year. Th e project was to

involve peer editing, and she did not want the students to be

influenced by marks she had placed on the papers. The essay exam

was not intended to be "punitive." It was meant to be

"reflective," something she could use at the beginning o f the

next year as a starting point for further study of the students'

personal growth.

53. Dr. Owen noted that the essay test was only one - fourth

of the AVID Speech 1 final exam. This part of the exam did not

change anyone's grade average because it amo unted to so little of

the total grade.

54. Dr. Owen testified that it is appropriate to give all

the students the same grade provided they "put into it what I ask

them to put into it." In her deposition, when asked why 21 out

of 22 students received the same score, Dr. Owen replied,

"Probably because I liked what they wrote and they maintained the

rubric." 10 / She testified that she read every word of every

essay.

55. The fourth part of the final exam, also worth 200

points, was a "mandala autobiography" project. Each student was

required to draw a mandala, or circle, containing five symbols

that represent unique and varied aspects of the student and/or

his life. According to the written rubric for the project, a

"very effective" mandala would demonstrat e its symbolic purpose,

would be visually appealing, and would have a purposeful and

unifying connecting design. Accompanying the mandala would be an

essay that "thoroughly describes and explains the symbols

contained in the mandala. The essay would use "strong sensory

details to bring each symbol to life." The "very effective"

essay should be well - organized, use "well - crafted transitions to

propel the reader forward," contain varied sentence structure and

have "few, if any, mechanical errors."

56. All 22 students in the AVID Speech 1 class received a

grade of 190 out of 200 on the mandala autobiography project.

Dr. Owen made no marks of any kind on any of the project

materials submitted by the students.

57. Dr. Owen explained that this project was the

culmination of "an entire year's worth of reflection through

AVID." As well as writing explanatory essays, the students were

required to present the mandalas to the class and explain each

symbol and color used in the drawings.

58. Dr. Owen testified t hat the mandala autobiography was

something of a group project, with all of the students working on

the rubric together. Again, she did not make marks on the papers

because the mandalas were going to be used during the next school

year. Dr. Owen testifie d:

[A]t the beginning of this year, we were

going to take those mandalas, and we were

going to turn that into the second project,

which was: over the summer, how have you

changed? How have your coll a ges changed?

How did the symbols change? Are they stil l

valid? And so I wasn't going to mark on

anybody's artwork, and I didn't need to mark

on any of them because the students' rubrics

and things . . . I had them all together in

one place.

59. Dr. Owen conceded that some students produced more

material s than others and that some projects appeared to have had

more effort put into them, based on the detail of the written

materials. Nonetheless, Dr. Owen testified that each one of the

students in the class "absolutely" earned the grade he or she

received.

60. Dr. Cynthia Grooms, the assistant principal at West

Nassau who conducted the initial investigation into the

allegations against Dr. Owen, testified that she found it unusual

that so many students received the same grades on the essay test

and the man dala project, especially because there were no marks

on the papers. These facts raised concerns as to whether

Dr. Owen reviewed the exams, graded them properly, documented her

grading process, and provided feedback to the students.

61. Dr. Ruis also foun d it "highly irregular" for 22

students in a class to receive an identical grade on a written

assignment. Dr. Ruis believed the probability of such an

occurrence "would normally be very slim." As to the essay test

in particular, Dr. Ruis stated:

It would be difficult not to read these

essays and make some distinctions between

them with regard to quality of the product

that the students produced. However, that

was not reflected in the scores that they

were assigned . . . It suggested that they

were not r eviewed objectively, that they were

not graded in accordance with the guidelines

that were issued, and done haphazardly.

62. Even Mr. Booker, the former West Nassau principal who

testified on behalf of Dr. Owen, stated that it would be unusual

for all 22 students in a class to receive the same grade on a

written project. If he were shown 22 written essays, all of

which received the identical grade and none of which had a mark

on them, Mr. Booker would conclude that the teacher had not

graded them.

63. The School Board's allegation is that Dr. Owen

"falsified and/or negligently failed to maintain accurate grading

records for her fourth period Speech I class."

64. It is found that Dr. Owen did not "falsify" records for

the class because there is no evid ence that Dr. Owen intended to

create inaccurate or misleading grading records.

65. The undersigned finds Dr. Owen to be a dedicated

teacher and a sympathetic witness, and has attempted to give her

the benefit of every doubt in this proceeding. The AVID Speech 1

class was an elective class designed to encourage potential

first - generation college students to pursue higher education.

The class was designed more to encourage reflection and self -

examination than to exert academic pressure on the students. I t

is found that, given the nature and goals of the class, Dr. Owen

had some measure of discretion to apply a more relaxed grading

standard.

66. However, by her own admission, Dr. Owen negotiated with

her students the terms of the AVID Speech 1 essay test after the

students saw the written instructions to the test, essentially

telling them to disregard the instructions and promising them a

good grade if she believed they were working hard. She then

proceeded to give 21 of 22 students a score of 186 ou t of 200, or

a solid "A," without apparent regard to the manifest differences

in quality among the essays. She made no marks on any of the

papers, failing to correct for spelling and grammatical errors.

Dr. Owen testified that she took notes in a separat e note pad

that she was unable to produce at the hearing. She stated that

the students received the same score because they all wrote

according to her undisclosed personal "rubric." The undersigned

credits Dr. Owen's testimony that she read every word of every

essay, but cannot credit her conclusion that all of these essays

were of precisely the same quality meriting precisely the same

grade. Based on these facts, it is found that Dr. Owen

negligently failed to maintain accurate grading records for her

f ourth - period Speech I class as to the essay portion of the final

exam.

67. As to the mandala autobiography, there are factors

apart from those discussed as to the essay test that incline the

decision toward Dr. Owen. The mandala project had an objective

rubric against which the finished product could be judged.

Though each student produced an individual mandala, the overall

project was visualized as a group effort, providing some

justification for Dr. Owen's decision to award all 22 students

with a grade of 190. A reasonable person could disagree with

Dr. Owen's method of grading the mandala autobiography project,

but her grading decision cannot be found to constitute a

negligent failure to maintain accurate grading records.

Evidence as to Dr. Owen's fit ness and effectiveness

68. Mr. Booker was the principal of West Nassau and

Dr. Owen's direct supervisor throughout her tenure at the school.

He described Dr. Owen as a "fabulous teacher," a "master" at

keeping her students "highly engaged and involved in the

educational process." Mr. Booker stated that he had no concerns

about Dr. Owen's professionalism and had never known her to

neglect any of her duties. His only concern was as follows:

I've had concerns about her work ethic,

because she works, you kn ow, nonstop pretty

much every day, every day, every night,

weekends. She's a very dedicated teacher,

puts in more hours as one teacher probably

than three or four other teachers do. I used

to have to try to kick her out of the

building.

69. Dr. Owen received the highest score possible on her

annual evaluation for the 2011 - 2012 school year. She received an

overall score of 97 out of 100 possible points on her 2010 - 2011

annual evaluation. She was subject to two evaluations during the

2009 - 2010 school year, for which she received scores of 94 and

100 out of a possible 100 points.

70. Iris Coleman is a retired teacher and administrator for

the School Board. In the 2008 - 2009 school year, Ms. Coleman was

acting principal at the Student Educational Altern ative School

("SEAS") at which Dr. Owen was a teacher. Ms. Coleman testified

that her performance evaluations of Dr. Owen were very good, and

that Dr. Owen was "one of the most competent teachers that I have

ever observed." Ms. Coleman never knew Dr. Owe n to neglect her

duty, stating that, "I have never seen anything but the finest of

performance academically, professionally, and socially."

71. Melody Spruell, the former English department head and

AP coordinator at West Nassau, testified that she had ob served

Dr. Owen's Debate 4 class 15 or 16 times and her AVID Speech 1

class about a dozen times. She noted that Dr. Owen's students

posted "stellar" scores on the FCAT exam. Dr. Spruell stated

that Dr. Owen "makes the rest of us kind of look like, you kn ow,

chopped liver." Dr. Spruell testified that if she had ninth -

grade children, "my kids would be in her class."

72. Maureen Lullo is an English teacher who shared the same

suite of classrooms with Dr. Owen and worked closely with her in

the AVID program . Ms. Lullo described Dr. Owen as "a brilliant

mind and really one of the best teachers that I have been exposed

to in my 24 years of teaching."

73. Dr. Ruis testified as to the factors that led him to

recommend Dr. Owen's dismissal:

Well, I think to go back to the Code of

Ethics of the teaching profession of the

State of Florida, teachers have an obligation

to present information honestly; they have an

obligation to the profession and to the

students and to the parents to not produce

information that wou ld misrepresent the facts

or be submitted fraudulently.

I think that's a very serious breach of the

Code of Ethics. And my expectation for all

of our teachers would be that they perform

and that they act in a manner that's of the

highest character, as ex emplifying the Code

of Ethics, because that is certainly

something that we need to model for our

students. And when that does not happen, I

think it -- you know, it reduces the

effectiveness of someone in the instructional

position with students under the ir

supervision.

74. Dr. Ruis concluded that it would be "very, very

difficult" for Dr. Owen to remedy her impaired effectiveness at

West Nassau or in the Nassau County School District.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

75. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

j urisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to section 120.569 and subsections 120.57(1)

and 1012.33(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes.

76. Respondent is an employee of the School Board, and

holds a professional service contract pursuant to section

1012.33(3)(a).

77. The School Board has the burden to establish by a

preponderance of the evidence the grounds for disciplining

Respondent. See, e.g. , McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 678

So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sublet t v. Sumter Cnty. Sch.

Bd. , 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Allen v. Sch. Bd.

of Dade Cnty. , 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA

1990); Dileo v. School Board of Dade County , 569 So. 2d 883, 884

(Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

78. There are two statutory mech anisms by which a school

board may terminate the employment of an employee working under a

professional service contract: termination for cause pursuant to

section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and termination for failure to

correct performance deficiencies w ithin the 90 - day probation

period pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. In this

case, the School Board chose to proceed exclusively under section

1012.33.

79. Subsection 1012.33(1)(a) provides that a teacher's

contract must contain provisions fo r dismissal during the term of

the contract for "just cause," which includes but is not limited

to "immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency . . . gross

insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or being convicted or

found guilty of, or entering a pl ea of guilty to, regardless of

adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude, " as

those terms are defined by rule of the State Board of Education.

The School Board in this case has argued that Respondent's

incompetency, misconduct in office, and willful neglect of duty

provide just cause for the termination of her employment

contract.

80. At the time this matter was initiated, Florida

Administrative Code R ule 6A - 5.056(1) defined "incompetency" as

follows:

(1) Incompetency is defined as inabi lity or

lack of fitness to discharge the required

duty as a result of inefficiency or

incapacity. Since incompetency is a relative

term, an authoritative decision in an

individual case may be made on the basis of

testimony by members of a panel of expert

witnesses appropriately appointed from the

teaching profession by the Commissioner of

Education. Such judgment shall be based on a

preponderance of evidence showing the

existence of one (1) or more of the

following:

(a) Inefficiency: (1) repeated failur e to

perform duties prescribed by law (Section

231.09, F.S.); [ 11 / ] (2) repeated failure on

the part of a teacher to communicate with and

relate to children in the classroom, to such

an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum

educational experience; or (3 ) repeated

failure on the part of an administrator or

supervisor to communicate with and relate to

teachers under his or her supervision to such

an extent that the educational program for

which he or she is responsible is seriously

impaired.

(b) Incapaci ty: (1) lack of emotional

stability; (2) lack of adequate physical

ability; (3) lack of general educational

background; or (4) lack of adequate command

of his or her area of specialization. [ 12 / ]

81. Based on the findings of fact set forth above, the

Schoo l Board has demonstrated Dr. Owen's "repeated failure to

perform duties prescribed by law" through her multiple failures

to keep accurate records of class attendance in her f all 2011 -

2012 Debate 4 class. There is just cause for the School Board to

dismiss Dr. Owen from employment due to "incompetency" as that

term is defined in former rule 6A - 5.056(1).

82. This conclusion as to Dr. Owen's "incompetency" is

limited to her unfortunate submission of false attendance

records. By all accounts, Dr. Owen's sk ill and dedication as a

classroom teacher, AVID team leader, and debate coach were

exemplary.

83. At the time this matter was initiated, rule 6A - 5.056(3)

defined "misconduct in office" as follows:

(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a

violation of t he Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B -

1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B -

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

impair the individualÓs eff ectiveness in the

school system. [ 13 / ]

84. Rule 6A - 10.080, Code of Ethics of the Education

Profession in Florida, [ 14 / ] provides as follows, in relevant part:

(2) The educator's primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the develop ment of the student's

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the best professional judgment

and integrity.

(3) Aware of the importance of maintaining

the respect and confidence of one's

colleague s, of students, of parents, and of

other members of the community, the educator

strives to achieve and sustain the highest

degree of ethical conduct.

85. Rule 6A - 10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for

the Education Profession in Florida, provides , in pertinent part,

that:

(1) The following disciplinary rule shall

constitute the Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession in

Florida.

(2) Violation of any of these principles

shall subject the individual to revocation or

suspen sion of the individual educatorÓs

certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

(3) Obligation to the student requires that

the individual:

* * *

(d) Shall not intentionally suppress or

distort subject matter relevant to a

student's acade mic program.

* * *

(4) Obligation to the public requires that

the individual:

* * *

(b) Shall not intentionally distort or

misrepresent facts concerning an educational

matter in direct or indirect public

expression.

* * *

(5) Obligation t o the profession of

education requires that the individual:

(a) Shall maintain honesty in all

professional dealings.

* * *

(h) Shall not submit fraudulent information

on any document in connection with

professional activities.

86. Based on the fi ndings of fact set forth above, the

School Board has demonstrated that Dr. Owen failed to exercise

the best professional judgment and integrity; failed to sustain

the highest degree of ethical conduct; intentionally distorted

subject matter relevant to a s tudent's academic program;

intentionally misrepresented facts concerning an educational

matter in direct public expression; failed to maintain honesty in

all professional dealings; and submitted fraudulent information

on a document in connection with profe ssional activities. All of

these conclusions are premised upon Dr. Owen's multiple failures

to keep accurate records of class attendance in her Fall 2011 -

2012 Debate 4 class, and her submission of attendance reports

that she knew to be inaccurate. There is just cause for the

School Board to dismiss Dr. Owen from employment due to

"misconduct in office" as that term is defined in former rule 6A -

5.056(3).

87. At the time this matter was initiated, rule 6A - 5.056(4)

defined "gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties" as

"a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct

order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper

authority." 15 /

88. Based on the findings of fact set forth above, the

School Board has failed to demonstrate that Dr. Owen committed a

"willful neglect of duties" as defined in former rule 6A -

5.056(4). It could be argued that Dr. Owen, and all teachers at

West Nassau, operated under a "direct order" to submit accurate

attendance records, but such an argument strikes the undersigned

as an effort to bootstrap an additional violation onto those

already clearly proven.

89. The above findings of fact also established that

Dr. Owen's grading of the essay portion of the final exam for the

Spring 2011 - 2012 Speech 1 class co nstituted a negligent failure

to maintain accurate grading records. The undersigned concludes

that this failure does not rise to the level of incompetency,

willful neglect of duty, or misconduct in office. Dr. Owen's

questionable grading of exams would b e a performance evaluation

issue to be addressed under section 1012.34, if the School Board

intended to retain Dr. Owen in its employ.

90. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the School Board

suggests Nassau County School Board r ule 2.11 as an additional

g round for Dr. Owen's dismissal. The rule provides as follows:

RECORDS AND REPORTS -- CONTRACTUAL AND OTHER

EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS --

I. All employees of the School Board shall

faithfully and accurately keep such records

and make such reports as may be req uired by

law, State Board of Education Rules, and

Rules of the School Board, or as the

Superintendent may deem necessary for the

effective administration of the school

system. Such records shall include student

attendance, property inventory, school funds ,

and other types of information.

II. Reports shall be submitted on forms

prescribed for such purposes at designated

intervals or on specified dates. All such

reports shall be made by the designated time.

The Superintendent shall have the right to

wit hhold any warrant due an employee who is

delinquent in filing a report until the

required report is submitted in an acceptable

form. All reports are to be officially

checked and brought up - to - date before a

teacher or other employee who resigns

receives fi nal pay.

III. The Superintendent is authorized to

withhold any warrant due an employee who has

not fulfilled all contractual or other

obligations due the system until these

obligations are met.

91. While the findings of fact set forth above demonstrate

Dr. Owen's failure to "faithfully and accurately" keep student

attendance records, School Board r ule 2.11 provides its own

remedy: the Superintendent may withhold any warrant due an

employee who has not submitted timely and accurate records. It

is conclu ded that the rule does not address dismissal of an

employee for violation of its provisions.

92. In summary, the School Board has demonstrated by a

preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Owen intentionally

submitted inaccurate attendance records, and that Dr. Owen's

actions constitute incompetency and misconduct in office

sufficient to establish just cause for disciplinary action to be

taken against her.

93. At the outset of this proceeding, the School Board

sought to terminat e Dr. Owen's employment con tract. This remedy

was premised on all the allegations of the Amended Administrative

Complaint. In fact, the only allegation proven at hearing that

constitutes a disciplinary violation addressable pursuant to

section 1012.33 was the submission of inaccur ate attendance

records.

94. In considering the proper sanction in this case, the

School Board should consider the overall exemplary quality of

Dr. Owen's work as a teacher and debate coach. The School Board

should consider Dr. Owen's dedication to her students and her

w illin gness to volunteer to teach Debate 4 even though the class

had to be convened after regular school hours and she would not

be paid for teaching it. Though her violation was serious, it

also appears to have been an aberration in an o therwise

remarkable teaching career. Based on Dr. Owen's basic integrity

and value to the school system, the School Board should consider

a penalty short of termination. The undersigned recommends that

she be suspended without pay for the 2012 - 2013 schoo l year, then

reinstated at West Nassau or another school in the Nassau County

School District.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Nassau County School Board enter

a final order finding D. Lynn Owen guilty of incompetency and

misconduct in office and imposing the sanction of suspension

without pay for the 2012 - 2013 school year.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5 th day of February , 2013 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk o f the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5 th day of February , 2013 .

ENDNOTES

1 / Effective July 8, 2012, rule 6B - 4.009 has been transferred to

rule 6A - 5.056.

2 / Unless otherwise indicated , references to the Florida Statutes

are to the 2012 edition.

3 / Regular classes on a six - period schedule require 135 hours of

classroom instruction, or "seat time" as the witnesses called it,

in order for the student to receive one full credit. This

am ounts to 3.75 hours per week (a 45 - minute class period

multiplied by five days) during a 36 - week school year. Classes

structured according to block scheduling require 120 hours of

seat time in order for the student to obtain full credit.

§ 1003.436(1)(a ), Fla. Stat.

4 / The main evidence mustered in support of this allegation was

that Dr. Owen's syllabus and course management materials could

not be found on Edline, the computer program that West Nassau

teachers used to record grades, lesson plans, grad ing standards,

and daily assignments. Dr. Owen explained that she did not use

Edline to post class materials for Debate 4 because only students

enrolled in a given class have access to its Edline page, meaning

that the seven students who were participatin g as debate club

members would have been denied access. Dr. Owen testified that

the school's webmaster, Tammy Roberts, helped her set up a web

page that made the class materials accessible by all participants

in the debate class and the debate club. (Ms. Roberts recalled

setting up a web page for Dr. Owen's AVID Speech 1 class but not

for the Debate 4 class.) In any event, the evidence produced at

the hearing established that Dr. Owen in fact had a complete

syllabus and classroom management plan for Deba te 4 containing

clear criteria for student progress in the class.

5 / The evidence established during the s pring semester of the

2011 - 2012 school year, when she began to feel that she was under

scrutiny by assistant principal Cynthia Grooms, Dr. Owen beg an

having her Debate 4 students sign in to the class.

6 / In her deposition, Dr. Owen explained the AVID program as

follows:

AVID is not a curriculum as much as it

is . . . a foundational support for all the

other classes in the school or all of the

o ther core subjects in the school. So the

point is to get the students and help them

with the skills they need to succeed in all

of their college readiness courses so that

they can go to college. That's the whole

point of the program.

7 / The maximum poi nt total for the nine - week period was 3,000

points, making the final exam worth 26.67 percent of the total.

8 / Twenty of the twenty - two written exams were admitted into

evidence. One of the missing exams was that of the student who

received a grade of 1 60, making it impossible to compare the one

outlier to the other exams. No explanation for the single score

of 160 was offered at the hearing.

9 / Dr. Owen's reference is to Arthur L. "Art" Costa, an education

professor who has developed a "mindful learn ing" process for

thinking through complex problems. The goal is to teach higher -

level problem solving and critical thinking behaviors to students

at the high school level.

10 / When further pressed by counsel for the School Board,

Dr. Owen stated that th e "rubric" she was referencing was "my

personal rubric for grading," not the instructions for the essay

test.

11 / Prior to the repeal of chapter 231, Florida Statutes, by

section 1058, chapter 2002 - 387, Laws of Florida, section 231.09,

Florida Statutes (2 001), set forth the duties of instructional

personnel as follows:

(1) The primary duty of instructional

personnel is to work diligently and

faithfully to help students meet or exceed

annual learning goals, to meet state and

local achievement requirements , and to master

the skills required to graduate from high

school prepared for postsecondary education

and work. This duty applies to instructional

personnel whether they teach or function in a

support role.

(2) Members of the instructional staff of

the public schools shall perform duties

prescribed by rules of the district school

board. The rules shall include, but are not

limited to, rules relating to a teacher's

duty to help students master challenging

standards and meet all state and local

requiremen ts for achievement; teaching

efficiently and faithfully, using prescribed

materials and methods, including technology -

based instruction; recordkeeping ; and

fulfilling the terms of any contract, unless

released from the contract by the district

school board . (Emphasis added.)

Prior to July 8, 2012, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

5.056, had not been updated to reflect the change in the

statutes. The continuing validity of the rule has not been

questioned in this proceeding.

12 / Effective July 8, 2 012, Florida Administrative Code R ule 6A -

5.056(3) provides as follows:

(3) "Incompetency" means the inability,

failure or lack of fitness to discharge the

required duty as a result of inefficiency or

incapacity.

(a) "Inefficiency" means one or more of the

following:

1. Failure to perform duties prescribed by

law;

2. Failure to communicate appropriately with

and relate to students;

3. Failure to communicate appropriately with

and relate to colleagues, administrators,

subordinates, or parents;

4. Disorganization of his or her classroom

to such an extent that the health, safety or

welfare of the students is diminished; or

5. Excessive absences or tardiness.

(b) "Incapacity" means one or more of the

following:

1. Lack of emotional stability;

2 . Lack of adequate physical ability;

3. Lack of general educational background;

or

4. Lack of adequate command of his or her

area of specialization.

13 / Effective July 8, 2012, Florida Administrative Code rule 6A -

5.056(2) defines "misconduct in offic e" as follows:

(2) "Misconduct in Office" means one or more

of the following:

(a) A violation of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession in Florida as adopted in

Rule 6B - 1.001, F.A.C.;

(b) A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B -

1.006, F.A.C.;

(c) A violation of the adopted school board

rules;

(d) Behavior that disrupts the student's

learning environment; or

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacher's

ability or his o r her colleaguesÓ ability to

effectively perform duties.

14 / Effective January 11, 2013, Florida Administrative Code Rules

6B - 1.001 and 6B - 1.006 were transferred to rules 6A - 10.080 and 6A -

10.081, respectively. As the text of the rules was unchanged by

th e transfer, the current rules are cited for ease of reference.

15 / Effective July 8, 2012, Florida Administrative Code R ule 6A -

5.056(5) defines "willful neglect of duty" to mean "intentional

or reckless failure to carry out required duties."

COPIES FURNISHED:

Harrison Wesley Poole, Esquire

Poole and Poole, P.A.

303 Centre Street , Suite 200

Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034

John Sikes Gibbs, Esquire

Constangy, Brooks and Smith, LLP

200 West Forsyth Street , Suite 1700

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Jo hn L. Ruis, Superintendent

Nassau County School District

1201 Atlantic Avenue

Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034

Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel

D epartment of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.