13-001084TTS Monroe County School Board vs. David Gootee Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, November 4, 2013.

Summary: Evidence failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in dishonest or fraudulent conduct.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 13 - 1083TTS

MARISA GOOTEE ,

Respondent .

/

MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 13 - 1084TTS

DAVI D GOOTEE,

Respondent.

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was

conducted by video teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Key

West, Florida, on August 2 7, 2013, before Administrative Law

Judge Edward T. Bauer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Scott C. Black, Esquire

Vernis and Bowling of the

Florida Keys, P.A.

Third Floor

81990 Overseas Highway

Islamorada, Florida 33036

For Respondent s : Robert K. Michael, Esquire

Robert Michael Law Firm

Suite 150

3030 North Rocky Point Drive, West

Tampa, Florida 33607

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondents'

employment with the Monroe County School Board.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By correspondence dated January 15, 2010, the Monroe County

School Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") notified

Respondents that it intended to terminate their instructional

positions based upon allegations that they had "prepar[ed] and

submitt[ed] false time reports fo r additional compensation for

which [they] were already being compensated . . . under [their]

School Board Contract[s]." Thereafter, on January 27, 2010, the

School Board filed separate administrative complaints

(collectively, "Complaints") against Respon dents, which alleged,

inter alia, that they had failed to maintain honesty in all

professional dealings and/or submitted fraudulent information on

any document in connection with professional dealings, contrary

to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession and School Board Policy 3210.

Respondents timely requested formal administrative hearings

to contest the School Board's action, and, on February 1, 2010,

the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for furt her proceedings and assigned Case

Nos. 10 - 0495TTS and 10 - 0497TTS.

In an apparent effort to settle the matter, the parties

requested, and received, numerous continuances of the final

hearing date; ultimately, on April 20, 2012, the parties filed a

"Joint St ipulation for Stay of Final Hearing Pending Settlement,"

which indicated that a tentative resolution had been reached and

would be presented to the School Board for its approval. In an

Order dated April 23, 2012, the undersigned instructed the

parties to file a status report no later than July 2, 2012, and

that, in the event such a report was not submitted, the files of

the Division of Administrative Hearings would be closed. No

status report was filed, which resulted in the entry of an "Order

Closing Fil es and Relinquishing Jurisdiction" on July 6, 2012.

More than eight months later, on March 21, 2013, Respondents

filed an unopposed "Motion to Reopen Division File." (The Motion

indicated, in part, that the School Board had rejected the

proposed settleme nt.) The undersigned granted Respondents'

request and re - opened the proceeding under Case Nos. 13 - 1083TTS

and 13 - 1084TTS.

As noted above, the final hearing was held on August 27,

2013, during which Petitioner introduced 15 exhibits, numbered 1

through 15, and presented the testimony of Jeff Arnott and Debra

Henriquez. Respondents testified on their own behalf and

introduced 180 exhibits, numbered 1 through 180. At the

conclusion of the final hearing, the parties agreed that proposed

recommended orders wo uld be submitted no later than 20 days

following the filing of the transcript.

The final hearing Transcript was filed with the Division of

Administrative Hearings on September 23, 2013. Thereafter, and

at the parties' joint request, the proposed recommend ed order

deadline was extended to October 18, 2013. Each party filed

timely proposed recommended orders, which the undersigned has

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted, all rule and statutory references

are to the versions in effect at the time of the alleged

misconduct.

FINDING S OF FACT

A. The Events

1. Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the

responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public

schools within Monroe County, Florida.

2. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondents

David Gootee and Marisa Gootee (hereinafter "Mr. Gootee,"

"Mrs. Gootee, or "the Gootees") served as cosmetology teachers at

Key West High School ("KWHS"). Pursuant to the terms of their

professional se rvice contracts, Mr. and Mrs. Gootee were

obligated to perform, respectively, 4.8 and 7.5 hours of work

each school day; in exchange, the Gootees each received

salaries. 1 /

3. As established during the final hearing, the School

Board offers cosmetology in struction to two distinct populations:

"traditional" high school students, who are taught during regular

school hours; and individuals enrolled in the School Board's

adult education program. From what can be gleaned from the

record, it appears that, prio r to the 2001 - 2002 school year,

adults who received cosmetology instruction did so separately,

and at different times (presumably, in the late afternoon or

evening), from traditional high school students. Consequently,

the work hours for which the Gootees received salaries, which

coincided with KWHS's regular bell schedule, were dedicated

exclusively to the instructi on of traditional students.

4. In or around 2001, however, John Andola, the School

Board's director of adult education, asked the Gootees if they

would be willing to furnish instruction to the adult students

during normal school hours ÏÏ i.e., at the same time as the

traditional cosmetology students. By all accounts, the presence

of the adult students would, and ultimately did, impose

additional responsibilities upon the Gootees. For instance, the

adult students, who were segregated from the traditional students

for part of the day (thereby requiring the Gootees to traverse

between the two populations), were tested and issued grades. 2 / In

excha nge for their assumption of these extra burdens, Mr. Andola

proposed that, in addition to their existing salaries, the

Gootees would each receive three hours of compensation ÏÏ at a rate

of approximately $20 per hour ÏÏ for every workday, notwithstanding

the f act that the Gootees would be spending more than three hours

daily with the adult students. (In other words, the hourly pay

would be "capped" at three hours per workday.) Of the genuine

and reasonable belief that Mr. Andola's proposal was legitimate, 3 /

t he Gootees accepted the offer.

5. Before proceeding further, it is important to make two

observations concerning the foregoing compensation arrangement.

First, and as confirmed by the final hearing testimony of the

School Board's witnesses, it was not un heard of in Monroe County

for salaried teachers to receive additional, hourly pay for

providing instruction to adult education students. 4 / Moreover,

the disbursement of hourly pay to the Gootees, a practice that

would continue unabated from 2001 through S eptember 2009, was no

secret; indeed, the authorization of hourly pay on an "as needed

basis" is documented throughout the Gootees' personnel forms,

which bear the initials or signatures of various School Board

officials, including that of the deputy super intendent. 5 /

6. In or around 2007, Monique Acevedo replaced Mr. Andola

as the School Board's director of adult education. As

Mr. Andola's former secretary, Ms. Acevedo was aware that the

Gootees were receiving hourly pay, and there is no dispute that

the arrangement continued with her approval.

7. At or about the time of Ms. Acevedo's promotion, the

adult education department instituted a requirement that its

instructors submit written, weekly timesheets. The timesheets,

which indicated that the total h ours worked per week for the

adult program, were signed by the instructor and delivered to the

secretary of the department, who, in turn, forwarded the document

to Ms. Acevedo for approval. Thereafter, an office manager

entered the hours into a computer s ystem, which could then be

viewed by the payroll department. 6 / Notably, the adult education

timesheets related only to the hourly work performed in

connection with that particular program; that is, the forms were

not intended to document the time spent by salaried instructors

in connection with their contractual work responsibilities.

8. Consistent with these procedures, and over the next

several years, the Gootees submitted written timesheets to the

adult education department. In accordance with the thr ee - hour

cap (put in place by Mr. Andola, and continued by Ms. Acevedo),

the Gootees billed three hours per day, for a total of 15 hours

weekly, on their timesheets. For informational and non - billing

purposes only, the Gootees also indicated on the timeshe ets the

span of time in which they were on campus and in the presence of

adult students. Specifically, Ms. Gootee typically recorded

times of 8:15 a.m. through 3:45 p.m., while Mr. Gootee, who

worked a shorter day, generally notated 8:15 a.m. or 8:30 a.m.

through 1:00 p.m. However, it must be emphasized, once again,

that these ranges, which were recorded solely on the adult

timesheets, were not intended to reflect the amount of time the

Gootees spent in connection with their salaried, contractual

work. ( For those duties, KWHS teachers, including the Gootees,

were required to sign in and out of the workplace in a separate,

daily log.) 7 /

9. Subsequently, in late March or early April of 2009, the

School Board terminated Ms. Acevedo's employment. At that t ime,

and on an interim basis, Jeff Arnott assumed Ms. Acevedo's duties

as the director of the adult education program. Over the next

five months, the Gootees continued to submit their weekly

timesheets, which Mr. Arnott approved. 8 /

10. Thereafter, in S eptember 2009, Mr. Arnott was appointed

as the director of the adult education program on a permanent

basis, at which point he gained access to the School Board's

master schedule. From his examination of the schedule,

Mr. Arnott learned that the Gootees' work for the adult program

occurred during regular school hours, as opposed to some other

time period that did not coincide with their salaried work

schedule. Concerned with the "overlap" in the hours, Mr. Arnott

immediately inquired of the Gootees (both of whom enjoyed

excellent reputations as professionals, a point Mr. Arnott

conceded at hearing), who explained, correctly, that the

arrangement had been ongoing for years with the approval of the

prior directors. 9 / Nevertheless, Mr. Arnott reported the is sue to

the superintendent of schools, culminating in the initiation of

the instant proceeding.

11. As noted earlier, the School Board called only two

witnesses in this matter: Mr. Arnott, who had no involvement in

the adult education department until 200 9, some eight years after

the Gootees began receiving the hourly pay; and Debra Henriquez,

an employee in the School Board's payroll department.

12. Through Ms. Henriquez' testimony, the School Board

attempted to establish that the payroll department was unaware of

the overlap in the Gootees' hours ÏÏ an arrangement the witness

opines was improper ÏÏ until September 2009. The School Board

fails to recognize, however, that Ms. Henriquez' knowledge of the

situation 10 / and her view of its legitimacy are of no mo ment; the

issue, as framed by the Complaints, is whether the Gootees, in

accepting the hourly compensation, acted with dishonest or

fraudulent intent. It is concluded, for the reasons explained

below, that the Gootees did not act with such intent.

13. C ontrary to the School Board's suggestion, this is not

a situation where an educator committed an obvious and

indefensible act of impropriety, such as accepting bribes for

inflating grades, helping students cheat on the FCAT, or stealing

money from the lunc hroom cash register ÏÏ behavior that could not

be legitimately defended on the basis that it occurred with a

supervisor's encouragement or approval. Here, the director of

the adult program, an individual tasked with utilizing adult

education funds, 1 1 / offer ed the Gootees extra pay (approximately

$10,000 each per school year, a sum that is hardly conscience

shocking) in exchange for their assumption of additional duties ;

that the work with the adults occurred during regular school

hours does not change this f act, nor does it compel a rejection

of the Gootees' credible and reasonable testimony that they

believed in the arrangement's propriety. This is particularly so

in the absence of any evidence that the Gootees' professional

services contracts obligated the m to accept the adult education

students without any corresponding increase in compensation.

14. Finally, the undersigned rejects the School Board's

contention that the Gootees' notations on their weekly, adult

education timesheets were somehow fraudulent or dishonest.

Notably, the entries recorded on the forms accurately reflected

the spans of time, during regular school hours, in which the

Gootees instructed the adult students ÏÏ i.e., there is no evidence

that the Gootees attempted to conceal the "overla p" by recording

time periods when they were not dealing with the adult students,

such as after the normal school day or during the evening.

Indeed, that the timesheet entries plainly indicated the

existence of an overlap only further supports the Gootees'

credible testimony that they believed in t he arrangement's

legitimacy.

B. Determinations of Ultimate Fact

15. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that

Respondents are not guilty of failing to maintain honesty i n

their professional dealings.

16. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that

Respondents are not guilty of submitting fraudulent information

on documents connected with their professional dealings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction

17. The Division of Administrative Heari ngs has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this case

pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

B. Notice of Charges/Burden of Proof

18. A district school board employee against whom a

disciplinary proceeding has been initiated must be given written

notice of the specific charges prior to the hearing. Although

the notice "need not be set forth with the technical nicety or

formal exactness required of pleadings in court," it should

"specify the [statute,] rule, [regulat ion, policy, or collective

bargaining provision] the [school board] alleges has been

violated and the conduct which occasioned [said] violation."

Jacker v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 426 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1983)(Jorgenson, J., concurring).

19. O nce the school board, in its notice of specific

charges, has delineated the offenses alleged to justify

termination, those are the only grounds upon which dismissal may

be predicated. See Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371,

1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996 ); Klein v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. ,

625 So. 2d 1237, 1238 - 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Delk v. Dep't of

Prof'l Reg. , 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

20. In an administrative proceeding to suspend or dismiss a

member of the instructional staff, the school board, as the

charging party, bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance

of the evidence, each element of the charged offense. McNeill v.

Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

The preponderance of the evidence stan dard requires proof by "the

greater weight of the evidence" or evidence that "more likely

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

763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000); see also Williams v. Eau

Claire Pub. Sch. , 397 F.3d 441, 446 (6t h Cir. 2005)(holding trial

court properly defined the preponderance of the evidence standard

as "such evidence as, when considered and compared with that

opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces . . . [a]

belief that what is sought to be prove d is more likely true than

not true").

21. The charged employee's guilt or innocence is a question

of ultimate fact to be decided in the context of each alleged

violation. McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA

1995); Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA

1995).

C. The Charges Against Respondents

22. Pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, a

school board is authorized to suspend or dismiss a member of its

instructional staff for "just cause," which is define d as

follows:

Just cause includes, but is not limited to,

the following instances, as defined by rule

of the State Board of Education: immorality,

misconduct in office, incompetency, gross

insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or

being convicted or f ound guilty of, or

entering a plea to, regardless of

adjudication of guilt, any crime involving

moral turpitude.

§ 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). In addition, the violation

of a school board rule can, in some instances, supply just cause

for an educat or's dismissal. See St. Lucie Cnty. Sch. Bd. v.

Baker , Case No. 02 - 973, 2002 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1335, *61

(Fla. DOAH Dec. 31, 2002)("[O]ther wrongdoing, such as the

violation of a district school board rule, may also constitute

'just cause'").

23. In the instant Complaints, the School Board alleges,

first, that Respondents are guilty of violating School Board

Policy 3210, which provides, in relevant part:

3210 - Î Standards of Ethical Conduct

An effective educational program requires the

services of men and women of integrity, high

ideals, and human understanding. The School

Board hereby establishes the following as the

standards of ethical conduct for all

instructional staff members of the District:

* * *

15. [M]aintain honesty in all professiona l

dealings.

* * *

22. [N]ot submit fraudulent information on

any document in connectio n with professional

activities.

2 4. As an overlapping charge, the Complaints can be fairly

read to accuse Respondents of misconduct in office, an offense

that, at th e time of the alleged misconduct, was defined by the

State Board of Education as a:

[V]iolation of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession as adopted in

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

of Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession i n Florida as adopted in

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

to impair the individual's effe ctiveness in

the school system.

Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B - 4.009(3)(emphasis added). 1 2 /

25. In turn, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession

(adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.001) and the

Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession

in Florida (adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B -

1.006) 13 / provide in pertinent part as follows:

6B - 1.001 Code of Ethics of the Education

Profession in Florida

(1) The educator values the worth and

dignity of every person, the pursuit of

truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of

knowledge, and the nurture of democratic

citizenship. Essential to the achievement of

these stan dards are the freedom to learn and

to teach and the guarantee of equal

opportunity for all.

(2) The educator's primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the student's

potential. The educator will therefore

s trive 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

colleagues, of students, of parents, and of

other members of the communi ty, the educator

strives to achieve and sustain the highest

degree of ethical conduct.

* * *

6B - 1.006 Principles of Professional Conduct

for the Education Profession in Florida.

* * *

(5) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the i ndividual:

(a) Shall maintain honesty in all

professional dealings.

* * *

(h) Shall not submit fraudulent information

on any document in connection with

professional activities.

26. "As shown by a careful reading of rule 6B - 4.009, the

offense of mi sconduct in office consists of three elements:

(1) A serious violation of a specific rule that (2) causes (3) an

impairment of the employee's effectiveness in the school system."

Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Sapp , Case No. 01 - 3803, 2002 Fla. Div.

Adm. Hear . LEXIS 1574, *18 - 19 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2002; BCSB

Dec. 10, 2002). For ease of reference, the second and third

elements can be conflated into one component: "resulting

ineffectiveness." Id.

27. Based on the F indings of F act contained herein, the

Sch ool Board has not established that Respondents failed to

maintain honesty in their professional dealings. On the

contrary, and as explained previously, the credible evidence

demonstrates that the Gootees accepted extra compensation in

exchange for their p erformance of additional work ÏÏ an arrangement

that, notwithstanding the "overlap" in the hours, the Gootees

reasonably believed was legitimate. 14 / See Brogan v. Leon , Case

No. 93 - 7154, 1995 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 4157, *15 - 16 (Fla.

DOAH May 18, 1995)( concluding that the charge of failing to

maintain honesty in professional dealings requires proof that the

educator knowingly intended to deceive or defraud the school

board).

28. The charge that the Gootees submitted fraudulent

information on a professio nal document likewise fails, for there

is no evidence that their entries to weekly timesheets were in

any manner false or inaccurate, nor has the School Board shown

that the Gootees acted with the intent to deceive. See Brogan v.

Navarez , Case No. 97 - 3845 , 1998 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 5580,

*17 - 18 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 17, 1998)(explaining that to prove the

charge of submission of fraudulent information on a document in

connection with professional dealings, "it must be shown not only

that the teacher provide d false or misleading information on the

document in question, but also that the teacher knowingly did so

with the intent to deceive"); cf. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.

Co. v. Novotny , 657 So. 2d 1210, 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("The

elements required to es tablish a claim of fraudulent

misrepresentation are: (1) a knowingly false statement; (2) an

intent that the statement will be acted on; (3) and detrimental

reliance on the statement"); Gentry v. Dep't of Prof'l &

Occupational Regs. , 293 So. 95, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)(holding

statutory provision prohibiting licensed physicians from making

"misleading, deceptive and untrue representations in the practice

of medicine" requires proof that the represe ntations were made

willfully).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

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

a final order: dismissing the administrative complaints;

immediately reinstating Respondents' employment; and awarding

Respondents any lost sala ry and benefits.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November , 2013 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

EDWARD T. BAUER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Par kway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 4th day of November , 2013 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ As a part - time instructor, Mr. Gootee recei ved 64 percent of a

full - time salary.

2 / See Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 90 - 91, 111.

3 / See Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 93 - 94, 111 - 112.

4 / See Final Hearing Transcript, p. 25, lines 13 - 20; p. 63,

lines 14 - 15; p. 81, lines 1 - 7.

5 / See Petit ioner's Exhibit 2, pp. 20, 21, 23 - 24, 26, 28 - 33, 36,

41; Petitioner's Exhibit 6, p. 227 - 228, 230, 234 - 235, 238 - 239,

241 - 243, 248 - 250.

6 / Pursuant to the School Board's procedures, copies of the

timesheets were not forwarded to the payroll department. Se e

Final Hearing Transcript, p. 54, lines 5 - 8.

7 / The KWHS sign in/out log is foun d in Petitioner's Exhibit 15.

8 / As with each of the Gootees' earlier timesheets, those

presented to Mr. Arnott requested three hours of pay per workday.

See Petitioner 's Exhibit 3, pp. 111 - 120; Petitio ner's Exhibit 10,

pp. 317 - 327.

9 / In its Proposed Recommended Order, the School Board argues

that the "overlap" was "never approved by the [s]uperintendent,"

a proposition it claims is supported by the testimony of Debra

Henriquez. The undersigned cannot agree that the record allows

such a finding, for Ms. Henriquez' testimony establishes, at

most, that the payroll department received no direction from the

superintendent one way or the other concerning the issue. In any

event, and more to the point, there is no evidence that the

Gootees knew or should have known, during the period they

accepted the additional compensation, that any relevant School

Board employee was in the dark concerning the "overlap."

1 0 / Should the School Board wish to assign blame for the payroll

department's (purported) lack of knowledge of the "overlap," it

need look no further than its own policies. As discussed

elsewhere in this Order, the School Board's standard procedure

required an office ma nager to enter each adult education

employee's total, weekly hours into a computer system, which

could then be viewed by the payroll department; oddly, no

computer entry was made regarding the particular times of day in

which the hours were worked, nor was a physical copy of the

timesheet ÏÏ which did provide such information ÏÏ forwarded to the

payroll department. See Final Hearing Tr anscript, pp. 53 - 54, 80,

83.

1 1 / During the final hearing, Mr. Arnott testified as follows

regarding the job responsibilities of the adult education

director:

My duties were basically just to make sure

the teachers had the right curriculum,

utilize the funds and, you know, create the

master, the schedules. You know, help

students with registration and so forth like

that.

Fina l Hearing Transcript, p. 22 (emphasis added).

1 2 / On July 8, 2012, rule 6B - 4.009 was substantially revised and

renumbered as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 5.056.

However, as rule 6A - 5.056 was not in effect on the date of

Respondents' alleged misco nduct, rule 6B - 4.009 controls in this

proceeding. See Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Mobley , Case

No. 12 - 1852, 2013 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 225, *11 n.4 (Fla.

DOAH Apr. 17, 2013)("The most recent amendment to rule 6A - 5.056,

adopted on July 8, 2012, does not apply to this proceeding

because the conduct at issue occurred before the amendment's

effective date.").

1 3 / On January 11, 2013, rules 6B - 1.001 and 6B - 1.006 were

transferred to Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A - 10.080

and 6A - 10.081, respectivel y.

1 4 / This Recommended Order should not be read as an affirmative

endorsement of the "overlapping" compensation arrangement, which,

by all accounts, was in place for no School Board employee other

than the Gootees. Instead, the undersigned has conclude d only

that, under the particular circumstances presented, the Gootees

possessed a genuine and reasonable belief that they were entitled

to additional pay by virtue of their acceptance of extra

responsibilities vis - à - vis the adult students ÏÏ a finding that

defeats the School Board's charges of dishonesty and fraud.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Scott C . Black, Esquire

Vernis and Bowling of the

Florida Keys, P.A.

Third Floor

81990 Overseas Highway

Islamorada, Florida 33036

Robert K . Michael, Esquire

Robert Mich ael Law Firm

Suite 150

3030 North Rocky Point Drive , West

Tampa, Florida 33607

Mark T. Porter, Superintendent

Monroe County School Board

umbo Road

Key West, Florida 33040 - 6684

Pam Stewart, Commissioner

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Matthew Carson, General Counsel

Department 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.