15-002016TTS Holmes County School Board vs. Susan Steverson Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 17, 2016.

Summary: Petitioner School Board failed to prove that just cause existed to justify suspending Respondent for five days without pay.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HOLMES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 15 - 2016 TTS

SUSAN STEVERSON ,

Respondent .

______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

An administrative heari ng was held in this case on

December 22 , 201 5 , in Bonifay , Florida, before James H. Peterson

III, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Rhonda S. Clyatt , Esquire

Law Office of Rhonda Clyatt

621 East 4th Street

Panama City, Florida 32401 - 2492

For Respondent: Bob L. Harris , Esquire

Summer Denay Brown , Esquire

Messer Caparello , P.A.

2618 Centennial Place

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner established, pursuant to section

1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (201 4 ), 1/ that Respondent , Susan

Steverson (Respondent) , committed gross insubordination and

sho uld have been disciplined therefore.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about Janua ry 27 , 2015, Petitioner, Holmes County

School Board ( School Board or Petitioner), served Respondent

with a Notice of Charges setting forth allegations in support of

the School Board's earlier suspension of Respondent without pay

for a period of five days f rom January 12, 2015 , to January 16,

2015, imposed by the School Board's Superintendent. The Notice

of Charges notified Respondent that the School Board had adopted

the Superintendent's recommended discipline and advised that if

Respondent desired a heari ng on the matter pursuant to section

1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, that she must file a written

request within 15 days. Respondent timely requested a hearing ,

and on April 10, 2015, the School Board referred the matter to

the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the

assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct an

administrative hearing. The case was initially assigned to

Administrative Law Judge Diane Cle avi nger , who scheduled the

hearing to be held on May 29, 2015. The original hear ing date

was twice continued , and the final hearing was ultimately

rescheduled for December 22, 201 5 . D ue to Judge Cle avi nger's

unavailability, shortly before the hearing , the case was

transfe r red to the undersigned to preside over the final

hearing.

The day before the hearing, an Order was entered granting

PetitionerÓs Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas which quashed

subpoenas served upon members of the Holmes County School Board.

In addition, at the beginning of the final hearing , RespondentÓs

Motion f or Attorney Fees a nd Costs , filed December 21, 201 5 , was

denied , and ruling s on the objec tions to the offer of evidence

referenced in PetitionerÓs Mo tion in Limine filed December 17,

2015, was deferred until the offer of such evidence during the

final hear ing.

During the final hearing, the School Board offered the

testimony of School Board Superintendent Eddie Dixon, Bethlehem

School Principal Brent Jones, and Bethlehem School Assistant

Principal Rosanne Mitchell. The School Board offered 11

exhibits into evidence, 10 of which were received into evidence

as Exhibits P - 1, P - 2, P - 4, P - 5, P - 8, P - 11 through P - 14, and

P - 18. Although offered and conditionally received as

corroborating hearsay , Exhibit P - 3, consisting of a purported

written statement from a st udent, was not received or considered

because it is hearsay that did not corroborate competent

evidence. After the final hearing, an Order granting

PetitionerÓs Motion to Supplement the Administrative Hearing

Record was entered which received into evidenc e , as part of the

record in this case , PetitionerÓs Exhibit P - 10, consisting of

the minutes of the Holmes County School Board Workshop and

Regular Session held on January 20, 2015 .

In addition to testifying on her own behalf, Respondent

offere d the testimo ny of Donna Mollet, a fourth - grade teacher at

Bethlehem School; Lisa Matthews, another teacher at Bethlehem

School; and Tamra Kriser, a parent of one of Respondent's former

students. Respondent offered two exhibits which were received

into evidence as Exh ibits R - 9 and R - 18.

A two - volume Transcript of the proceeding was filed with

the DOAH on January 6, 2016 . The parties were given 30 days

from the filing of the Transcript within which to file their

respective proposed recommended orders . The time for sub mitting

proposed recommended orders was extended until February 12,

2016, by Order Granting [ RespondentÓs request for] Extens ion of

Time entered February 5, 2016. Thereafter, Petitioner timely

filed its Proposed Recommended Orders and, on February 15 , 201 6 ,

Respondent filed her Proposed Recommended Order [entitled

ÐProposed Report and Recommended OrderÑ] , t ogether with a letter

dated February 12, 2016, explain ing that RespondentÓs counsel

was having difficulty with filing on the DOAH website. Both

parties Ó Proposed Recommended Orders were considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The School Board is responsible for the public

education of students in grades pre - K through 12 in Holmes

County, Florida . The School Board i s also responsible for the

hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees within the Holmes

County School District (District) . The District has a total of

approximately 3 , 250 students enrolled and employs just under 475

pe rsons.

2. Mr. Eddie Dixon is the Superintendent of School for the

Holmes County School Dis trict. He was elected as Superintendent

in 2012. As Superintendent, Mr. Dixon is responsible for the

management of district employees and regularly makes

recommendations to the School Board regardi ng the suspension,

discipline, or termi nation of such employees.

3. The District is comprised of seven traditional schools

and one alternative school. One of the traditional schools

within the District is Bethlehem Sch ool, a Pre - K through 12

school. Ap proximately 500 students are enrolled at Bethlehem

School, which has roughly 55 faculty and staff m embers. Brent

Jones is the current principal of Bethlehem School and was

principal during the 2014 - 15 school year. Rosanne Mitchell is

the cu rrent assistan t principal of Bethlehem School and was

assistant principal during the 2014 - 15 school year .

4. A t all relevant times to these proceedings, Respondent

has been employed by the Schoo l Board as a classroom teacher.

Respondent was employed at Bethlehem Schoo l for over 28 years.

5. Respondent met Superintendent Dixon shortly after he

became superintendent. Superintendent Dixon removed Zeb Brown

as principal of Bethlehem Sch ool in the middle of the 2012 - 13

school year, around December of 2012. Respondent, a long with a

number of teachers, disagreed with the decision and voiced her

concerns. According to Respondent, Superintendent Dixon was

dismissive of those concerns.

6. Respondent also disagreed with a policy change that

took place at Bethlehem school aft er Principal Brown was removed

during the tenure of an interim principal, Principal Thompson.

The policy had to do with pre - approved permission forms for

student activities. Before the change, teachers could decline

to sign the form if a student was not performing or behaving

well in class. After the change, teachers no longer had veto

power over the forms. They were told that they were to sign the

forms, even before the student received it.

7. During the 2014 - 2015 school year, while Respondent was

emp loyed as a classroom teacher at Bethlehem School , Principal

Jones receiv ed reports that Respondent was leaving students

outside of her locked classroom during instructional time. The

standard policy that had been put in place at Bethlehem School at

the ti me required that after classes began, classroom doors were

to be locked from the inside, requiring l ate - arriving students to

knock on the door to gain entrance.

8. During the fall of 2014, Respondent became "fed up" with

the situation, especially during her first period, because late -

arriving students interrupted her class . Th erefore , she told her

students that, after Thanksgiving break, if a student was tardy,

they were to knock on the door only once, and that she would open

the door when there was a c onvenient break. According to

Respondent, the strategy worked well, and students were never

left outside for more than a minute or two.

9. On December 11, 2014, while taking attendance during

her first period, a student knocked on her door , and Responde nt

called out "Just a minute." In less than a minute, she opened

the door but no one was there. Shortly thereafter, there was an

intercom announcement that there was a late bus and to please

allow students in the classrooms. The announcement was followe d

by a phone call to Respondent in her classroom from the

receptionist who had made the announcement, who asked Respondent

to allow students in her classroom. That phone call was

followed by another from Principal Jones, who asked Respondent

why she was l ocking student s out . While Respondent was

explainin g , the phone call was interrupted by another knock on

the door by a late - arriving student.

10. The next day, Friday, December 12, 201 4 , Principal

Jones and Assistant Principal Mitchell met with Responden t

during her planning period. During the meeting, Principal Jones

told Respondent that they were not running a military - styled

school and instructed Respondent to stop leaving students locked

outside of her classroom. Principal Jones also gave Respondent

instructions regarding the handling of student tardies,

acceptance of late work, and the accommodations for ESE

students .

11. Regarding leaving students locked outside, Principal

Jones told Respondent that she needed to keep her door locked

and suggested that she have a student open the door when a late

student knocks . Respondent advised Principal Jones that it

disrupts educational time, but that she would open the door.

12. On the issue of tardies, Principal Jones explained

that the administration's ha nds were tied because Holmes County

had not adopted an attendance policy. In fact, Bethlehem School

did not differentiate between e xcused or unexcused tardies .

S ome of the teachers at Bethlehem School , including Respondent,

had stopped filling out referr als for t ardies because they had

been told by the school administration that they were not going

to be counted.

13. Prior to the meeting, Respondent had a policy of not

accepting late work in an effort to promote studentsÓ personal

responsibility and fair ness to other students . Respondent told

Principal Jones th a t her policy of not accepting late work had

been effective. Nevertheless, Principal Jones instructed

Respondent to accept late work. He also instructed her to allow

students who came unprepared to leave the classroom to get their

materials if it was just outside the room in their locker.

14. Principal Jones also mentioned that Respondent needed

to make accommodations for ESE students with Individual

Education Plans so that those students could s ucceed and pass.

Respondent advised Principal Jones that if the student does

nothing, she would not give them a passing grade.

15. Respondent became visibly upset during the meeting,

which ended abru ptly .

16. The following Monday morning, December 15, 2014,

Assistant Principal Mitchell and Principal Jones received reports

that Respondent was reading a prepared statement about Principal

Jones to her classes. Principal Jones reported the incident to

Superintendent Dixon, who asked Principal Jones to obta in a copy

of the statement which Respondent had read to the students.

Thereafter , Principal Jones went to RespondentÓs classroom and

asked for a copy of the prepared statement. Respondent stated

that she would have to talk to her lawyer. Principal Jones said,

"Okay," and walked away. Petitioner did not receive a copy of

the statement until many months later when it was produced as

part of this proceeding.

17. Later that day, Respondent was called down to the

Bethlehem School office during her seventh p eriod to meet with

Superintendent Dixon . Respondent was accompanied by fellow

teach er , Donna Mollet , at RespondentÓs request . When they

arrived, S uperintendent Dixon handed Respondent a memo on Holmes

County School Board stationary from the Superintenden t to

Respondent dated December 15, 2014, which stated:

This is notification that you are suspended

with pay from your regularly assigned duties

pending the outcome of an investigation

concerning gross insubordination of

Principal Brent Jones with student s at

Bethlehem High School. Please be advised

that this suspension does not constitute a

disciplinary action. We will keep you

apprised as the investigation continues;

including written notification of the

outcome once the investigation is concluded.

Yo u are to immediately leave school grounds

and not return until further notice.

18. The Superintendent asked Respondent to sign the

letter, which she did. When she asked him what she had done ,

the Superintendent declined to discuss it further at that tim e

and asked her to leave.

19. Respondent was then a ccompanied to her classroom by

Assist ant Superintendent Goodman and Carmen Bush from the

District office , where she gathered her personal belongings and

left. Mr. Goodman and Ms. Bush told Respondent not to return to

the school until notified.

20. Principal Jones and Superintendent Dixon conducted an

investigation, which included obtaining statements from students

who witnessed her conduct. The witness statements indicated

that Respondent had told her students that Principal Jones would

not enforce her rules and that students might be better off

taking an on - line, virtual class , rather than attending

Bethlehem School.

21. Following the investigation, the Superintendent

determined that Respondent had be en grossly insubordinate and

had violated the School Board policy regarding Employee

Communications.

22. On December 17, 2014 , Pam Cameron from the District

office called Respondent and asked that she come to the District

office the next day . W hen Resp ondent arrived at the District

o ffice on December 18, 2014 , she met with Superintendent Dixon

and Principal Jones. Principal Jones handed her a letter of

reprimand (Letter of Reprimand) which he had signed, stating:

This correspondence is a formal reprima nd of

your actions and behavior on Monday,

December 15, 2014. Our investigation has

found that you were grossly insubordinate.

The gross insubordination includes reading

the prepared statement to your classes and

your refusal to provide a copy to me when I

requested it. You have been found to be

unprofessional and inappropriate in relation

to this situation.

Please know and understand by way of this

correspondence that you are directed to

refrain from such unprofessional actions and

behaviors in the fu ture. To violate this

directive, any School Board Policy, State

Statute, or any other School Board Rule can

result in further disciplinary action.

Please plan to attend the professional

practices workshop that will be held during

preschool next year.

Fu rther, State Board of Education Rule 6B -

1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator

" . . . will seek to exercise the best

professional judgment and integrity."

Section (3) states "Aware of the importance

of maintaining the respect and confidence of

one's colleagues, of students, of parents,

and of other members of the community, the

educator strives to achieve and sustain the

highest degree of ethical conduct."

23. Respondent did not sign the bottom of Letter of

Reprimand in the place for her acknowledg ement. She did,

however, read a statement to Superintendent Dixon and Principal

Jones about her frustrations regarding lack of discipline and

the attendance policy at Bethlehem School.

24. In a letter addressed to Superintendent Dixon dated

December 19, 2014 , Respondent stated:

This document is my response to my letter of

reprimand that you issued on December 18,

2014, in your office.

I refute the accusation of gross

insubordination that you and Principal Jones

have made against me. You both refused to

give me specific examples of the alleged

insubordination other than Ðreading the

prepared statement to your classes and your

refusal to provide a copy to me when I

requested it.Ñ Never at any time did you or

Principal Jones ask me to tell you what I

conve yed to my students.

During the brief meeting of December 18,

2014, I explained that I told my students of

changes in my classroom rules and that I

divulged to students Principal JonesÓs

statements regarding those changes.

Principal Jones said that I had undermined

his authority. I fail to see that telling

students exactly what Principal Jones said

can be construed as undermining his

authority or insubordination.

Furthermore, the method of my suspension

was, I firmly believe, meant to humiliate me

in fro nt of my students and colleagues. On

Monday, December 15, 2014, Principal Jones

called me into his office. Superintendent

Dixon gave me the paper regarding my

suspension from duties, refused to answer my

questions regarding the charges, and told me

to ge t my personal belongings and leave the

campus immediately. That meant returning to

my classroom of sixth grader s Ï including my

own child Ï and gathering my belongings to

leave. My son kept asking what was wrong,

why we were having to leave, etc. The

emotio nal distress that you caused not only

me, but my son in front of his peers, is

unconscionable and unforgivable. I was

escorted to my classroom by two county

office personnel, Jim Goodman and Carmen

Bush, and they followed from there to make

sure that I le ft the building and the

campus. I was treated as though I were some

kind of desperate criminal, which I

definitely resent.

I contend that I am innocent of the charges

and further contend that your handling of

this situation has been conducted purposely

t o damage my reputation.

25. Respondent wanted to challenge her suspension, but was

told both in the letter of suspension, as well as by the

Chairman of the School B oard , that a suspension with pay is not

ÐdisciplineÑ that can be challenged or for which th ere is a

right to a hearing.

26. After Respondent was suspended with pay, Principal

Jones informed her that she could return to school from her

suspension on January 5, 2015, the day that winter break was

over.

27. Shortly after her return, Respondent re ceived a

telephone call from a concerned parent because , prior to the

winter break, Respondent had deducted points from an essay that

the parentÓs child had submitted to Respondent.

28. The incident involving the student and the essay

occurred during the week of December 8, 2014 . In fact, the

incident involving that student appears to have been one of the

issues that Principal Jones discussed with Respondent on

December 12, 2014. The s tudent in question was one of

RespondentÓs first - period students. Th e essay wa s due Monday,

December 8, 2014. The student was not in RespondentÓs class

that day, but Respondent saw the student at school later that

same day . When she saw the student, she asked him if he had his

essay to turn in and the student replied tha t he did not. The

same thing happened on Tuesday , Wednesday, and Thursday of that

week. Each of those days , the student was absent from

RespondentÓs first - period class , but was seen by Respondent

later in the day . W hen asked by Respondent whether he had h is

essay, he responded that he did not. Then, on Friday,

December 12, 2014, the student arrived very late to RespondentÓs

first - period class . When he arrived, he put his essay

assignment on RespondentÓs desk. Respondent told the student

that she could not accept the assignment because it was late.

He picked up the essay and sat down. Upon noticing that other

students were working from their books , the student ask ed

Respondent for permission to go get his book. Respondent

refused. The student then l eft RespondentÓs class without her

permission. Later that same period, the student came back to

RespondentÓs class with a note from Principal Jones directing

the student back to RespondentÓs class. Respondent accepted the

student back into her class as d irected. Later, Respondent

accepted the studentÓs late work as directed by Principal Jones,

but she deducted points from the essay because it was late.

2 9. When Respondent spoke to the parent of the student

after winter break, it was agreed that the pare nt would come in

for a parent - teacher conference to be held during RespondentÓs

seventh - period planning period on Wednesday, January 7, 2015.

Respondent informed Assistant Principal Mitchell of the planned

parent - teacher conference and asked her to attend . Principal

Jones was also aware that Respondent was going to have the

parent - teacher conference .

30. The parent - teacher conference was held on January 7,

2015, with Respondent, the parent, and Assistant Principal

Mitchell present in a conference room at Bethlehem School . At

the beginning of the meeting, the parent apologized for his son

leaving RespondentÓs classroom without permission . The parent,

however, wanted an explanation of why points had been deducted

from his sonÓs essay. Respondent explaine d that the points were

deducted because the paper was late . The parent was under the

belief that his son had on ly been absent for three days and had

not been tardy during the time period in question . Respondent

advised the parent that her records showed that the student had

been absent seven day s and tardy 24 times within the nine - week

period.

31. The parent wanted to know why he had not been informed

that his son had been tardy so many times. Respondent stated to

the parent, ÐW e donÓt do much about tar dies . Ñ Res pondent

further explained that they had stopped using paper - based

referrals after the first nine - week period. Assistant Principal

Mitchell advised the parent that phone calls and letters are

sent out to parents of students with excessive absenc es and

tardies . Respondent did not disagree wi th Assistant Principal

Mitchell, nor did Respondent question or criticize the schoolÓs

administration during the parent - teacher conference.

32. At the parentÓs request, the student joined the

teacher - parent c onference. The parent spoke to his son and then

advised that there should be no more problems out of his son .

Thereafter, th e student left the conference.

33. After the student left, t he parent still wanted

Respond ent to remove the point deduction from his sonÓs essay.

When Respondent advised that she would not do that, the parent

suggested that, if she did not remove the deduction, he would

just go to the School B oard about it. Respondent said, ÐI guess

you will just have to do that.Ñ Assistant Princ ipal Mitchell

then suggested that she would like to speak with Principal Jones

about the matter prior to the parent going to the School Board.

The parent said that would be fine.

34. Thereafter, Respondent then left the meeting. After

Respondent had l eft, Assistant Principal Mitchell told the

parent that she would contact him as soon as the matter had been

resolved. The parent thanked Assistant Principal Mitchell and

left.

35. On Friday, January 9, 2015, Respondent met with

Principal Jones. Lisa Mat thews accompanied Respondent at

RespondentÓs request. During the meeting, Principal Jones told

Respondent that she could not deduct points from the studentÓs

essay discussed at the January 7, 2015, teach er - parent

conference. When Respondent questioned wh y she should not be

able to deduct points under the circumstances, Principal Jones

explained that the student had turned in the paper the next time

he was in class and that was good enough. Respondent did not

refuse to comply with Principal JonesÓ request and, in fact,

Respondent complied by remov ing the point deduction from the

studentÓs essay.

36. Further , after discussing what occurred a t the parent -

teacher conference with Assistant Principal Mitchell, Principal

Jones felt that RespondentÓs conduct and statements were

designed to undermine the administration of Bethlehem School.

Therefore , he reported RespondentÓs conduct to Superintendent

Dixon , who then determined that there was just cause to suspend

Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days .

37. O n January 9, 2015, Superintendent Dixon suspended

Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days which

commenced on Monday, January 12, 2015, and ended on Friday,

January 16, 2015. That same day, January 9, 2015,

Superintendent Dixon signed a document prepared on Holmes County

School Board letterhead regarding Respondent Ós suspension

without pay. The document stated:

Friday, January 9, 2015

Susan Steverson

RE: SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY

Pursuant to School Policy 6.38, and Section

1012.33 (6), Florida Statutes, Eddie Dixon,

Superintendent of Schools for Holmes County

School District, recommends that Mrs. Susan

Steverson, be suspended without pay for a

period of five (5) days from employment with

the School Board.

Mrs. Steverson has engaged in conduct that

constitutes grounds for suspension without

pay for a period of five (5) days . The

grounds for suspension include, but are not

limited to being grossly insubordinate of

Principal Brent Jones in a parent meeting

after having been reprimande d prior to this

school year and violating School B oard rules

to the extent that disciplinary action is

required.

The foregoing conduct by Mrs. Steverson

constitutes grounds for suspension without

pay for a period of five(5) days, in

violation of School Bo ard Policy

6.38(III )(B), and (F). Mrs. SteversonÓs

behavior also violates Department of

Education Rules, including but not limited

to: Rule 6A - 10.080 and Rule 6B - 5.056, FAC,

and other applicable Florida Law.

Accordingly, Mrs. Steverson will be

suspended from employment for a period of

five (5) days beginning Monday, January 12,

2015 at 7:30 a.m. and ending Friday,

January 16, 2015 at 3:00 p.m . During this

suspension, Mrs. Steverson will not be

allowed on any School Board property.

Please know and under stand that you are

directed to refrain from such unprofessional

actions and behaviors in the future.

Further, State Board of Education Rule 6B -

1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator

Ð . . . will seek to exercise the best

professional judgment and i ntegrity.Ñ

Section (3) states ÐAware of the importance

of maintaining the respect and confidence of

oneÓs colleagues, of students, of parents,

and of other members of the community, the

educator strives to achieve and sustain the

highest degree of ethical conduct.Ñ

38. Subse quently , Superintendent Dixon presented the

suspension to the School Board at its next meeting and

recommended that the suspension be upheld. The School Board

voted on January 20, 2015, to appro ve the suspension without

pay.

39. On January 27, 2015, a Notice of Charges against

Respondent in this case was signed by Superintendent Dixon. The

Notice of Charges states:

NOTICE OF CHARGES

Pursuant to Section 1012.33(6), Florida

Statutes, Eddie Dixon, Superintendent of

Schools for the H olmes County School

District, recommended that Mrs. Susan

Steverson ("Mrs. Steverson"), be suspended

without pay for a period of five (5) days by

the School Board.

1. Mrs. Steverson has engaged in

conduct that constitutes "just cause" for

her suspension without pay . The grounds for

suspension include, but are not limited to,

the following: gross insubordination.

2. Mrs . Steverson has a history of

engaging in insubordinate behavior toward

administrators, which began under prior

superintendents and cont inued with recent

incidents involving comments made to and

about the administration of the Bethlehem

School in December 2014 and January 2015 .

Mrs. Steverson has been repeatedly

instructed by persons in authority to

correct her behavior, but she has faile d to

do so.

INCIDENTS INVOLVING MRS. SUSAN STEVERSON

3. On or about Monday, December 15,

2014, Mrs. Steverson made unprofessional and

derogatory statements to her class about

what she believed to be a lack of support

from her school principal, Mr. Brent Jones.

A statement was apparently read to the class

strongly criticizing the principal, and

advising the class that there were no longer

any rules for the class as a result of a

lack of support by her school principal .

Students reported the statement to

administrators out of concern for the class.

4. Mrs. Steverson was asked for a copy

of the written statement by Principal Jones

but she refused to provide a copy .

Mrs. Steverson was reprimanded for her

conduct and advised not to allow her

unprofessiona l conduct to continue.

5. Then again, on January 9, 2015,

Mrs. Steverson, during a parent teacher

conference scheduled by Mrs. Steverson with

Vice - Principal Mrs. Roseanne Mitchell

present, was grossly insubordinate by

criticizing and questioning Principa l Brent

Jones, in front of a parent . Her obvious

intent was to embarrass and humiliate the

Principal, and challenge his authority to

administer the operations of the school in a

manner he deemed appropriate.

6. Mrs. Steverson was suspended

without pay f or a period of five (5) days

beginning on January 12, 2015 to January 16,

2015, immediately prior to the School Board

meeting on January 20, 2015, at which this

issue was heard.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing conduct by Mrs. Steverson

constitutes "just cause" for her suspension

without pay for a period of five (5) days,

under Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes .

Mrs. Steverson has engaged in gross

insubordination on more than one occasion,

in violation of School Board Policies 6.37

(VIII)(B)(3) and 6.38 (III )(B) .

Mrs. Steverson' behavior also violates

Department of Education Rules, including but

not limited to: Rule 6A - 5.056, Rule 6A -

10.080 and 6A - 10.081, FAC, and other

applicable Florida Law.

40. The Notice of Charges gave Respondent 15 days from

receip t within which to file a written request for a hearing.

As previously noted, Respondent timely requested a hearing and

this case was ultimately referred to DOAH.

41. At the final hearing, there was evidence that, in

addition to the matters referenced in the Notice of Charges, in

recommending suspension without pay, the Superintendent

considered a hand - written statement on instructions that

Respondent allegedly left f or the substitute teacher during

RespondentÓs suspensions in December 2014 and January 20 15. The

hand written statement was in addition to other general

instructions typed on a page . The last paragraph of the typed

instructions which read -- ÐPlease leave me a note concerning my

classes, particularly if you have problems with anyone. I will

ta ke care of the problems when I return. If a student is unruly

and needs immediate discipline, fill out a discipline referral

and send the student to the office at once !Ñ -- was crossed out

and replaced with the following handwritten statement:

No one disci plines students here. If they

become unruly, just send them to the office.

DonÓt bother with a referral form. Students

will do as they please.

42. Although , at the final hearing, Respondent admitted

that she was the one responsible for crossing out t he language

on the instruction sheet and adding the handwritten note, she

testified that she did not have time to leave the note on

December 15, 2014, or January 9, 2015. T hat testimony is

credited and the handwritten note has not been considered as a

fac tor in the alleged gross insubordination. Further, the

handwritten note is beyond the scope of the allegations in the

Notice of Charges and does not otherwise constitute a refusal to

obey a direct order , or misfeasance or malfeasance in the

performance of a required duty.

43. Regarding the prepared statement that Respondent read

to her students on December 15, 2014 , and the suspension with

pay and written reprimand that followed , although recited in the

Notice of Charges, that incident is not at issue in these

proceedings. As noted in the SuperintendentÓs memo dated

December 15, 2014, informing Respondent of her suspension with

pay, Ð Please be advised that this suspension does not constitute

a disciplinary action. Ñ

44. Moreover, at the time of the susp ension with pay, the

School Board did not even have the statement that Respondent had

read to her class. While Ðgross insubordinationÑ may not be the

best way to describe the actions of Respondent in reading the

statement, considering the statement that P etitioner read to her

students, 2/ after the fact , arguably supports suspension with pay

or some type of discipline. But that is not at issue in thes e

proceedings, nor is RespondentÓs failure to immediately deliver

a copy of the statement that she read to her classes.

Respondent received a five - day suspension with pay for those

actions.

45. And, while the written reprimand that Respondent

received on December 18, 2014 , for RespondentÓs actions on

December 15, 2014, contains a directive to Ðrefrain from s uch

unprofessional actions and behavior in the future,Ñ and that

Ð[t]o violate this directive, any School Board Policy, State

Statute, or any other School Board Rule can result in further

disciplinary action,Ñ the evidence in this case does not support

a f inding that Respondent subsequently violated that directive.

46. Respondent Ós be havior, statements, and comments at the

teacher - parent conference on January 7, 2015, did not constitute

a refusal to obey a direct order, or misfeasance or malfeasance

in the performance of a required duty. Rather, her statements

were factually accurate. And, while at the parent - teacher

conference Respondent was resistant to the parentÓs request that

Respondent remove the point deduction from the late essay,

Respondent ultim ately removed the deduc tion when asked to do so

by school administration.

47. While, undoubtedly , tensions between Respondent,

Principal Jones, and Superintendent Dixon played a role in the

decision to suspend Respondent without pay from January 12

throug h 16, 2015, Respondent was not sole l y responsible for

those tensions. Respondent did not display disrespect for

Principal Jones or the schoolÓs administration during the

January 7, 2015, parent - teacher conference, and RespondentÓs

conduct during that conf erence did not amount to

insubordination. Respondent should not have been suspended

without pay for her statements or actions during the parent -

teacher conference held January 7, 2015.

48. Monetarily, RespondentÓs five - day unpaid suspension

from January 12 through 16, 2015, constituted a loss of

approximately $980.00 in pay to Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

49. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to a contract wit h the Holmes County School

Board . The proceedings are governed by sections 120.57 and

120.569, Florida Statutes.

50. The burden of proof in this proceeding is on the

School Board to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

just cause existed to s uspend Respondent without pay . McNeil v.

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

Preponderance of the evidence is evidence that more likely than

not tends to prove the proposition set forth by a proponent .

Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2000).

5 1 . The School Board is the duly - constituted governing body

of the school district of Holmes County . § 4, Art. IX, Fla.

Const.; §§ 1001.30 and 1001.33, Fla. Stat . The Superintendent of

Schools has the authority to recommend to the Schoo l Board that

an employee be suspended or dismissed from employment .

§ 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat . The School Board has the authority to

terminate the employment or suspend teachers without pay and

benefits . See §§ 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat . In

Holmes County, by the School BoardÓs delegation of authority , the

Superintendent also has the authority to suspend employees, with

parti al or no pay, for up to five days if the Superintendent

finds that the employee has been insubordinate or Ð[v]iolate d

School Board rules to the extent that disciplinary action is

required, but the violation is not severe enough for dismissal.Ñ

5 2 . Sections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6) of the Florida Statutes

provide in pertinent part that instructional staff may be

suspended or terminated during the term of their employment

contract only for "just cause. Ñ See § 1012.33(1)(a), ( 6), Fla.

Stat. Ð Just cause Ñ for purposes of discipline is discussed in

section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes:

[J]ust cause includes, but is not lim ited

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 found guilty of, or entering a plea of

guilty t o, regardless of adjudication of

guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude.

53. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 5.056(4) defines

gross insubordination as Ðthe intentional refusal to obey a

direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with pr oper

authority; misfeasance, or malfeasance as to involve failure in

the performance of the required duties.Ñ

54. The Code of Ethics, under which classroom teachers

operate in Florida, includes the f ollowing provisions:

(2) The educatorÓs primary profess ional

concern will always be for the student a nd

for the development of the studentÓs

potential . The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the best professional judgment

and integrity.

(3) Aware of the importanc e of maintaining

the respect and confidence of oneÓs

colleagues, of students, of parents, and of

other members of the community, the educator

strives to achieve and sustain the highest

degree of ethical conduct.

Fla. Admin. Code. R. 6A - 10.080(2), (3).

5 5. Further, the Princip l e s of Professional Conduct found

in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081 (3) , include s an

educatorÓs obligation to the student, which states:

(3) Obligation to the student requires that

the individual:

(a) Shall make reasona ble effort to protect

the student from conditions harmful to

learning and/or to the studentÓs mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

* * *

(4) Obligation to the public requires that

the individual:

(a) Shall take reasonable precautions to

disting uish between personal views and those

of any educational institution or

organization with which the individual is

affiliated.

(b) Shall not intentionally distort or

misrepresent facts concerning an educational

matter in direct or indirect public

expressio n.

* * *

(5) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the

individual:

(a) Shall maintain honesty in all

professional dealings.

* * *

(e) Shall not make malicious or

intentionally false statements about

a colleague .

56. Considering the applicable portions of the Notice of

Charges, the definition of gross insubordination, applicable law

and rules , and factual findings , as outlined above, it is

concluded that RespondentÓs conduct during the parent - student

conference held on January 7, 2015, was not gross

insubo rdination .

57. It is further found that Petitioner failed to m e et its

burden of proof to show just cause or otherwise establish that

it was appropriate to suspend Respondent , without pay, from her

position as a classroom teacher for a period of five days in

January, 2015 .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by

Petitio ner, Holmes County School Board:

1. Dismissing the charge of gross insubor dination against

Respondent and setting aside any discipline subsequent to

RespondentÓs suspension with pay and reprimand received in

December 2014;

2. Dismissing the allegations set forth in the Notice of

Charges to the extent they seek to impose or sup port any

discipline subsequent to RespondentÓs suspension with pay and

reprimand received in December 2014; and

3. Reimbursing Respondent for the five days of pay that

Respondent did not receive during her suspension from

Ja nuary 12, 2015, through January 16, 2015 , plus interest, as

appropriate under applicable law .

D ONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March , 2016, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JAMES H. PETERSON, III

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administr ative 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 of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 17th day of March, 2016 .

ENDNOT ES

1/ All references to statutes or rules shall be to those

versions in effect at the time of the alleged violation.

2/ The statement, delivered to the School Board during

discovery, well after the December 15, 2 014, date that it was

read by Respondent to her classes , states:

On Friday, December 12, I was informed by

the principal that many of my classroom

rules can no longer be in effect.

Therefore, some changes are imminent.

First, Mr. Jones told me that it is not

reasonable to expect students to b e in my

class on time. I will still count you

tardy. If you come to my class late and

turn in work, that work will be accepted but

will be considered late, and points will be

deducted. In some cases, this will mean you

should receive a negative grade, b ut I donÓt

think that will be acceptable, so I will

assign a zero when that circumstance occurs.

You know that the last student who skipped

my class received no discipline. However,

if I found out that you skipped my class,

you will receive zeroes for work due and

work assigned that day in class.

Furthermore, Mr. Jones said that it is not

reasonable to expect students to come to my

class prepared with textbook, pencil, paper,

etc. When students come to my class

unprepared, I am to allow them to go

imm ediately to their lockers or wherever

their materials are and retrieve them. I

was also told that if a student asks to go

to the bathroom, even if we have been in

class only five minutes, that student must

be allowed to go. Since this is now the

case, my rule is now defunct about waiting

until half the period is over before leaving

the room. You may leave the room at any

point. I only ask that you tell me where

you are going and that only one student be

out of the classroom at a time. The last

student who walked out of my classroom

without permission was not punished. Should

you decide to leave without permission,

please take all of your belongings with you,

go to the office, and donÓt return to my

class that day.

My remaining rules may be rescinded, so

please keep in mind that they are in a state

of flux and may be changed at any time.

Because of this state of events, I feel that

I may no longer be able to offer you a

quality education. think [sic] you should

seriously consider taking the second

sem ester of this course online. This is an

issue you should talk to your parents about

so that you can make a well - informed

decision before the beginning of the second

semester.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Rhonda S. Clyatt, Esquire

Law Office of Rhonda Clyatt

6 21 East 4th Street

Panama City, Florida 32401 - 2492

(eServed)

Susan Steverson

1893 North Creek Holmes Road

Graceville, Florida 32440

Lucas N. Taylor, Esquire

Lucas Taylor, P.A.

Post Office Box 1267

Bonifay, Florida 32425

(eServed)

Bob L. Harris, Esquire

Summer Denay Brown, Esquire

Messer Caparello, P.A.

2618 Centennial Place

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

Eddie Dixon, Superintendent

Holmes County School District

701 E ast Pennsylvania Avenue

Bonifay, Florida 32425

Matthew Mears, General Coun sel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

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.