15-000051 Brevard County School Board vs. Emily M. Randall Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, December 30, 2015.

Summary: Petitioner established by preponderance of the evidence Respondent committed the acts complained of and should be disciplined for such conduct.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BREVARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 15 - 0051

EMILY M. RANDALL,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this case was heard in Viera, Florida,

on September 29 and 30, 2015, before J. D. Parrish, an

Administrative Law with the Division of Administrative Hearings

(DOAH) .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire

Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue , P. A.

Suite 100

1477 West Fairbanks Avenue

Winter Park, Florida 32789

For Respondent: Scarlett G. Davidson, Esquire

Joseph E. Culmer, Esquire

Culmer and Davidson, P. A.

840 Brevard Avenue

Rockledge, Florida 32955

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner, Brevard County School Board (Petitioner

or Board), has just cause to terminate Respondent, Emily M.

Randall (Respondent or Randall) from employment with the school

district.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 9, 2014, the former Superintendent for the

Brevard County School District, Dr. Brian Binggeli, notified

Respondent that he would recommend her termi nation as a school

psychologist to the Board. At a subsequent Board meeting ,

Dr. BinggeliÓs recommendation was accepted , and Respondent was

duly notified. Thereafter, Respondent timely requested an

administrative hearing to challenge the proposed action and

maintains that there is no just cause to support the termination

of her employment.

The case was referred to DOAH on January 8, 2015.

Thereafter , the case was scheduled in accordance with the Joint

Response to Initial Order , and a Notice of Hearing set May 6

and 7, 2015 , for the formal hearing.

Respondent filed an unopposed motion for continuance of the

hearing. The parties acknowledged that they had previously

waived the 70 - day requirement for the hearing. On May 13, 2015,

the parties filed a Jo int Status Report that provided dates for

the rescheduling of the cause. In accordance with the dates

proposed by the parties , the case was scheduled for hearing for

September 29 and 30, 2015.

At the hearing , Petitioner presented testimony from

Dr. Magg ie Balado, Dr. Beth Thedy, Kathy Krell, and Jim Hickey.

Respondent testified on her own behalf and offered the testimony

of Dr. Joan Adamson, Ava Dobbs, Dr. Debra Pace, and David Kosich.

The T ranscript of the proceedings was filed on October 20, 2015.

By stipulation , the parties were granted 30 days leave from the

date of filing the transcript within which to file their proposed

orders. All parties timely filed proposed recommended orders

that have been fully considered in the preparation of this

Recom mended O rder. The exhibits received in evidence are fully

identified by the T ranscript.

FINDING S OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner is the entity charged by law with governing

and administering the Brevard County School District and is

responsible for all employees of the school district.

Disciplinary actions , such as the instant case , fall within the

jurisdiction of the Board.

2. At all times material to this case, Respondent was an

employee of the School Board who served as an itinerant school

psychol ogist.

The Charges

3. By letter dated December 9, 2014, Superintendent

Binggeli recommended Respondent be terminated from her position

with the Board. The letter claimed Respondent had been willfully

absent without leave; had failed to follow directive s of her

supervisor , constituting gross insubordination and willful

neglect of duty; had repeatedly lied to supervisors , constituting

misconduct in office; and had reported to a disciplinary meeting

in a condition violating the Drug - Free Workplace Policy ,

constituting misconduct in office.

4. Respondent asserts that she should not be terminated for

acts or omissions occurring prior to November 21, 2014, and that

the Board failed to properly establish Respondent was

ÐintoxicatedÑ on that date.

Backgroun d Information

5. Petitioner employed Respondent as a school psychologist

in 1992. Since that time , Respondent performed her

responsibilities in an acceptable manner until the 2013 - 2014

school year.

6. As a school psychologist , Respondent was responsib le for

conducting psychological evaluations for students who may require

services for learning disabilities, emotional handicaps, or

behavioral disorders. Psychological assessments are critical to

the evaluation of exceptional students and serve to assist

instructional staff to provide appropriate educational plans for

students meeting criteria for support services. It is critical

that such evaluations be timely performed, documented in

accordance with law, and communicated to the appropriate

personnel so that exceptional students may receive needed

services. Eligible students do not receive exceptional services

until all documented paperwork is completed. At all times

material to this case , Respondent was required to complete her

psychological education al assessments within 60 days.

7. All school psychologists, including Respondent, were

assigned as ÐitinerantÑ workers. Typically, school psychologists

are directed to work at three or four schools. At each school

the school psychologist teams with inst ructional staff, guidance

counselors, and administrators to forge appropriate plans for

exceptional students. The school psychologist is an essential

member of the team.

8. In practical terms , RespondentÓs duties included

performing student evaluations ; designing intervention strategies

with teachers, administrators, and parents ; and attending

meetings with all those involved.

9. Additionally, school psychologists must respond to

crisis situations as directed by the coordinator of psychological

service s . It is essential that the Psychological Services

Department (Department) know the schedule of all school

psychologists and be able to reach them by telephone.

10. Beginning in August of 2013 , the coordinator of

psychological services , Dr. Maggie Bala do, gave all school

psychologists her personal contact information so that absences

from work could be promptly reported. School psychologists were

given the option of contacting Dr. Balado directly or the

DepartmentÓs secretary, Ms. Beyer, if they would be absent from

their scheduled school assignment. Requiring school

psychologists to contact the D epartment to report absences was a

continuation of the policy that pre - dated Dr. BaladoÓs

appointment to the coordinator position.

11. In September of 2013 , Dr. Balado also advised all

school psychologists that they would be required to comply with

the 60 - day guideline for completing student evaluations. The

requirement also pre - dated Dr. Balado becoming the coordinator.

Performance Concerns

12. In Janua ry of 2014 , Dr. Balado learned that Respondent

had been absent on December 17 and 19, 2013, and January 6 and 7,

2014. Because Respondent had not reported the absences as

required by the Department policy, Dr. Balado reminded Respondent

of the correct pro tocol for missing work and directed her to

comply with the policy in the future.

13. At all times material to the allegations of this case ,

Respondent had adequate leave time to miss work. Reporting the

absence was still required by the policy.

14. School psychologists are required to complete personnel

allocation forms to allocate and track funding. Respondent

failed to timely complete the funding forms despite being

reminded.

15. When Dr. Balado completed the performance evaluation

for Respondent for the 2013 - 2014 school year , she noted that

Respondent was out of compliance with four student evaluations

and had 29 referrals that were to be completed for the school

year. As a result , Dr. Balado rated Respondent as needing

improvement in the catego ries of managing the learning

environment, ethical leadership , and technology.

16. Dr. Balado met with Respondent to go over the concerns

and Randall indicated that she would work to improve her

performance.

17. Dr. Balado then met with Dr. Beth Thedy, assistant

superintendent for Student Services , and decided to place

Respondent on a professional development assistance plan to

identify the issues that needed improvement and give Respondent a

plan to show performance improvement.

18. On August 18, 20 14, Dr. Balado and Dr. Thedy met with

Respondent to go over the performance issues and to discuss the

improvement plan. Respondent did not raise any questions

regarding what was expected.

19. Despite being aware of the improvement plan , Respondent

did not meet compliance standards for student evaluations.

Moreover, Respondent never suggested to Dr. Balado or Dr. Thedy

that an accommodation was needed in order for her to meet

compliance standards.

20. On October 2, 2014, Respondent did not timely res pond

to Dr. BaladoÓs attempts to contact her.

Tangled Webs Were Woven

21. On October 30, 2014, Respondent was assigned to be at

Coquina Elementary School ( Coquina Elementary ) in Titusville.

The school is located approximately 40 minutes from Respondent Ós

home , and she was to be there to watch a meeting with En i s

Messick , the guidance counselor. After the meeting with

Ms. Messick, Respondent planned to evaluate a student. Due to

technical difficulties unknown to Respondent , Ms. MessickÓs

meeting was c anceled.

22. Respondent did not timely report to work at Coquina

Elementary on October 30, 2014.

23. Respondent did not timely report her absence from work

on October 30, 2014, to Dr. Balado or Ms. Beyer.

24. Failing to report her absence in accorda nce with prior

directives , violated the attendance policy for the Department.

Respondent had adequate leave to be absent from work on

October 30, 2014. Failure to telephone her absence or e - mail the

proper persons was a violation of a reasonable directiv e given to

her on more than one prior occasion.

25. During the afternoon of October 30, 2014, Dr. Laura

Rhinehardt, north area superintendent (encompassing Coquina

Elementary School), contacted Dr. Balado and informed her that

Respondent was not at her assigned school that day.

26. Thereafter, Dr. Balado telephoned Respondent and asked

her where she was. Respondent told Dr. Balado that she was in

the parking lot at Coquina Elementary School when she was not

(Lie #1).

27. Suspicious of this statement , Dr. Balado directed

Respondent to go into the school offic e and call her back on the

land line at the school. Although Respondent indicated she would

do so, she did not (Lie #2).

28. Dr. Balado then called Coquina Elementary Ós Principal

Katrina Hudson who advised that Respondent had not been seen at

the school that day (hearsay later corroborated/admitted by

Respondent at a later date).

29. Respondent , next , told Dr. Balado that she went into

the schoolÓs office as directed but did not feel comfortabl e

using the school Ós telephone to call her back (Lie #3).

30. Dr. Balado was understandably concerned that Respondent

had misrepresented the events of October 30, 2014.

31. Dr. Balado , next , communicated the events of

October 30, 2014, to Dr. Thedy who placed Respondent on paid

administrative leave on October 31, 2014.

32. On November 4, 2014, a meeting was held to review the

events of October 30, 2014. Present were Dr. Thedy; Jim Hickey,

d irector of Human Resources and Labor Relations; and Respond ent.

33. Respondent told Dr. Thedy and Mr. Hickey that she was

at Coquina Elementary on October 30, 2014, and that she could

prove it (Lie #4).

34. Respondent said Enis Messick would verify she had been

at Coquina Elementary on October 30, 2014 (Lie #5). Ms. Messick

did not see Respondent at the school on the date in question.

Ms. Messick corroborated that Respondent had phoned her to advise

that she would not be at the school.

35. Respondent later stated that she had sat in her car in

the parking lo t at Coquina Elementary all day on October 30, 2014

(Lie #6).

36. None of RespondentÓs initial accounts of the events of

October 30, 2014 , were true or justified not reporting her

absence as required by her supervisor, Dr. Balado.

37. Finally, when Mr. H ickey requested that Respondent

provide a written statement setting forth the events of

October 30, 2014, Respondent relented and admitted she had

previously lied.

The Aftermath

38. Following RespondentÓs admission and further

consideration of her beha vior by Mr. Hickey, a pre - termination

meeting was scheduled for November 12, 2014, to discuss

RespondentÓs conduct.

39. At the November 12, 2014 , meeting , Respondent claimed

that she had filed for an accommodation to assist her so that she

could timely pr epare the reports required by her job. Respondent

claimed that in 2010 , she had made Petitioner aware of her need

for an accommodation due to a wrist problem that made typing

difficult.

40. To address the accommodation request in 2010 ,

Petitioner provide d Respondent with a dictation software program

known as Dragon. The software allowed Respondent to dictate the

portions of her reports that required typing. After the software

was provided , Respondent did not renew her request for an

accommodation nor di d she suggest the solution provided by the

Board was inadequate to meet her needs. At all times material to

the conversations between Respondent and Dr. Balado, Randall

never mentioned a physical limitation kept her from meeting the

timelines applicable t o her work. RespondentÓs late - mentioned

comment regarding this 2010 accommodation has not been deemed

credible or persuasive as a basis for not completing her work

assignments in a timely manner. The performance improvement plan

developed by Dr. Thedy an d Dr. Balado would have appropriately

addressed the deficiency in RespondentÓs work.

41. A second meeting was scheduled for November 21, 2014,

to discuss RespondentÓs future employment with the Board.

Respondent remained on paid administrative leave thro ughout the

procedure of reviewing the allegations and concerns regarding

RespondentÓs performance and behavior.

42. In anticipation of the November 21, 2014 , meeting ,

PetitionerÓs staff conferred and decided to offer Respondent the

opportunity to be place d on a performance improvement plan, with

a freeze to her salary for the next school year, and an unpaid

five - day suspension. Had the meeting gone as Petitioner hoped,

RespondentÓs disciplinary action would have been resolved with

RespondentÓs acceptance of the offer.

43. On November 21, 2014, Respondent, her husband, and her

lawyer met with Mr. Hickey, Dr. Thedy, and Dr. Balado.

44. Based upon RespondentÓs behavior and demeanor at the

meeting , PetitionerÓs attendees became suspicious of RespondentÓs

co ndition. RespondentÓs demeanor shifted from crying and

emotional to questioning and anger. Respondent was disheveled,

her eyes were red and watery, her skin was flushed, and she was

shaking. Coupled with what Mr. Hickey, Dr. Thedy and Dr. Balado

noted w as a strong odor of alcoholic beverage, RespondentÓs

demeanor gave PetitionerÓs employees the concern that Respondent

was under the influence of alcohol.

45. After conferring with one another , Dr. Thedy and

Mr. Hickey completed a reasonable suspicion o bservation form and

expressed concern that Respondent was intoxicated.

46. After being directed to undergo a reasonable suspicion

breathalyzer examination , Respondent submitted to the test

performed by Kathy Krell, the Drug and Alcohol Program

Administr ator for Petitioner.

47. Ms. Krell has been fully - trained to administer

breathalyzer examinations, has held the position with the Board

for over 20 years, and has performed thousands of tests , such as

the one given to Respondent. Ms. Krell performed Re spondentÓs

examination in accordance with all testing guidelines and as

routinely completed in the regular course of business for the

Board.

48. The final results of RespondentÓs breathalyzer

demonstrated that on November 21, 2014, at approximately

2:4 5 p.m., Respondent had an alcohol level of .104. This level

is above the legal level for driving in the State of Florida.

49. Respondent voluntarily submitted to the breathalyzer

examination and has provided no credible explanation for the test

results. Instead , Respondent challenged the results and

maintains that her conduct, demeanor, appearance, and test

results do not establish that she was intoxicated on November 21,

2014.

50. It is determined that contrary to RespondentÓs

assertion, on November 21, 2014, at approximately 2:45 p.m.,

while attending a school meeting on School Board property to

address her future employment with Petitioner, Respondent was

under the influence of some alcoholic beverage or substance such

that she was, in fact, impaire d or intoxicated. To suggest that

she was fully capable of functioning with an alcohol level of

.104 is both contrary to common sense and the facts of this case.

Respondent failed to maintain a professional demeanor and was

unable to maintain a consisten t appearance and behavior.

51. When the results of the breathalyzer were made known to

the parties, Petitioner withdrew the disciplinary offer then

pending for RespondentÓs acceptance.

52. Subsequent to the November 21, 2014, meeting ,

Dr. Balado gave Respondent a referral to PetitionerÓs employment

assistance program (EAP). The EAP is available to Board

employees with problems that adversely impact their ability to

perform their work assignments. When an employee in EAP

acknowledges their issue, part icipates, and agrees to seek help

for their problem , the employer typically works to return the

employee to the work environment.

53. In this case , Dr. Binggeli recommended that the Board

terminate RespondentÓs employment on December 9, 2014.

54. At its December 16, 2014 , meeting , Petitioner voted to

terminate RespondentÓs employment with the school district and

the instant administrative challenge to the decision ensued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

55. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the

subjec t matter of these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1) ,

Fla. Stat. (201 5 ).

56. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this case to

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent

committed the charges supporting just cause for termination. See

McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA

1996).

57. Dr. BinggeliÓs letter of December 9, 2014 , outlined the

charges against Respondent and announced his intention to

recommend termination of RandallÓs employment. The letter

p rovided in pertinent part:

The reason for my decision is that an

investigation has shown that during the 2013 -

2014 school year you were repeatedly absent

without leave on December 17 and 19, 2013,

and January 6 and 7, 2014, by failing to

report for work an d without giving notice or

otherwise following procedure for calling in

sick or requesting vacation time off. You

were counseled concerning your unexcused

absences and advised that further violations

of leave policy would result in further

discipline.

On October 30, 2014, you again failed to

report to work at Coquina Elementary or

follow procedures for notifying your

supervisor of your absence or requesting

leave. When questioned about your

whereabouts on that day you lied to school

personnel telling the m that you were at

Coquina Elementary that day when in fact you

were at home. On November 3 , 2014, you were

placed on administrative leave pending an

investigation.

On November 4, 2014, you were questioned

about unexcused absence on October 30 , 2014,

by the Assistant Superintendent of Student

Services and Director of Labor Relations. At

that meeting you continued to lie about your

whereabouts that day before finally stating

that you drove to Coquina Elementary, sat in

your car in the parking lot for a pe riod of

time, then drove home and took a nap. You

also admitted you did not call in to notify

your supervisor of your absence from work.

On November 21, 2014, you were directed to

report to the District Office for a

disciplinary meeting with your supervi sor and

Director of Labor Relations. You were

accompanied by your husband and legal

counsel.

At this meeting you smelled of alcohol, had a

flushed face and bloodshot watery eyes. You

appeared to be under the influence of

alcohol. Based upon these obs ervations you

were directed to submit to a reasonable

suspicion Breathalyzer test. The

Breathalyzer test showed your breath alcohol

level to be .104%, more than the level

specified by law for driving under the

influence and legally intoxicated.

1. Your actions of repeatedly being

willfully absent without leave as described

above constitutes a violation of Section

1012.67, Florida Statutes , and just cause to

terminate your employment.

2. Your actions in being repeatedly absent

without having given prior notice subsequent

to being told to give prior notice and follow

procedures for requesting leave constitutes

both gross insubordination and willful

neglect of duty in violation of Rule 6A -

5.056(4), F.A.C. and provide just cause to

terminate your employment for misconduct in

office.

3. Your actions in repeatedly lying to your

supervisors when asked about your whereabouts

on October 30, 2014, constitute misconduct in

office by violating Section 6B - 1006, F.A.C.

of The Principles of Professional Conduct of

Th e Education Profession In Florida by

failing to maintain honesty in all

professional dealings.

4. Your actions in reporting for your

disciplinary meeting on November 21, 2014,

while intoxicated constitutes a violation of

Rule 6A - 5.056(2)(c), F.A.C. and m isconduct in

office by violating School Board of Brevard

County Drug - Free Workplace Policy 3124 and

provides just cause to terminate your

employment.

5. Your actions as described above

constitute just cause to terminate your

employment and cancel your pr ofessional

service contract under Section 1012.33(6)(a),

Florida Statutes . [ See PetitionerÓs

Exhibit 22] .

58. Section 1012.33 , Florida Statutes (2015) , provides in

part:

(1)(a) Each person employed as a member of

the instructional staff in any distric t

school system shall be properly certified

pursuant to s. 1012.56 or s. 1012.57 or

employed pursuant to s. 1012.39 and shall be

entitled to and shall receive a written

contract as specified in this section. All

such contracts, except continuing contracts

as specified in subsection (4), shall contain

provisions for dismissal during the term of

the contract only for just cause. Just cause

includes, but is not limited to, the

following instances, as defined by rule of

the State Board of Education: immoralit y,

misconduct in office, incompetency , two

consecutive annual performance evaluation

ratings of unsatisfactory under s. 1012.34,

two annual performance evaluation ratings of

unsatisfactory within a 3 - year period under

s. 1012.34, three consecutive annual

p erformance evaluation ratings of needs

improvement or a combination of needs

improvement and unsatisfactory under

s. 1012.34, gross insubordination, willful

neglect of duty, or being convicted or found

guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to,

regardles s of adjudication of guilt, any

crime involving moral turpitude .

* * *

(6)(a) Any member of the instructional

staff, excluding an employee specified in

subsection (4), may be suspended or dismissed

at any time during the term of the contract

for just cause as provided in paragraph

(1)(a). [Emphasis added ] .

59. Section 1012.67 provides:

Absence without leave. Ï Any district school

board employee who is willfully absent from

duty without leave shall forfeit compensation

for the time of such absenc e, and his or her

employment shall be subject to termination by

the district school board.

60. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.080 sets forth

the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. The

rule provides:

(1) The educator values t he 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 standards are the freedom to learn and

to teach and the guarante e of equal

opportunity for all.

(2) The educatorÓs primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the studentÓs

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the b est professional judgment

and integrity.

(3) Aware 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

de gree of ethical conduct.

61. Rule 6A - 10.081 sets forth the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.

The rule provides in pertinent part:

(1) The following disciplinary rule shall

constitute the Principles of Professio nal

Conduct for the Education Profession in

Florida.

(2) Violation of any of these principles

shall subject the individual to revocation or

suspension of the individual educatorÓs

certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

* * *

(5 ) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the individual:

( a)Shall maintain honesty in all professional

dealings.

62. As to the specific charges of this case, Petitioner has

established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent

repeatedly failed to follow directives regarding reporting her

absences on five occasions: December 17 and 19, 2013 ; January 6

and 7, 2014 ; and finally, October 30, 2014. Even after being

counseled after the first four instances , Respondent failed to

ap propriately contact the Department on October 30, 2014.

Reporting an absence was not an onerous burden for Respondent. A

telephone call, a text message, or an e - mail would have sufficed.

Instead, Respondent did nothing. After the fact , Respondent

claim s that she was not in a state to comply with the required

notification. Given the simplicity of the task required to

timely notify the office that she would not be at work, this

assertion is deemed without merit.

63. Petitioner has further established by a preponderance

of the evidence that Respondent repeatedly lied to school

personnel regarding her whereabouts on October 30, 2014.

Employees , such as Respondent , are held to the highest standard

of professional ethical conduct. Dishonesty in reporting basic

information to your supervisor and others cannot meet the

standard required of Respondent. Respondent offered no credible

explanation for why she felt compelled to misrepresent

(repeatedly) facts to school personnel. Had Respondent simply

stated t he truth (that she was at home and unable to work that

day) , disciplinary action would not be required. By failing to

maintain a standard of honesty and integrity , Respondent brought

disciplinary measures on herself.

64. Finally, with regard to Respond entÓs conduct of

November 21, 2014, Petitioner has established by a preponderance

of the evidence that Respondent presented to a meeting on School

Board property under the influence of alcohol. How a school

employee could blow a .104 on a breathalyzer tes t at 2:45 p.m. on

a regular business day is troubling and demonstrates RespondentÓs

extreme ly poor judgment. Common sense would suggest that one

does not drink before an important meeting. Given the

RespondentÓs conduct, appearance, and demeanor during t he meeting

of November 21, 2014, it is concluded Respondent was intoxicated

and impaired. To suggest that Respondent was not so impaired as

to be considered intoxicated , is rejected as contrary to the

facts of this case. An ordinarily prudent and cautiou s person

would not act as Respondent did at the meeting. Respondent did

not act professionally, she appeared disheveled with red watery

eyes, and demonstrated mood swings consistent with an intoxicated

personÓs behavior. Coupled with the odor emanating f rom

RespondentÓs person and the results of the breathalyzer

examination , there is adequate information to reach the

conclusion that Respondent was intoxicated.

65. The ultimate issue to be resolved by this case is an

appropriate penalty for RespondentÓs conduct. Wrestling with the

employment future of a long - time Board employee is difficult.

Had Respondent demonstrated sincere remorse for her behavior,

leniency might be appropriate. Had Respondent been credible in

her explanation of the events of Octo ber 30, 2014, a lesser

penalty might have been appropriate. In fact, the five - day

suspension that was offered at the November 21, 2014, meeting ,

with the other restrictions proposed , would have addressed the

matter fully. Instead, Respondent had a couple of wine spritzers

(her explanation for the breathalyzer results) in anticipation of

one of the most important meetings of her professional career and

reported to the meeting under the influence of alcohol.

RespondentÓs behavior went from bad to worse. R espondentÓs

credibility descended with each misrepresentation of fact.

Honesty is a cornerstone of ethical conduct , and Respondent

demonstrated she failed to meet the ethical standards for

employees of the Board on numerous occasions.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that RespondentÓs employment with the

Brevard County S chool D istrict be suspended until such time as

Respondent can show that she has successfully completed

continuing educational courses related to the ethical standards

expected of her, that her salary be frozen at the level of

compensation for the 2013 - 2014 school year, that she does not

receive any back pay or other compensation for the duration of

her suspension, and that she b e placed on a professional

improvement plan to assure monitoring and compliance with all

requirements of her job.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. D. PARRISH

Adm inistrative 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 of the

Division of Administrative Hear ings

this 30th day of December , 2015 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100

Winter Park, Florida 32789

(eServed)

Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

1477 West F airbanks Avenue, Suite 100

Winter Park, Florida 32789

Scarlett G. Davidson, Esq uir e

Culmer and Davidson, P.A.

840 Brevard Avenue

Rockledge, Florida 32955

(eServed)

Joseph E. Culmer, Esquire

Culmer and Davidson, P.A.

840 Brevard Avenue

Rockledge, Florid a 32955

Dr. Desmond K. Blackburn, Superintendent

Brevard County School Board

2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Viera, F lorida 32940 - 6601

Pam Stewart, Commissioner

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, F lorida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to sub mit 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.