20-001599 Palm Beach County School Board vs. Kim Griffin Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, October 9, 2020.

Summary: A preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondent committed the charged violations and sufficient evidence supports proceeding directly to suspension without pay and termination of her employment under progressive discipline from a prior reprimand.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On October 17, 2011, William F. Malone, Petitioner’s s uperintendent,

issued a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Termination from

Employment to Respondent, Kim Griffin (“Griffin” or “Respondent”). The letter informed Griffin that at Petitioner’s, Palm Beach County School

Board’s (“School Board” or “Petitioner” ) , November 2, 2011, meeting the

superintendent would recommend her suspension without pay and termination of her employment. The stated basis for the su perintendent’s

action was that just cause existed to warrant Griffin’s termination for :

(1) Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources; (2) Failure to Act in

Accordance with Sound Business Practices; (3) Professional Misconduct; and

(4) Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive. The letter further informed

Griffin that she could appeal by submitting a request for a hearing before

DOAH. On November 2, 2011, the School Board adopted the superintendent’s

recommendations to suspend Griffin without pay and to terminate her

employment.

Griffin timely requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to

section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest Petitioner's intended action.

Shortly thereafter, Petitioner forwarded the matter to DOAH, which opened a

file on December 1, 2011, Palm Beach County School Board v. Kim Griffin ,

DOAH Case No. 11 - 6140TTS. At the time of Griffin’s initial DOAH

proceedings, she was engaged in criminal proceedings for the alleged

misappropriation of Palm Beach S chool D istrict ( “District”) funds, stemming

from her employment with the School Board. After nine separate

continuances in the DOAH matter, as Griffin awaited the outcome of her criminal trial, the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss the DOAH action,

without prejudice, and refile it after the conclusion of Ms. Griffin’s criminal

trial. The parties subsequently filed a “Joint - Stipulation [sic] of Voluntary

Dismissal w ithout Prejudice.” The DOAH file was closed, without prejudice,

and jurisdiction was relinquished back to the School Board on December 20,

2013.

On March 28, 2014, Griffin was acquitted of all criminal charges by a jury.

On July 8, 2014, Griffin informed the School Board that she was still desirous

of proceeding with a DOAH hearing, but the School Board refus ed to refile

the DOAH action. After an unsuccessful attempt to file her own DOAH

petition, Griffin filed suit on October 28, 2015, against the School Board in

Palm Beach County Circuit Court to force the School Board to refile the

DOAH petition (Case No. 5 0 2015 - CA - 012132 XXXXMB). On October 8, 2019,

the Hon orable Jaime Goodman ordered the School Board “to refile the DOAH

petition so that Plaintiff can be afforded a formal hearing before the DOAH

ALJ to determine whether there was just cause for the suspens ion and

termination of [Griffin]’s employment … . ” In accordance with Judge

Goodman’s Order, the School Board refiled the DOAH p etition on March 30,

2020.

On June 1 and 2 , 2020, the f inal h earing was held. Petitioner presented

the testimony of Respondent, Susy Kay, Deborah Puig, Toni Waterman, and

Carolyn Seal, and offered Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 3 through 10, which were admitted into evidence -- Exhibits 1 and 3 through 5 over objection and

Exhibits 6 through 10 without objection. Respondent testified o n her own

behalf and did not call any other witnesses, nor did she present any exhibits. A three - volume T ranscript was filed with DOAH on June 17, 2020. The

parties’ proposed recommended orders were timely filed on July 6, 2020, and Petitioner also submitt ed a Supplemental Memorandum on that date. These

post - hearing submittals have been duly considered in this Recommended

Order. All references to Florida Statutes are to the version in effect at the

time of the matters relevant to these proceedings.

F INDIN GS OF F ACT

Stipulated Findings of Fact

The parties stipulated to the following F indings of F act in their Joint

Pre - hearing Stipulation filed on May 27, 2020:

1. Respondent was hired by the School Board on July 22, 2003.

2. At all times relevant to this Ad ministrative Complaint, Respondent was

employed as a s chool t reasurer II at Diamond View Elementary School

(“Diamond View”).

3. The job description for s chool t reasurer II provided the following

performance responsibilities, among others:

a. maintaining school internal account fiscal

records;

b. receiving all funds for school internal accounts; issuing receipts; making deposits and verifying and reconciling bank statements;

c. maintaining budget accounts; verifying and monitoring availability of funds; encumbering

accounts and adjusting account balances on receipt of actual charges;

d. preparing, typing and verifying a variety of forms, financial and statistical reports, vouchers, departmental reports and related correspondence; and

e. preparing repo rts for annual internal account

audits.

4. By statute, the School Board “shall be responsible for the

administration and control of all local school funds derived by any public

school from all activities or sources, and shall prescribe the principles and procedures to be followed in administering these funds consistent with

regulations adopted by the State Board of Education.” § 1011.07(1), Fla. Stat.

(2009).

5. Further, “[t]he State Board of Education shall adopt rules governing the

procedures for the re cording of the receipts, expenditures, deposits, and

disbursements of internal funds.” Id. at § 1011.07(2).

6. During the relevant time period, Florida Administrative Code

Rule 6A - 1.085(1) provided as follows:

Monies collected and expended within a schoo l …

are the responsibility of the school board and it shall be the duty of the school board to see that they are properly accounted for through use of

generally recognized accounting procedures and

effectively administered through adherence to internal fun ds policies of the school board, applicable Florida Statutes and provisions of “ Financial and Program Cost Accounting and

Reporting for Florida Schools ” as incorporated by

reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A –

1.001. Funds collected in connectio n with summer

program activities, funds derived from school athletic events, gifts, and contributions made by

band or athletic booster clubs, civic organizations,

parent - teacher organizations, and commercial

agencies, and all other similar monies, properti es,

or benefits may be included in internal funds of the

school based upon policies adopted by school

districts or as provided in “ Financial and Program

Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools.”

7. The Florida Department of Education’s “Financia l and Program Cost

Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools,” also known as the Redbook

2001, Chapter 7, School Internal Funds, Section III – Standards Practices

and Procedures, Subsection 1.4 Cash Collections and Deposits, provided, in

pertinent part:

a. All money collected by the school must be

substantiated by pre - numbered receipts,

consecutively numbered class receipt records, reports of monies collected, pre - numbered tickets,

reports of tickets issued and sold or other auditable records;

b. All m oney collected must be deposited intact to a

depository as frequently as feasible and as dictated

by sound business practices. IN ANY EVENT,

FUNDS COLLECTED MUST BE DEPOSITED

WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT; and

c. All deposits must equal the tota l amount of

money taken in and recorded on receipts for the

period covered by the deposit. Deposit slips shall be made in the number of copies necessary to meet the approved accounting procedures. All checks

received shall be deposited with a restrictive

e ndorsement of for deposit only and specifying the account title and number.

8. Diamond View had a drop safe, which was a secured containment

device.

9. The drop safe at Diamond View could only be opened by the principal,

assistant principal, principal’s confidential secretary, and Respondent.

10. The principal was the only person who had the full six - digit

combination to the safe and could open it alone.

11. Otherwise, the process for opening the safe at the school required two

staff members, each of who m had three digits of a six - digit code.

12. Once the safe was opened, Respondent would take the money to her

office to process the dropped funds and record them for deposit.

13. The deposits were placed in sealed bags, prepared by Respondent for

the couri er.

14. The District, including Diamond View, used a D rop - S afe L og, which is

a method for independent confirmation of dollar amounts that are dropped

into a school’s drop safe by staff.

15. Monies collected by school staff were to be recorded on Monies

C ollected Reports (“MCRs”).

16. The MCR contains two parts, a white and yellow copy.

17. The white copy of the MCR is turned in with the drop - off into the safe ,

and the yellow copy is retained by the individual who dropped the money into

the drop safe.

1 8. Monies accompanying MCRs were to be dropped into the drop safe

daily.

19. When dropping money and MCRs into the safe, staff were to enter the

record into the Drop - Safe Log for the dollar amount dropped into the safe.

20. During the 2009 Audit of Inter nal Funds for Diamond View, District

auditors identified certain irregularities and money missing from the school.

21. On January 21, 2010, District Auditor Toni Waterman (“Waterman”)

reported to Diamond View to perform an exit interview regarding the Aud it

and an “unannounced cash count” at the school.

22. District auditors also reported to Diamond View again the next day,

January 22, 2010.

23. District auditors conducted a review of the school’s financial records

from July 1, 2009, through January 21, 2010.

24. The District a uditor g eneral referred its findings to e mployee r elations

and to s chool p olice for investigation .

25. Employee r elations commenced an investigation that was assigned

case number 09/10 - 063.

26. Case number 09/10 - 063 was reviewed by the District’s E mployee

I nvestigation C ommittee (“EIC”) on October 4, 2011.

27. The EIC found that allegations of Misuse of District Time, Property,

and/or Resources; Failure to Act in Accordance with Sound Business

Practices; Professional Misconduct; and Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or

Directive were substantiated.

28. The EIC’s recommendation was that Respondent’s employment be

terminated.

29. The EIC concluded that there were grounds for skipping steps of the

progressive - discipline provision of th e Collective Bargaining Agreement

between the District and the Association of Educational Secretaries and

Office Professionals (“AESOP CBA”) because Respondent’s conduct presented

a real and immediate danger to the District or other flagrant violation.

30 . The s chool p olice filed an affidavit charging Respondent with Grand

Theft, Organized Scheme to Defraud , and Official Misconduct on April 14,

2010. The s tate a ttorney filed criminal charges against Respondent on

January 18, 2011. After a jury trial, Respo ndent was acquitted of the

criminal charges on March 28, 2014.

Additional Findings of Fact

31. Griffin’s last day working at Diamond View was January 22, 2010.

32. During the pertinent time period, school treasurers were also referred

to as “bookkeepers.”

33. Internal funds are funds collected at the school level.

34. School staff who collected funds at the school could also be referred to

as “sponsors.”

35. The MCR should contain the source of the money collected, the

amount collected, and should be dated with the date of collection and signed

by the sponsor.

36. Deborah Puig (“Puig”) was an i nternal a ccounts t echnician during the

2009 - 20 10 school year, and her responsibilities included training incoming

treasurers and supporting treasurers in place. It was never brought to Puig’s

attention that she was training treasurers incorrectly. Puig also performed the duties of a school treasurer, and it was not brought to her attention that she was performing the duties of a treasurer incorrectly.

37. Puig explained the full process that should be followed for a school

treasurer from the time of removing drops from the safe until finalizing them for deposit:

[The school treasurer] would retrieve the contents

of the safe, which would include individual Monies Collecte d Reports, along with any cash, checks or coins associated with the Monies Collected Report.

The Drop Safe Log would be pulled and the

treasurer would take the contents of the safe, along

with the Drop Safe Log , to her office to verify, to

count the cash , coin, checks. [The school treasurer would] enter the cash, coin and checks into the school cash accounting system. [The school treasurer would] issue an official receipt from

SchoolCash, which she would then combine at the

end of verifying, entering each Monies Collected

form individually and verifying the amounts individually.

She would then compile the bank deposits. Prepare

a series of reports that would then be kept at the school level.

She would initial each Monies Collected Report at

the bottom of the form. Initialing, dating and the

Monies Collected Reports require a deposit number

form number, that would be filled in at the bottom by the treasurer.

The deposit would then be prepared by issuing a bank Deposit Ticket.

Completing -- at the tim e we had Dunbar, so

completing a Dunbar pick - up bag and dropping in

the contents of the deposit into the bag.

There would be a ticket on the bag that would then be pulled off, a bag number, to verify that the bag

was processed at the school and then deli vered to

the bank.

There was a Dunbar logbook that that bag was

recorded into.

And then the deposit in its entirety would have been dropped back into the safe until which time the Dunbar carrier came to retrieve it.

The reports would then be filed in the bookkeeper’s

office numerically, until which time there was an audit.

… The paperwork was filed as part of their school

audit, to show that the items dropped were processed, verified and intact and sent to the bank

to show the audit trail.

38. Griff in was aware of all the standards to which Puig testified, because

she attended monthly training meetings for school treasurers.

39. Griffin confirmed that she attended monthly meetings during her time

as a s chool t reasurer II, including all the monthly me etings from the period of

August 2009 through January 2010.

40. The standards were also reflected in a document entitled “NEW

BOOKKEEPER TRAINING – SchoolCash.NET,” which was admitted into

evidence.

41. The school treasurer was required to maintain the pap erwork

associated with each deposit for five years.

42. The accounting software used at the school was SchoolCash.net,

which had been introduced into the District during the 2008 - 20 09 school year

and was fully integrated into all the District schools by th e beginning of the

2009 - 20 10 school year.

43. As the sole treasurer at the school, Griffin was the only person

responsible for preparing deposits.

44. Griffin testified that, when she accessed the safe, she would take out

everything that had been dropped i nto the safe.

45. District policy and procedure were that when a bookkeeper took

money out of the drop safe, the Drop - Safe Log needed to be initialed and

dated. This requirement was discussed at bookkeeper trainings and

meetings.

46. It was important for t here to be an indication on the Drop - Safe Log ,

among other reasons, as another measure of accountability for school funds.

47. There was a section on the Drop - Safe Log that read, “Date Removed

from Safe by Bookkeeper.”

48. The column immediately next to th e column labeled “Date Removed

from Safe by Bookkeeper,” read “Bookkeeper’s Initials.”

49. Whether the Drop - Safe Log was initialed and dated was something

that D istrict auditors looked for during this time period.

50. Griffin testified that she did not und erstand how to use the Drop - Safe

Log , including whether it was her responsibility to fill out the section “Date

Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper.”

51. According to Griffin, she sometimes initialed the Drop - Safe Log when

she removed drops, while at other tim es she would wait until she had

receipted and verified the amounts of the drops.

52. Griffin testified that she did not know the purpose the Drop - Safe Log

served during the 2009 - 20 10 school year.

53. District policy was that deposits should be recorded at the bank within

five days of collection. In other words, from the time a school staff member

filled out an MCR and dropped it into the safe, the corresponding deposit

should have been recorded with the bank within five days. This was five business or worki ng days.

54. Puig testified that it was suggested to school treasurers that they

prepare deposits more frequently, at least twice a week, since there were two pickups per week by the Dunbar armored car, so that they would always fall

within the five - day ru le. Puig would advise treasurers to process their

deposits the day before the armored car pickup since the time of day the

armored car would arrive was not known in advance. The New Bookkeeper Training similarly provided that “[t]he bank deposit will be pr epared by the

bookkeeper in time to meet the school’s established armored car pickup

schedule.”

55. Griffin testified that she did not know how long she had from when

sponsors dropped funds to have them ready to be deposited.

56. Griffin also testified tha t the only time of the school year that she

would describe herself as being caught up was summertime or close to it, i.e.,

the end of the school year.

57. Griffin testified that there were times when she would not be able to

access the safe when the armore d car arrived and a deposit was otherwise

ready to be picked up. She offered her inability to access the safe as a reason

a deposit might take longer than five business days to be picked up from the school. However, s he did not identify specific occasions when this occurred .

Further, this statement by Griffin was inconsistent with her earlier

testimony that she did not know how long she had from when sponsors

dropped funds to have them in the courier bag ready to be deposited. She also

never complained to P rincipal Carolyn Seal about not being able to access the

safe when the armored car arrived to pick up deposits. To the contrary, on

many occasions during this time period, she would not be on campus when

the armored car arrived to pick up deposits, so she would let school

administrators, such as Principal Seal, know whether the deposit was ready.

Finally, during the 2009 - 20 10 school year, there were times when Griffin

would inform Principal Seal that the deposit for the armored car was not

ready to be picke d up.

58. Attending the monthly meetings was highly suggested for school

treasurers, but not mandatory. Griffin perceived attending them to be

mandatory, if her principal approved her attendance. She earned points

toward a monetary award for attending thes e monthly meetings.

59. During the 2009 - 20 10 school year, Griffin also acted as a mentor to

other treasurers /bookkeepers . Mentoring other bookkeepers was not a

mandatory part of her job. Other bookkeepers would call and email her during the workday, and sh e would make time during the workday to

communicate with them. Principal Seal would observe Griffin on the phone,

and she would tell Principal Seal that she was mentoring other bookkeepers.

60. During the 2009 - 20 10 school year , Principal Seal assigned Grif fin two

duties in addition to her s chool t reasurer duties: assisting in the front office

for 30 minutes during lunch ; and then , assisting during dismissal time with

any bus issues.

61. Griffin testified that she also had to cover for school secretaries fo r an

additional 30 minutes after they left for the day at 3:30 p.m. , since she was

scheduled to work until 4:00 p.m. , and whenever they were absent.

62. The duty relating to buses at dismissal time consisted of Griffin

having a walkie talkie, in her offic e, and being responsible for contacting the

bus compound by phone if she was told that a bus did not arrive.

63. Griffin did not have responsibilities relating to the school clinic in the

2009 - 20 10 school year because she had informed the school administr ation

that she was not CPR trained, which is required to serve as backup for the

clinic.

64. Griffin testified that she had responsibilities relating to fire drill s that

would require her to leave her office. However, t here was no testimony or

other eviden ce about how frequent fire drills were.

65. Griffin never complained to Principal Seal that she was unable to get

her work done because of other responsibilities that she had been assigned.

66. District Auditor Waterman was a c ertified p ublic a ccountant w ho was

responsible for auditing the internal funds at schools during the

2009 - 20 10 school year.

67. Waterman’s audits concluded with an exit conference with the

bookkeeper, the Student Age Child Care (“SACC”) director, and then the

principal, as well as a cash count.

68. A cash count entailed having the bookkeeper open the drop safe and

take the money out that was in the safe; counting the money with the bookkeeper and tracing it to the Drop - Safe Log to make sure that the Drop -

Safe Log was completed; ensur i ng that teachers were properly completing

their portion of the documents; and confirming that the bookkeeper was

doing what she was supposed to be doing.

69. The audit that Waterman was concluding when she came to Diamond

View on January 21, 2010, was for the two prior fiscal years, 2007 - 20 08 and

2008 - 20 09, and it had begun in November 2009.

70. The cash count, on the other hand, would cover the time period for

whatever monies collected by sponsors had been dropped into the safe when

the count was conducted .

71. For the cash count, Waterman and Griffin removed the money from

the drop safe once it was opened, copied the Drop - Safe Log , and went to

Griffin’s office. Waterman and Griffin had to wait between 30 and 45 minutes

to get access to the drop safe.

72. While Waterman and Griffin were counting the money from the safe,

Waterman observed that there were more drops on the Drop - Safe Log than

money she had pulled from the safe.

73. When Waterman pointed this out to Griffin, she pulled bags out of her

desk an d stated that she had been in the middle of a deposit, and she also

produced a bag of coins. She similarly testified that she had removed contents from the drop safe earlier that day and was in the process of compiling a

deposit when Waterman arrived, and that she took money out in her office to give to Waterman.

74. The bags that Griffin produced were not initialed on the Drop - Safe

Log ; in other words, there was no indication on the Drop - Safe Log that the

money had been removed from the drop safe.

75. Add itionally, for one of the bags Griffin produced, there were no MCRs

with the money in the bag. Waterman mentioned the missing MCRs to

Griffin, and she answered that she had them, looked around on her desk,

found three MCRs, and handed them to Waterman. The three MCRs were not

all of the MCRs that were missing for that bag, however, and Waterman did

not find all of the MCRs that should have been in that bag.

76. Waterman and Griffin were together continuously from the time they

took the money out of the saf e, took it to her office, and counted it, and

Waterman would not count money without the bookkeeper or other school

staff being present. Waterman and Griffin also went to the copier to make

copies of MCRs and checks. Finally, Waterman and Griffin went back to the

drop safe and put the money back into the safe. Waterman did not go back

into the drop safe on January 21, 2010.

77. Waterman checked the copy room to make sure she had not left

anything there. She further testified that both she and Griffin would have

checked to make sure there was no money or MCRs left in the copy room.

78. After she went home on January 21, 2010, Waterman realized that

there was a drop in the amount of approximately $866 from the SACC director according to the Drop - Safe Log tha t she had not found when she was

doing her cash count, and that there was also a portion of the Drop - Safe Log

possibly missing.

79. Waterman decided to report to Diamond View early the next day,

January 22, 2010, and to have another D istrict auditor come a ssist her.

80. When Griffin arrived at Diamond View on January 22, 2010,

Waterman asked her for her January deposit records, which did not reflect

the SACC drop of approximately $866.

81. Waterman asked Griffin if she could look through her inbox and the

drawer in her office from where the bank bags had been produced the day before, and Griffin allowed her to do so.

82. When looking through files in the drawer, Waterman found six white

envelopes containing approximately $9,500 worth of drops, including t he

SACC drop for which she had been looking. According to her work papers from the time, the amount in the envelopes was $9,478.93.

83. There was no indication on the Drop - Safe Log that the SACC drop had

been removed from the drop safe.

84. Griffin was i n the office with Waterman when Waterman found the

envelopes and counted their contents.

85. Even after finding the envelopes, Waterman still did not find MCRs

that she had identified as being missing the previous day.

86. From there, Waterman’s coworker arrived at the school, and they

gathered all of the money, MCRs, Drop - Safe Log , and deposit records and

tried to determine what had been deposited to the bank and what they could

account for with the paperwork they had.

87. For the drops in January 2010, there were 20 entries on the Drop - Safe

Log for which the auditors could not find an MCR or the money associated

with it and also could not find the drops as part of a previously prepared

deposit.

88. For entries on the January Drop - Safe Log dated January 15 , 2010, or

later, there was no indication on the log that they had been removed from the

safe by the bookkeeper. Some of those items were subsequently found that

day in Griffin’s office, but three were not.

89. For the other January entries before Janua ry 15, 2010, there was a

note of “1/14” in the column “Date Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper,” for an

entry dated January 5, 201 0 , and a line drawn through all of the boxes for

entries up through January 14, 201 0 . Seven entries on January 13 and 14 ,

2010, w ere also initialed “KG.”

90. For the period from January 5 through 14, 2010, 17 drops could not be

located by the a uditors. Two of the drops that were not located by the

auditors were initialed “KG.” The other 15 drops that could not be located, had the da te or line drawn through the boxes under “Date Removed from

Safe by Bookkeeper.”

91. Four of the entries that had been noted as removed on “1/14” had been

noted as being dropped on January 5, 2010, meaning that more than five

working days had passed witho ut the January 5 , 2010, drops being deposited.

Additionally, some of the drops that had been removed on January 14 , 2010,

had been found in Griffin’s office on January 21 , 2010 .

92. Waterman also observed that, for the deposit to the bank that had

been ma de in January, some of the MCRs were dated in December. Her work

papers reflect that multiple drops identified on the Drop - Safe Log as having

been made on December 8, 2009 , were not deposited to the bank until

January 14, 2010.

9 3 . Waterman’s coworker was Susy Kay (then Susy Miller) (“Kay”), who

was a senior auditor for the School Board at the time . At the time, Kay held a

b achelor’s degree in a ccounting and was also a c ertified i nternal a uditor.

9 4 . Kay ultimately conducted a review of the school’s finan cial records

from July 1, 2009 , through January 21, 2010. Her role was to perform

financial analysis of the collection records to determine if there were missing

records or missing documentation.

9 5 . Principal Seal was asked by the auditors to collect yell ow copies of

MCRs from school staff. Principal Seal provided everything she collected to the auditors. Some staff had not retained their yellow MCRs.

9 6 . Pages of the Drop - Safe Log before November 2009 were also missing,

as in not available for review. Acc ordingly, only the period beginning in

November 2009 was reviewed in detail.

9 7 . Kay’s process was to conduct a two - way analysis of the available

records. First, she would work from the yellow MCR, to the Drop - Safe Log , to

the deposit packet including the corresponding white MCR. Second, she

would work from the bank statement to the deposit packets, to the Drop - Safe

Log , to the yellow copy of the MCR.

9 8 . In her review, Kay was unable to confirm that the drops for certain

MCRs associated with certain line items on the Drop - Safe Log were part of

completed deposits. She was also unable to find a white MCR for every yellow

MCR she collected. For some yellow MCRs, Kay was able to find an entry on

the Drop - Safe Log , but not the white MCR.

9 9 . If there w as an i nconsistency between the amount on the MCR and the

amount in the drop, Kay testified that, in most situations, the bookkeeper

would make a notation on the MCR and have the staff member initial it to

show the correction. Kay would look for this correction o n the white copy in

her analysis as an auditor, and possibly attach a copy of an email to the MCR

as well.

100 . For November and December 2009, there were 26 drops from the

Drop - Safe Log pages available that Kay could not trace to a deposit. Fourteen

of t hese drops had the initials “KG” on the Drop - Safe Log . Ten of the drops

had a line drawn through the box for initials under “KG.”

10 1 . Twelve school employees also provided sworn statements that they

had, in fact, dropped funds into the drop safe as shown by MCRs they

completed and, where available, their entries on the Drop - Safe Log . These

sworn statements confirmed that the following drops were made as shown on

the Drop - Safe Log that were found to be missing by District auditors:

(1) Elizabeth Sheppard f or $27 ($15 and $12) on

1/19/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000025; Pet. Ex. 5,

SB000160 ;

(2) Veronica Carner for $300 on 1/19/10, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000067; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000160 ;

(3) Elizabeth Sheppard for $16 on 1/5/10, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;

(4) E lizabeth Sheppard for $20 ($7.50 and $12.50)

on 1/6/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;

(5) Elizabeth Sheppard for $18 ($14 and $4) on

1/7/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;

(6) Elizabeth Sheppard for $32 ($13 and $4 and

$15) on 1/8/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000023; Pet. Ex. 5,

SB000161;

(7) Teresa Muller for $10 on 1/11/10, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000065; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;

(8) Elizabeth Sheppard for $20 ($4 and $16) on

1/12/10, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000025; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;

(9) Veronica Car ner for $195 on 1/13/10, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000067; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000161;

(10) Kaitlyn Byrne for $42 on 12/08/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000059; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000162;

(11) Erica Lucarelli for $6 on 12/9/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000057; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000162;

(12) Ellen Mo ore for $6 on 12/3/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000049; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000163;

(13) Ashley James for $5 on 11/24/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000018; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000164;

(14) Ellen Moore for $6 on 11/30/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000049; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000164;

(15) Ellen Moore for $12 on 11/19/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000049; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000165;

(16) Lynn Klopfer for $14.50 on 11/19/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000061; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000165;

(17) April Kirton for $229.25 ($177 and $52.25) on

11/20/09, Pet. Ex. 3, SB000016; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000165;

(18) Emilee Roche for $6 on 11/17/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000054; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000166; and

(19) Tara Alm for $40.50 on 11/17/09, Pet. Ex. 3,

SB000063; Pet. Ex. 5, SB000166.

10 2 . There were also two drops that included cash and checks. Kay was

able to dete rmine through review of bank records that the checks from these

drops had been endorsed and deposited, showing that Griffin had handled the

drop at some point. Griffin testified that she was responsible for preparing

checks to be deposited with the bank. F or those drops, however, Kay could

not find the corresponding white copy of the MCR.

10 3 . The drops that were determined to be missing did not include the

money that was found in Griffin’s office during Waterman’s cash count; that

money was deposited and not included in the special review.

10 4 . Of the total number of drops that District auditors concluded could

not be located, Kay went back after the operative events and determined that

her conclusion with respect to four of the drops was in error , and th ey had in

fact been deposited. Notably, for one of the drops, the issue had been that

there was a difference of $0.25 between what was on the MCR and what

Griffin recorded in SchoolCash.

10 5 . Griffin testified that she conducted her own review of Kay’s fin dings

and found “about seven” errors. She did not substantiate this conclusory

testimony by identifying what those errors were. Even if she had, District

auditors identified 42 drops, just from the available pages of the Drop - Safe

Log , that could not be tr aced to a bank deposit or otherwise located, excluding

the four that Kay testified were in error. Griffin’s having found seven errors,

even if distinct from those errors already identified by Kay, fails to excuse the District auditors’ findings about the o ther 35 drops.

10 6 . Griffin did not recall any collection of money ever missing from her

office, nor she did recall reporting a collection missing from her office or

reporting a collection missing that she believed should have been in the drop

safe.

Prior Related Discipline of Ms. Griffin

10 7 . Griffin received a written reprimand dated September 5, 2007, for

failure to follow procedures set forth in the School District ’s accounting

guidelines. Specifically, for a period in 2006, there were five checks that were

not entered in the school’s accounting system, but had been deposited into the

school’s bank account.

Respondent’s Defense to School Board Findings

10 8 . Griffin testified that school personnel were not trained on how to

use/complete the Drop - Safe Log and personnel would often times fail to

properly complete the Drop - Safe Log after making deposits into the safe.

10 9 . Griffin testified that use of the Drop - Safe Log was not discussed at

any of the trainings she attended. While Puig testified that the Dro p - Safe Log

was discussed during training sessions, she was unable to confirm whether Griffin attended any specific training where the Drop - Safe Log was

discussed.

1 1 0. School Board E xhibit 4 was the “New Bookkeeper Training” packet,

which was provided to s chool treasurers at a training session, but Puig could

not unequivocally confirm that Griffin had received a copy of the packet. The

greater weight of the evidence, however, supports that Griffin was a regular

attendee at school treasurer trainings and mos t likely received all the

relevant materials. This is especially true when considering, as she testified,

that she helped train other school treasurers and served as a mentor to some.

In any event, while the training packet mentions the Drop - Safe Log , it f ails to

provide specific guidance on the procedures for filing out the log by either

school personnel or school treasurers.

11 1 . Griffin testified that she had not been trained by D istrict staff on how

to complete the Drop - Safe Log .

11 2 . At the time of Wat erman’s arrival to perform the audit at Diamond

View on January 21, 2010, Griffin was in the middle of performing a count that she was preparing for a bank deposit.

11 3 . Correcting teachers’ counts was something Griffin frequently had to

do, as it was comm on for school personnel to make mistakes on their MCR

forms and/or the Drop - Safe Log .

11 4 . While Waterman completed Griffin’s count, Griffin went about her

daily activities, at times leaving Waterman alone in her office with the money

for the count.

11 5 . T he School Board alleges that pages were missing from the Drop - Safe

Log , but were unable to ascertain or establish whether the missing pages

were the result of Griffin’s negligence as opposed to the negligence of other

school staff/personnel since the log w as kept in an open area accessible to all,

or the result of the negligence of Waterman who testified to having moved the

documents on several occasions between Griffin’s office and the school’s copy

room. Griffin did not dispute that some pages may have be en missing from

the Drop - Safe Log . The greater weight of the evidence supports Griffin’s

mishandling of the Drop - Safe Log and any missing pages rather than shifting

the responsibility for the missing pages t o other District or Diamond View

staff.

11 6 . Wat erman testified that she could not definitively state that she had

not misplaced or lost any of the money she was counting or any of the

documents she was copying.

11 7 . Griffin testified that she left Waterman at the school on both

January 21 and 22, 2010, when she left the school each day. The implication

from this testimony was that Waterman could have misplaced or misappropriated funds. As mentioned above, such implication is not credible

since Griffin did not testify that she knew the Drop - Safe Log was intact prior

to Waterman’s audit.

11 8 . Kay’s audit contained numerous mistakes that she made in both her

initial audit and several subsequent reviews.

11 9 . Kay acknowledged making several accounting mistakes which were

brought out during Griffin’s criminal trial. Unexplained was the fact that

Kay, one of the School Board’s main auditors, failed to catch her mistakes

during the three years between her audit and her testimony at Griffin’s trial.

Kay testified that she had reviewed her findings each time prior to being

deposed and prior to testifying in Griffin’s criminal trial, yet she never

realized her mistakes until Griffin’s criminal attorney brought them to her

attention on cross - examination. While this behavior is evidence of sloppiness

on her part, it f ails to negate the substantial evidence provided by both

Waterman and Kay that significant errors were made by Griffin in her

accounting for funds left in her care.

1 20 . Additionally, Kay made several obvious mistakes in her notations on

the Drop - Safe Log by consistently noting the wrong dates on the log during

her audit.

12 1 . The evidence was clear that the School Board, namely Kay, made

many obvious mistakes in performing the audit. Griffin was suspended

without pay and terminated, at least in part, based on the audit containing

these errors.

12 2 . Even after acknowledging the accounting mistakes, Kay testified that

she did not amend her findings or submit a corrected audit addressing the

miscalculations.

12 3 . As a result, the School Board knowingly retaine d an audit containing

inaccuracies as part of its official records.

12 4 . There is credible evidence through the testimony of Kay that School

Board officials/personnel made recording or clerical mistakes in the handling and documentation of Griffin’s invest igation, which ultimately, led to her

suspension without pay and termination. However, that evidence does not

negate the majority of the errors and the failure to follow District procedures committed by Griffin.

12 5 . Griffin was suspended without pay effec tive November 3, 2011.

12 6 . Griffin’s termination from the School Board became effective

November 18, 2011.

12 7 . Since that time , she has lost her pay, health insurance , and other

benefits as a result of the suspension and termination.

12 8 . Griffin has exp erienced difficulty in securing full - time employment to

replace all her lost earnings since the time of her termination by the School

Board.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

12 9 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of these

proceedings pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1).

1 30 . The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and

supervision of all free public schools within the District. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla.

Const. ; §§ 1001.30, .32, Fla. Stat. The School Board’s powers and duties

include providing for the suspension and dismissal of employees.

§ 1012.22(1)(a), (f), Fla. Stat. (2009).

13 1 . The superintendent of schools has the statutory responsibility and

obligation to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require comp liance and observance by all personnel of all laws, policies , and

directives of the School Board, the State of Florida, and the federal

government. Pursuant to section 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes, the

superintendent has the authority to recommend to the S chool Board, that

school district employees be suspended and dismissed from employment.

13 2 . Section 1012.40(2)(b), which governs educational support employees

such as Griffin, provides, in pertinent part :

[T] the employee’s status shall continue from year to

year unless the district school superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement.

13 3 . Pursuant to the AESOP CBA , Article 3, Section C, Progressive

Discipline, subsection 1:

Disciplinary action may not b e taken against an

employee except for just cause and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence by the Superintendent or Designee which supports the recommended disciplinary action.

13 4 . The AESOP CBA, Article 3, Section C, Progressive Discipline,

subsection 8, reads as follows:

Where just cause warrants such action(s), an

employee may be demoted, suspend ed , or dismissed

upon recommendation to the Superintendent. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate

danger to the District or other flagr ant violation,

progressive discipline shall be administered as

follows:

(a) Verbal Warning (Written notification) (Not filed

in Personnel File)

(b) Written Reprimand (Filed in Personnel File)

(c) Suspension without pay with Board Approval

(d) Dismissal with Board approval.

13 5 . The educational support employee's guilt or innocence “is a factual

question 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. 2 d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

13 6 . 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 allegations "need not be set forth

with the technical nicety or formal exactness required of pleadings in court,"

Jacker v. School Board of Dade County , 426 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA

1983), the charging document should "specify the rule the agency alleges has been violated and the conduct w hich occasioned the violation of the rule." Id .

at 1151 (Jorgenson, J. concurring).

13 7 . Once the school board, in its notice of specific charges, has delineated

the offenses alleged to justify suspension or termination, those are the only

grounds upon whi ch such action may be taken. See Lusskin v. Ag. for Health

Care Admin. , 731 So. 2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); 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); and Willner v. Dep't of Prof'l

Reg., Bd. of Med. , 563 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576

So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1991).

13 8 . Petitioner bears the burden of proving e ach element of the

charged offenses against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence.

§ 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.; McNeill v. Pinellas Cty. Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476, 477

(Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sublett v. Sumter Cty. Sch. Bd. , 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179

(Fla. 5 th DCA 1995); Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cty. , 571 So. 2d 568, 569

(Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citing Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cty. , 569 So. 2d 883

(Fla. 3d DCA 1990)) . The preponderance of the evidence standard requires

proof by “the greater weight of the evidenc e” or evidence that “more likely

than not” tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d

276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000) (citations omitted); see also Williams v. Eau Claire

Pub. Sch. , 397 F.3d 441, 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding the trial co urt 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 proved is more likely

true than not true”). No presumption of correctness is given to the

preliminary determination of Petitioner to terminate Griffin’s employment. Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co ., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA

1981). This proceeding is considered to be de novo . § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.

13 9 . Section 1012.33(6)(b) provides that instructional or support personnel

may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of their contract

on charges based on:

Immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency,

gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty,

drunkenness, or being found guilty of, or entering a

plea of guilty, regardless of adjudication of guilt,

any crime involving moral turpitude, as these

terms are defined by rule by the State Board of

Education.

In addition to the following discussion of the charges against Griffin falling

under School Board policy and state financial accounting mandates, her

actions here violated the above statute in that they showed incompetency or

willful neglect of duty on her p art. Despite the fact Griffin was acquitted of

criminal charges, under the highest standard of proof in Florida law, namely,

proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the

evidence standard, a far lesser standard of proof discussed ab ove, applies

here. While a court of competent jurisdiction has found Griffin not guilty of

criminal charges, the undersigned finds, as set forth more fully below, that

she was derelict in her duties as school treasurer and, accordingly, was

appropriately d isciplined by the School Board.

1 40 . The record in this case establishes that Griffin committed the first

charged violation, Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or Resources in violation of School Board Policy 6.11 and the Florida Department of Educatio n’s “Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for

Florida Schools,” also known as the Redbook 2001, Chapter 7, School Internal

Funds, Section III – Standards Practices and Procedures, Subsection 1.4

Cash Collections and Deposits, paragraph (d).

14 1 . School Board Policy 6.11, Money Left in Schools After Hours,

provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny employee who fails to turn in funds

each day shall be held personally liable for any loss” and “[t]he maximum sum of money permitted to be kept in sc hool overnight shall not exceed $300,

excluding the cafeteria change fund, and shall be properly secured therein.”

14 2 . The record in this case establishes that Griffin violated School Board

Policy 6.11 by having drops in her office exceeding $300 overnigh t rather

than returning them to the drop safe. Specifically, the record establishes that

the envelopes discovered by Waterman on January 22, 2010, containing a

total of $9,478.93 had been in Griffin’s office at least overnight, since

Waterman had arrived a t the school before G riffin on January 22 , 2010 .

14 3 . The pertinent section of the Redbook 2001 provides that “[a]ll

deposits must equal the total amount of money taken in and recorded on

receipts for the period covered by the deposit.”

14 4 . The record est ablishes that Griffin violated this provision because

she failed to ensure that all money collected at the school during the period

from November 2009 through January 2010 that was analyzed by the D istrict

auditors was actually deposited. This was demonstr ated by the evidence

regarding the cash count by Waterman on January 21, 2010, and then the

ensuing special review by D istrict auditors of the period from November 2009

through January 2010. Even accepting Kay’s testimony that she found four

errors in her work and Griffin’s testimony that she found seven errors in Kay’s work papers, that leaves at least 35 drops that D istrict auditors could

not find or otherwise confirm were deposited.

14 5 . The record in this case also establishes that Griffin committed the

second charged violation, Professional Misconduct, which represents her

failure to fulfill essential responsibilities of her job according to her job

description.

14 6 . Griffin violated the requirements of “[m]aintaining school internal

account fiscal reco rds” and “[p]reparing, typing and verifying a variety of

forms, financial and statistical reports, vouchers, departmental reports and

related correspondence.” These job responsibilities and the record in this case confirm that, as a school treasurer, Griff in was a bookkeeper. At the very

least, the D istrict auditors’ analysis revealed significant bookkeeping

failures. District auditors were not only unable to find bank records confirming that funds made it to the bank, they were unable to find the

documenta tion at the school that Griffin had verified the drops and finalized

them for deposit. Even if something happened to a drop after she finalized it

for deposit, there should still have been paperwork retained by her showing

that she had finalized it for dep osit. This included white MCRs that

corresponded with each drop made by school staff and that should have

reflected any errors that Griffin discovered when she verified the amount of

the drop with the paperwork completed by school staff.

14 7 . For the reaso ns discussed above regarding Misuse of District Time,

Property, and/or Resources, Griffin also violated the requirement of a school treasurer “[r]eceiving all funds for school internal accounts; issuing receipts;

making deposits and verifying and reconcili ng bank statements.”

14 8 . The record in this case also establishes that Griffin committed the

third charged violation, Failure to Act in Accordance with Sound Business

Practices, in violation of the provision of the Redbook 2001 that “[a]ll money

collected must be deposited intact to a depository as frequently as feasible

and as dictated by sound business practices. IN ANY EVENT, FUNDS

COLLECTED MUST BE DEPOSITED WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS

AFTER RECEIPT.”

14 9 . The record established that the five - day rule was also District policy,

and that school treasurers were even advised to have deposits ready more

frequently than that, in time for every armored car pickup. Griffin testified that she did not know how long she had from when funds were dropped to

have them r eady for deposit, but that claim is either simply untrue or is

inexcusable in light of the Redbook 2001, her attendance at monthly training

meetings, and her mentoring of other school treasurers.

1 50 . Griffin attempted to blame any delay in deposits on her inability to

access the safe when the armored car pickup service was at the school, but she did not tie that to the specific delayed deposits identified by the D istrict

auditors in their testimony. Additionally, on one occasion, funds were

dropped in the safe on January 5, 2010, and not removed by Griffin until

January 14 , 20 10 . Inability to access the safe while the armored car was

there would not excuse her failure to remove the funds from the safe in the

first place to prepare them for deposit.

15 1 . Gri ffin also attempted to blame any delay in deposits on having too

many other responsibilities. The record as a whole does not support that she

was unable to prepare deposits in a timely fashion because of any additional

responsibilities assigned to her by P rincipal Seal. She managed to have time

to perform, for instance, mentoring during the workday, which was not even

a required job duty for her.

15 2 . The record in this case further establishes that Griffin committed the

fourth and final charged violation, Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive,

by violating School Board Policies 3.10 and 1.013.

15 3 . School Board Policy 3.10, Conditions of Employment, paragraph 6,

provides as follows:

The District requires its employees to carry out

their responsibilitie s in accordance to School Board

Policy 1.013 (as may be amended), their job descriptions and reasonable directives from their supervisors that do not pose an immediate serious

hazard to health and safety or clearly violate

established law or policy.

15 4 . School Board Policy 1.013, Responsibilities of School District

Personnel and Staff, paragraph 1, provides as follows:

It shall be the responsibility of the personnel employed by the district school board to carry out their assigned duties in accordance wit h federal

laws, rules, state statutes, state board of education rules, school board policy, superintendent’s administrative directives and local school and area rules.

15 5 . By statute, the School Board “shall be responsible for the

administration and cont rol of all local school funds derived by any public

school from all activities or sources, and shall prescribe the principles and

procedures to be followed in administering these funds consistent with

regulations adopted by the State Board of Education.” § 1011.07(1), Fla. Stat.

(2009). Further, “[t]he State Board of Education shall adopt rules governing

the procedures for the recording of the receipts, expenditures, deposits, and

disbursements of internal funds.” Id . at § 1011.07(2).

15 6 . During the releva nt time period, r ule 6A - 1.085(1) provided as follows:

Monies collected and expended within a school …

are the responsibility of the school board and it shall be the duty of the school board to see that

they are properly accounted for through use of

general ly recognized accounting procedures and

effectively administered through adherence to internal funds policies of the school board,

applicable Florida Statutes and provisions of

“Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools” as in corporated by

reference in Rule 6A – 1.001, F.A.C. Funds collected

in connection with summer program activities,

funds derived from school athletic events, gifts, and

contributions made by band or athletic booster clubs, civic organizations, parent - teacher

o rganizations, and commercial agencies, and all other similar monies, properties, or benefits may be

included in internal funds of the school based upon

policies adopted by school districts or as provided in

“Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Report ing for Florida Schools. ”

15 7 . In short, the Redbook 2001 governed the handling of internal funds

at schools during the pertinent time period for this matter pursuant to the

Florida Statutes and State Board of Education rules. For the reasons

discussed ab ove regarding Misuse of District Time, Property, and/or

Resources; Professional Misconduct; and Failure to Act in Accordance with

Sound Business Practices , Griffin failed to carry out her assigned duties in

accordance with the Redbook 2001 regarding deposi ting all money taken in at

the school. For the reasons discussed above regarding Misuse of District

Time, Property, and/or Resources and Professional Misconduct, Griffin also

failed to fulfill multiple responsibilities outlined in her job description.

15 8 . Additionally, Griffin violated the District’s policies and procedures

regarding the D rop - S afe L og. The record establishes that a school treasurer

should have initialed and dated the D rop - S afe L og when removing drops from

the drop safe, which Griffin consi stently failed to do. Alternatively, there was

testimony from Puig that a school treasurer could pull the Drop - Safe Log

along with the drops while preparing a deposit. But Griffin did not testify

that she did that either, nor did the evidence show that, wh en she had a

number of drops in her office on January 21, 2010, she had also removed the

Drop - Safe Log .

15 9 . Whether the Drop - Safe Log was a School Board - approved form is not

dispositive of whether it was a requirement that the school treasurer here

use it , which the record establishes was the case. The undersigned does not

find Griffin’s testimony credible that she did not know or was not told how to

use the Drop - Safe Log , as an excuse for her failure to use it properly. First,

the document contained unamb iguous text above columns reading “Date

Removed from Safe by Bookkeeper” and “Bookkeeper’s Initials.” Second,

there was testimony supporting the common sense conclusion that a

bookkeeper identifying when she had removed funds from the safe was an important accountability measure. Moreover, the evidence proved that Griffin

used the Drop - Safe Log at some time while not at other times. Finally, Griffin

was a regular attendee at trainings, an experienced school treasurer, and even served as a mentor to other sc hool treasurers.

1 60 . In sum, the record in this case establishes that Griffin committed the

charged violations , and there is just cause both for suspension without pay

and termination of her employment.

16 1 . Further, sufficient grounds exist here for proc eeding directly to

termination under the progressive discipline provision of the AESOP CBA. Article 3, section C of the AESOP CBA , allows for a deviation from

progressive discipline in two narrow exceptions: (1) in cases which clearly

constitute a real and immediate danger to the District ; or (2) flagrant

violations.

16 2 . Given Griffin’s prior disciplinary history of a written reprimand, the

next step would have been suspension without pay. The School Board

established that Griffin’s actions constituted fla grant violations due to the

number and frequency of her not following the clearly established practices

for a school treasurer to handle money. Her lax practices concerning others’

access to the Drop - Safe Log ; her failure to account for all funds received on

the Drop - Safe Log ; her failure to properly secure funds collected on multiple

occasions; and her inability to recall how money ended up in her desk drawer

rather than in the drop safe at the close of the school day all indicate a

serious disregard for t he required safeguards imposed for money collected for

school activities and fees and constitute frequent and flagrant violations of

the charged rules and policies of the District. While Griffin’s counsel argued

that the New Bookkeeper Training Manual was not specified as part of the violations charged in the A dministrative C omplaint, clearly this was a

document that school treasurers were expected to both learn about in training and follow in the regular course of performing their duties. The fact that sig nificant amounts of money were not properly logged or kept in the

drop safe, in and of itself, created both a real and immediate danger to the

District.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a

final order suspending Respondent, Kim Griffin, without pay and terminating her employment.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 9th day of October , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

R OBERT S. C OHEN

Admi nistrative 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 Heari ngs

this 9th day of October , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Dedrick D. Straghn, Esquire

Dedrick D. Straghn, Attorney &

Counselor at Law

26 Southwest 5th Avenue

Delray Beach, Florida 33444

(eServed)

Sean Fahey, Esquire

Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

School D istrict of Palm Beach County

Office of the General Counsel

3300 Forest Hill Boulevard , Suite C - 331

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tall ahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent

Palm Beach County School Board

3300 Forest Hill B ou l e v ar d, C - 316

West Palm Beach, F lorida 33406 - 5869

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to su bmit 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.