You shouted that she had interrupted your practice and that her son was rude and obnoxious. When the parent went to leave the building, you followed her down the hallway and continued to yell at her about interrupting your practice. You spoke to her son aggressively and so loudly that you attracted the attention of students and faculty, despite her request for you to lower your voice. In February of 1992, you acted in an intimidating and threatening manner by yelling at the night cleaner, Mrs. Haskins, for reporting her observation of unsupervised children at an evening basketball activity conducted by you. However, petitioner further determined that while the first six months of respondent's suspension would be without pay, he would be restored to the payroll for the final six months of his suspension.
Petitioner challenges that determination of the panel on several grounds.
First, petitioner notes that the panel did not make any determinations of guilt or innocence with respect to three specifications of Charge I. Petitioner contends that the weight of credible evidence requires a finding that respondent is guilty of those specifications. Accordingly, there is insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of those charges. As noted above, some of the specifications of Charges I, II and III were identical and repeated as the basis of more than one charge. For instance, while a teacher's action in a particular circumstance may not support a charge of insubordination because the teacher was not previously directed against performing the act in question, that same act could nonetheless constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher. The record indicates that the panel considered the acts, concluded that in some instances the same action required a finding of guilt of more than one charge, but that in other instances a finding of guilt of one charge did not contain all of the necessary elements to find respondent guilty of another charge involving the same action.