REPORT TO:
LEON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
December 22, 2016

PREPARED BY: J. STEVEN CARTER
LAURA BETH FARAGASSO
HENRY BUCHANAN, P.A.
2508 BARRINGTON CIRCLE
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32312
(850) 222-2920

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

T

1.

EXECUTINT-E SIAINIARY

II.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

6

III.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND
LCSB POLICIES

9

IV.

INVESTIGATIVE STEPS

12

V.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FROM
THE INVESTIGATION

20

FINDINGS

35

VI.

 I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On November 30, 2016, following briefings with counsel for the Leon County

School Board (LCSB) and deliberations regarding the appropriate scope of
investigation in light of former Superintendent Jackie Pons' unsuccessful re-election

bid and effort to secure post -election employment with the Leon County School
district, this firm and its undersigned attorneys were retained by LCSB to undertake

the current investigation. The investigation was prompted by the anonymous
delivery of a package of dated photographs and a typed narrative purporting to
describe activities depicted in the photographs and on two additional days which
preceded the dates of the photographs. The typed narrative claimed that the wooded
property depicted in the photographs was owned by Paul Byrd ("the Byrd property").

Although no illegal or inappropriate activity was demonstrably evident from the
photographs, the majority of them depicted then Superintendent Pons meeting two
women in a wooded area in his white, LCSB-issued Ford Explorer. Taken together

with the typed narrative, it was clear that the anonymous author/photographer was

implying that inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature or other misconduct had

occurred between Superintendent Pons and the women while at the wooded
property.

Despite having no overt evidence of any such impropriety or a complaint of

sexual harassment by either woman, LCSB determined that it was necessary, and

2

 that it had an obligation to confirm, if possible, whether either of the two women had

been subjected to sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, so that
corrective action could be taken if necessary. LCBS investigations are ordinarily

conducted by LCSB Chief of Safety & Security, John Hunkiar, and sexual
harassment complaint investigations are ordinarily conducted by Dr. Kathleen
Rodgers, Divisional Director Intervention, Equity and Support Services. However,
this matter directly involved then Superintendent Pons, and thus, in accordance with

LCSB Policy, both Mr. Pons and Mr. Hunkiar asked the LCSB attorney to refer the
matter to an outside third party with the appropriate qualifications and experience in

investigating such matters. Because this law firm met that criterion and also had no

ties to LCSB or any of its officials, it was selected to conduct the investigation and

was foiivally retained by LCSB pursuant to a services contract executed on
November 30, 2016.

As more fully reflected below, the investigation included a thorough review
of all applicable LCSB policies and the law governing sexual harassment and hostile

work environment; review of numerous employment and internal records of the
District; a site visit to the entrances of the purported location in the photographs;

interviews of 17 witnesses, including LCSB administrators, security personnel,
supervisory and co-worker staff associated with the individual identified below as

3

 Jane Doe 11, and other third party witnesses identified as having background facts
pertinent to the issues; an interview with Jane Doe 2; attempted interviews with Jane

Doe 1 and Mr. Pons; and the receipt of affidavits from Jane Does 1 and 2 and Mr.
Pons.

Our investigation revealed several factually inconsistent and demonstrably
questionable explanations about why Mr. Pons was on the Byrd property with Jane

Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. The investigation also revealed a widely recognized, close
relationship between Jane Doe 1 and former Superintendent Pons, as well as Jane

Doe 1's unusually rapid rise within the administrative ranks of Leon County
Schools. These facts, along with Jane Doe 1 and Mr. Pons' refusal to grant interviews

or answer detailed, written questions so that the sexual harassment issues could be
fully explored, naturally raise questions about the precise nature of the relationships
between former Superintendent Pons and Jane Does 1 and 2, but they do not provide

direct evidence or proof of any behavior which violates the law or the LCSB anti harassment policy.

In affidavits provided in lieu of our requested face-to-face interviews with
the three individuals depicted in the photographs, none of the them denied that they

1 Although the identity of the women depicted in the photographs is not disputed in that they have

been clearly identified by numerous witnesses, they will not be referred to by name in this
investigation in order to protect their privacy as potential victims of sexual harassment. See Fla.
Stat. §119.071(2)(g)(2) and Fla. AGO 2009-10, 2009 WL 707419, citing Senate Staff Analysis
and Economic Impact Statement, SB 20-B, May 25, 1993.
4

 were, in fact, together at the Byrd property at various times. While Jane Does 1 and

2 indicated they were not aware that Paul Byrd owned the property, Mr. Pons has

provided multiple statements to District personnel and others that it was the Byrd
Property.

However, all three adamantly deny that the two women were ever

subjected to sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, or unwelcome behavior
of any kind from former Superintendent Pons. They further, and more broadly, deny

that the anonymously submitted photographs depict misconduct or illegal behavior
of any kind.

As to Jane Doe 1, there has been no complaint by her of unwanted attention
or harassment and we have discovered no direct or extrinsic evidence to suggest that

she was a victim of unwelcome behavior. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no
evidence to establish that Jane Doe 1 was a victim of sexual harassment or a sexually

hostile work environment, and thus any concerns about potential sexual harassment
of Jane Doe 1 are unsubstantiated.

As to Jane Doe 2, she confirmed that she was no longer an employee of the
district at the time of the photographs. Therefore, it would be impossible as a matter

of law for her to be the victim of workplace sexual harassment based on the
circumstances depicted in the photographs or described in the typed narrative. Jane

Doe 2 provided a sworn, written statement that nothing inappropriate or illegal
occurred during the events depicted in the photographs and that Mr. Pons was a long -

5

 time friend and confidant. In a subsequent telephone interview, she expressly and

repeatedly denied that Mr. Pons ever engaged in any sexual harassment of her or
created a sexually hostile work environment, and we have discovered no direct or
extrinsic evidence to suggest that she was a victim of unwelcome behavior at any
time during her tenure with the School District. We therefore conclude that there is
no evidence that Jane Doe 2 was a victim of sexual harassment or a sexually hostile
work environment, and thus any concerns about potential sexual harassment of Jane
Doe 2 are unsubstantiated.

II.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

On November 30, 2016, pursuant to the fully executed professional/Technical

Services Agreement (PTSA), our law firm was retained by LCSB to conduct an
independent investigation into potential policy violations or wrongdoing arising out

of circumstances depicted in photographs and an accompanying typed narrative
anonymously delivered to the School Board on or about November 2, 2016. The
anonymous package appeared to assert the existence of an inappropriate relationship

between then Superintendent of Leon County Schools, Jackie Pons, and two women

depicted in the photographs, one a current School District employee, Jane Doe 1;

and the other a former School District employee, Jane Doe 2. Jane Doe 1 is the
Project Coordinator for the Families in Transition Program (also referred to as the

6

 F.I.T. Program) and Jane Doe 2 was most recently employed as the principal of
Deerlake Middle School, but retired in May 2016.
The typed narrative and the photographs contained in the anonymous package

were unsourced, and the photographs were unauthenticated. More specifically, there

was no information about who took the photographs or prepared the narrative, and
no direct information about who provided the information to the LCSB.

The scope of our investigation was defined by two letters provided to us by
the School Board's attorney, J. Jeffrey Wahlen, during the process of retaining our

firm. These letters are dated November 18, 2016 and November 29, 2016,
respectively.

The initial scope of investigation as described by the letter of November 18,

2016, required a broad inquiry into all possible LCSB policy violations or other
misconduct that could possibly have resulted from the circumstances depicted in the

photographs and as otherwise suggested by the typed narrative.

However, the letter of November 29, 2016, significantly narrowed the scope

of the investigation since the determination had by then been made that Mr. Pons,
already unsuccessful in his re-election bid, would not be re-employed by the School

District. The new, reduced scope of services directed our film to investigate and
determine if there was evidence that the two women depicted in the photographs

7

 were the subject of any unwelcome sexual harassment or a hostile work environment

in violation of LCSB policy and/or employment law.

Significant media coverage regarding the anonymously delivered narrative,
photographs and a related video (this video was not part of the package delivered to
LCSB) has preceded and followed our formal retention by LCSB, and we recognize
the likelihood of strong community interest not only in this report's conclusions, but

also in the prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars to conduct this investigation.
Accordingly, we feel it is appropriate to specify not only what we have investigated
pursuant to the narrowed scope of services, but also what we have not.

We have made no effort to ascertain the motivation for the procurement and
delivery of the photographs, narrative and videos, or the identity of their creator(s).

We have not inquired whether Paul Byrd was aware of, or permitted, Mr. Pons and

the Jane Does' presence on his property. We have not investigated the identity of a
camouflaged individual who appeared in photographs published in the newspaper.

We have not explored Mr. Pons' statement, as published in the media, that he or
others associated with his campaign set up counter -surveillance cameras on or near

the Byrd property. We have not attempted to confirm the identity or motivation of
a gentleman who spoke at a special LCSB meeting on November 3, 2016. We have

not investigated whether this individual, or any other person, attempted to extort
money from Mr. Pons by threatening to publish the photographs unless he was paid

8

 a sum of money. Finally, we have not investigated whether Mr. Pons' use of district -

owned Ford Explorer as depicted in the photographs was a violation of LCSB
policies. All of these issues were beyond our investigative scope, and we have
strictly limited our inquiries to matters directly relevant to the narrow issues set forth
in the PTSA.

III.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS AND LCSB POLICIES

The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the women depicted
in the photographs were the victims of unwelcome sexual harassment or hostile work

environment in violation of LSCB policy and the employment laws that prohibit
such conduct.

The applicable employment laws that protect employees, including employees

of the LCSB, from any unwelcome sexual harassment and/or from the creation of a

hostile work environment are found in both federal and state law. Title VII is the
federal law that prohibits unwelcome sexual conduct that is a term or condition of
employment. The parallel state law is found at Chapter 760, Florida Statute, as part
of the Florida Civil Rights Act.

The hallmark of unlawful sexual harassment or hostile work environment is
an employee's subjection to unwanted sexual attention, verbal or physical conduct,

or other hostility by a co-worker, supervisor, or third party associated with the
employer. In other words, only "unwelcome" sexual conduct that becomes a term or

9

 condition of employment constitutes sexual harassment. In generally defining
"unwelcome" conduct, the courts have explained that the challenged conduct must
be unwelcome "in the sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the
sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable and offensive." See e.g.,

Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 903 (11th Cir. 1982).

LCSB policy number 13622 expressly prohibits unlawful harassment,
including sexual harassment. It defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual

nature regardless of sexual orientation, when:
A.

Submission to such conduct is made either implicitly or explicitly a
term or condition of an individual's employment, or status in a class,
educational program, or activity;

B.

Submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the
basis for employment or educational decisions affecting such
individual;

C.

Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the
individual's work or educational performance; of creating an
intimidating,

hostile,

or

offensive

working,

and/or

learning
environment; or of interfering with one's ability to participate in or
benefit from a class or an educational program or activity."

Moreover, while not intended to be exhaustive, the policy also provides clear

and understandable examples of the kinds of conduct that may constitute sexual

2 LCSB has identical polices against anti -harassment, including sexual harassment, related to
instructional and support staff, found at Policy No. 3362 and No. 4362.
10

 harassment, including unwanted sexual propositions, invitations, solicitations, and

flirtations; unwanted physical contact; unwelcome verbal expressions of a sexual
nature; inappropriate touching; and sexually suggestive remarks. Additionally, the

policy provides that sexual harassment includes "consensual sexual relationships
where such relationships lead to favoritism of a subordinate employee with whom
the superior is sexually involved and where such favoritism adversely affects other

employees or otherwise creates a hostile work environment." (LCSB Policy 1362,
examples of sexual harassment A -J)

LSCB policies against sexual harassment are extensively communicated to all

employees each year. Specifically, at the beginning of each school year, the
employees of the District receive mandatory sexual harassment training that includes

a review of the applicable policies and the procedures for reporting a complaint of
sexual harassment. In addition, a training video is provided and must be watched by

all employees annually. There are separate videos for employees and supervisors
that communicate in detail the types of conduct prohibited, how to confidentially
report any conduct that an employee may claim to constitute harassment or a hostile

work environment, and how to recognize conduct that might be harassment.
Additionally, for each cost center/school in the District, a confidential sexual
harassment contact/coordinator is established so that the employees working at that

cost center have multiple places to report any prohibited conduct or harassing

11

 behavior. An employee may report such allegations to his/her supervisor, the
established confidential contact/coordinator, or directly to the District's Equity
Office. All such reports remain confidential and are investigated in detail by the
District's Equity Office to determine if the claim can be substantiated and if remedial

action is needed. Dr. Kathleen Rodgers, Divisional Director Intervention, Equity and

Support Services, personally conducts all such investigations. However, there is no
LCSB policy that compels an employee to provide an interview in the investigative
process.

With this backdrop of the LCSB policies and the applicable employment law,

both of which specifically prohibit unwelcome sexual harassment and hostile
environment, our investigation focused on the following specific questions and areas
of inquiry:

Was Jane Doe

1

a victim of sexual harassment or hostile work

environment by former Superintendent Jackie Pons?

Was Jane Doe 2 a victim of sexual harassment or hostile work
environment by former Superintendent Jackie Pons?
IV.

INVESTIGATIVE STEPS

Upon the execution of the PTSA, our firm began the steps necessary to
investigate the issues presented. The anonymous photographs and typed narrative
were provided to us by John Hunkiar, Chief of Safety & Security. These materials

12

 were carefully reviewed and also compared to the photographs and videos that had

been previously posted online by the Tallahassee Democrat in connection with its
article of November 20, 2016, headlined "Politics of Destruction."

In addition, material and relevant documents were requested and obtained
from LCSB that were also carefully reviewed, such as a complete copy of the LCSB

policies (inclusive of the code of ethics and all policies governing anti -harassment,

hostile work environment, and campaign activities); relevant employee personnel

files; job descriptions; various employee leave records; the sexual harassment
training records of former Superintendent Pons and Jane Does 1 and 2 ; and where

available, cell phone records of District -issued cell phones for the employees in
question. In addition, the transcripts of the depositions of LCSB employees that had

been taken in criminal case entitled State v. Hildebrandt, Case No. 2015 -CF -167

(Hildebrandt Criminal Case) were also obtained and reviewed, including, in
particular, the deposition of Jane Doe 1 taken on September 27, 2016, as well as the

court reporter's audio recording of her deposition.
We reviewed the public records for real property owned by Mr. Paul Byrd in

the area identified by the anonymous narrative, Christy Cary Lane in West Leon

County, and then personally inspected and photographed the entrances to this
location and compared this information to the photographs and video evidence

obtained. We also reviewed information available through the Department of

13

 Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to confirm that the ownership of the vehicles
depicted in the photos was as described in the narrative.

Reports of the surrounding events by various media outlets were also
reviewed, as were social media posts in response to this coverage.
Numerous individuals, both LCSB employees and other fact witnesses, were

personally interviewed in order to obtain the following information: general
background infatmation related to the employment practices and LCSB policies at
issue; the job duties, type of work required, and the work performed in certain job
positions and by certain employees, including Jane Doe 1 in her position as Project

Coordinator of F.I.T.; whether any infoinial or formal complaints of sexual
harassment or hostile work environment were ever made by the women depicted in
the photographs; whether any factual circumstances suggested or established that the

women depicted in the photographs were ever victims of sexual harassment, hostile
work environment, or any other inappropriate or personal relationship involving Mr.

Pons that might violate LCSB policy or law; and whether there were any additional
relevant and material facts regarding the circumstances presented by the anonymous

materials, including information relevant to the storage of the Pons campaign signs
on the Byrd Property. More specifically, the following persons were interviewed by

J. Steven Carter (JSC) and/or Laura Beth Faragasso (LBF) on the dates and

14

 approximate times noted below, at the locations indicated, either in a face-to-face
meeting or via a telephone interview:

Date/Time

Person Interviewed

Location

Investigators
Present

12/02/2016
8:30 a.m.

John Hunkiar
Chief, Safety & Security

Conference Room
Henry Buchanan, P.A.

JSC & LBF

12/5/2016
9:00 a.m.

Ronnie Youngblood
Division Director
Transportation

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

12/5/2016
9:45 a.m.

Dr. Pam Hightower
Divisional Director Title
I Director and Former
supervisor of Jane Doe 1

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

12/5/2016
10:30 a.m.

Robert "Buddy"
Tricquet
Director District
Security RMGT

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

12/5/2016
11:15 a.m.

Vi Dennis
Director II,
Human Resources

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

&

Multiple TCs

&
Follow -Up TCs

12/5/2016
11:45 a.m.

Dr. Marvin Henderson
Deputy Superintendent

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

12/5/2016
1:15 p.m.

Dr. Kathleen Rodgers
Divisional Director
Intervention, Equity and
Support Services

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

&

12/12/2016

&

Telephone Interview

15

 12/6/2016
4:00 p.m.

Jane Doe 2
Retired LCSB Employee
depicted in photographs

Telephone Interview

JSC

12/7/2016
9:00 a.m.

Jessica Lowe
Principal of Virtual
School - Current
Supervisor of Jane Doe 1

Conference Room at
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

&

12/13/2016

&

Telephone Interview
12/9/2016
9:00 a.m.

Grayson Hagan
Program Specialist at
FIT - co-worker of Jane

Conference Room
Admin. West

JSC & LBF

Doe 1

12/9/2016
10:20 a.m.

Jessica Chapman
Assistant Principal
Florida Virtual School;
designated compliance
officer at Jane Doe l's
workplace

Conference Room
Admin. West

JSC & LBF

12/9/2016
10:30 a.m.

Freda Lewis
Bookkeeper
Florida Virtual School

Conference Room
Admin. West

JSC & LBF

12/12/2016

Lorena Bueno
Sr. Assistant State
Attorney

State Attorney's Office

JSC

12/12/2016

Monica Jordan
Jordan Research &
Consulting

Telephone Interview

JSC

12/13/2016
8:00 a.m.

Dr. Michelle Gayle
Assistant Superintendent
Professional &
Community Service

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

16

 12/13/2016
8:45 a.m.

Shelly Bell
Principal Godby H.S.

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

12/13/2016
9:15 a.m.

Ricky Bell
Director II
Interdivisional Support

Conference Room
Safety & Security
Office

JSC & LBF

In addition to these interviews, on Monday, December 5, 2016, at the
inception of this investigation, requests to interview Mr. Jackie Pons and Jane Doe

1 were made through telephone conversations with Ronald Meyer and Steven
Webster, attorneys for Mr. Pons and Jane Doe 1, respectively. Later that same day,

after these verbal requests for interviews were made, our office received via email

from the attorney of Mr. Pons, an unsolicited affidavit from Jane Doe 2, dated
November 29, 2016 (a date which preceded our firm's formal retention by LCSB
and the beginning of this investigation). The next morning, Mr. Pons' attorney also
emailed an affidavit of Mr. Pons, dated December 6, 2016.

Both of these affidavits were general denials of any inappropriate and illegal

misconduct surrounding the circumstances depicted in the photographs. However,
they did not specifically address the sexual harassment issues being investigated, the

specific conduct prohibited by the LCSB policies, or the nature of the relationship

of the persons depicted in the photographs. Accordingly, we initiated a follow up

telephone conference with Mr. Pons' attorney regarding the receipt of these
affidavits and our previous verbal request for an interview with Mr. Pons. At this
17

 time we were informed that Mr. Pons would not be made available for an interview,
but that in light of our request, if we had specific questions, we could propound such

questions and Mr. Pons would consider responding to them.

In addition, during the December 5, 2016, telephone conversation with Jane
Doe 1's attorney, we were similarly informed that, at least at that time, our request

for an interview would be denied, particularly without Jane Doe 1 being provided

more specific information about the nature of the investigation and whether Jane
Doe 1 was the subject or target of the investigation.

Upon our requests for interviews with these key witnesses being denied,
separate letters were sent to each lawyer in which we specifically explained the
purpose of the investigation and reiterated our requests and the need for an interview

with their respective clients.' The letter to Mr. Pons' attorney also discussed and
confirmed the possibility of propounding written questions on the issues if our

3 While there is no LCSB policy which compelled these witnesses to meet with us for an interview,
answer questions, or otherwise cooperate with the investigation, the refusal of these key factual

witnesses to provide an interview or fully and completely address the specific issues of this
investigation (i.e., the sexual harassment issues) resulted in more witness interviews being
conducted than otherwise might have been required for this investigation. These additional
interviews were an attempt to determine the nature of the relationship which Jane Doe 1 had with
Mr. Pons and the circumstances depicted in the photographs. Inquiries included questions about
statements and comments that these key witnesses had made to others regarding the circumstances
depicted by the photographs. It is from these additional interviews that the factual inconsistencies
and questionable explanations about the purpose of being on the property were discovered.
Moreover, because LCSB policy and well -established employment law on the subject clearly
provides that a consensual sexual relationship which results in favoritism may in fact constitute
sexual harassment, it was necessary to make an inquiry regarding any consensual relationship
between the two. Thus, not receiving a timely, thorough, and definitive denial of any claim of
sexual harassment required the nature of the relationship to be investigated.
18

 follow-up request for an interview was denied. Mr. Pons' attorney called after receipt

of this letter, confirmed that Mr. Pons would not be made available for an interview,

and indicated that we should send him our written questions for consideration.

Written questions were then prepared and provided to Mr. Pons' attorney on
December 8, 2016.

The letter to Jane Doe l's attorney described the purpose of the investigation,
provided copies of the photographs and typed narrative, and explained that Jane Doe

1 was not the subject or target of the investigation. Our correspondence also
indicated that if an interview was not going to be permitted, we requested that Jane
Doe 1 alternatively provide a written statement confirming whether she was a victim

of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment.

To date, no interview of Mr. Pons or Jane Doe 1 has been permitted as part
this investigation. Moreover, in response to our December 8, 2016 letter transmitting

the written questions to Mr. Pons, on December 9, 2016, Mr. Pons' attorney advised

by letter that the anonymous package was an effort to damage him politically; that

he declined to participate further in the investigation; and that the previously
provided affidavit would be the extent of his cooperation. This of course meant that
the detailed written questions submitted to Mr. Pons would not answered. 4

4 Mr. Pons' reluctance to cooperate fully in the investigation is particularly puzzling since he
publicly called for an independent investigation of these same circumstances in the wake of the
related article published in the Tallahassee Democrat.
19

 On the afternoon of December 13, 2016, our office received an affidavit from

Jane Doe 1, stating unequivocally that she has "never been harassed by former
Superintendent Jackie Pons, and I have not requested an investigation into any
alleged harassment." The Affidavit of Jane Doe 1 goes on to make the conclusory

affirmation that the anonymous complaint (presumably meaning the anonymous
package of photographs and the typed narrative received by LCSB, as there has been

no "complaint") "has no basis in fact and does not merit any investigation"5 and

further states that she considers the "false" and "malicious" accusations to be
defamatory. She also asserts that her privacy is being invaded (presumably by this
investigation, although that is not specifically stated), and that she is now a victim
of (unspecified) retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to support the
candidate of her choice.
V.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FROM THE INVESTIGATION

The following is a summary of the information obtained through this
investigation, including a review of the anonymous package provided to the LCSB,

various policies of LCSB (including the anti -harassment and sexual harassment

5 This conclusory statement is contradicted by the Jane Doe l's deposition testimony in the
Hildebrandt criminal case, in which she stated that anything she does with the superintendent is
"completely work -related," contrasted with numerous statements by her supervisors that there
were no work -related reasons for her being on the wooded property with Mr. Pons. As referenced
above, even a consensual relationship may constitute a violation of the sexual harassment policy.
Thus, this area of investigation is not only warranted, but required in light of the information
depicted in the photographs.
20

 policy), numerous employment records related to the person involved, the written

affidavits provided, and the relevant information gathered from our interviews of
witnesses.
A.

LCSB's Sexual Harassment Policies and Training

LCSB has well established policies that prohibit sexual harassment, including

any unwelcome sexual conduct or other conduct that creates a hostile work
environment. In fact, the policies provide explicit examples of conduct that would

be considered sexual harassment and violate the LCSB policy. (LCSB Policy No.
1362)

All School District staff undergo thorough, mandatory training at the
beginning of the school year regarding sexual harassment, hostile work environment,

and the methods available for reporting it and seeking redress. (Interviews of K.

Rodgers and J. Lowe) The District provides multiple avenues for reporting any
unwelcome conduct or workplace hostility, both formally and informally. Training

records for all three individuals depicted in the photographs indicate that they had
received proper training. (Interviews of K. Rodgers and related documents provided)
B.

Written Narrative, Photographs, and Video

Thirty-three unsourced and unauthenticated photographs and a two page,
unsourced, typewritten narrative were anonymously delivered to the Leon County
School Board on or about November 2, 2016. (Jeffrey Wahlen email to LCSB dated

21

 11/3/2016). The written narrative alludes to misconduct allegedly depicted in the

photographs and appears to be in the form of a surveillance report that identifies

dates, times and the identities of the people and vehicles shown in some of the
photographs, as well as providing a similar description of events on two preceding
dates.

The source of the photographs and written narrative has not been determined

from this investigation. However, two public records requests corresponding to the

dates and purported circumstances depicted in the photographs were made to the
LCSB on September 29, 2016, by Monica Jordan of Jordan Research & Consulting.

(Jordan letters of 9/29/2016 re: Public Records Request) Ms. Jordan has indicated

that she does not conduct surveillance activities in her business and was not the

source of the photographs and videos. (Telephone interview of M. Jordan) She
further explained that to her knowledge, a sealed package with the same type of

materials as provided to LSCB were previously delivered anonymously to Tim
Jansen, the attorney for Wilburn "Woody" Hildebrandt in the pending Hildebrandt
Criminal Case. 6 Ms. Jordan indicated that the typed narrative and photographs were

reviewed by her in order to develop the items being requested in her public records

request. (Telephone interview of M. Jordan) Apparently, at least one of the

6 Attempts were made to contact Mr. Jansen regarding this information but these attempts were
unsuccessful prior to the close of this investigation.
22

 photographs was used (although not specifically identified or made part of the
deposition record) during Mr. Jansen's deposition of Jane Doe 1 taken on September

27, 2016 in the Hildebrandt Criminal Case. (Deposition Transcript of Jane Doe 1;
Interview of L. Bueno)

During the week of October 10, 2016, Woody Hildebrandt called Ricky Bell,

the LCSB's Director of Interdivisional Services, who was supporting Mr. Pons'
campaign, largely by assisting with sign assembly and location. Mr. Hildebrandt
told Mr. Bell that "they're fixing to ruin Jackie," and that there were "hundreds" of
photographs of Mr. Pons and (unidentified) school employees at the Byrd property.
Mr. Hildebrandt told Mr. Bell that Tim Jansen had the photos, and he asked Mr. Bell

to tell Mr. Pons that he had nothing to do with it, and that any release of the photos
was "out of his hands." However, Mr. Hildebrandt did not say how he became aware
of the existence of the photographs, whether he knew the source of the photographs,

or if so, where / from whom they originated. Mr. Bell called Mr. Pons to relay this

message, and Mr. Pons responded that he was aware of the photos and the
allegations, that they were "a bunch of lies," and that he was at the Byrd property to

check on campaign signs. He further told Mr. Bell that if anyone was sitting in his
back seat, it was because too much junk cluttered his front passenger seat for anyone

to be able to sit down in it. (Interview of R. Bell)

23

 Similar photographs and a related video were apparently delivered to various

local media outlets and later posted online by the Tallahassee Democrat as part of
an article that appeared in the newspaper on Sunday, November 20, 2016. The article

indicated that the package of materials was anonymously shipped to the newspaper

from a UPS store in Birmingham, Alabama. The video was seemingly edited such
that only excerpts of what appeared to be longer videos were used to make the video,

and it consisted of a combination of other videos and photographs or screen shots
that had been pieced together to form a single product. Because the video appeared

to consist of a series of surveillance films (from both stationary and hand-held
cameras) taken over a period of time, the true duration of the videos and purported

length of the events depicted cannot be determined. Most of the photographs that
were anonymously provided to LCSB appear to be screen shots from these videos.

Mr. Pons' affidavit asserts that he discovered a camera that had been installed
to take pictures and video on or near the Byrd property and "noted from the camera
that the date and time function was not properly set." He concludes that the date/time

stamps on the photographs do not accurately reflect the times they were taken. (Pons

affidavit) Notably, however, Mr. Pons' affidavit does not explain how or when he
made that determination, and does not otherwise provide the alternative dates and
times that he claims would accurately reflect when he was at the Byrd property with
the women. Nor does his affidavit indicate whether he advised the women about the

24

 surveillance camera(s) or whether he continued to meet them at the Byrd property

after his discovery. The written questions to Mr. Pons made these inquiries, but as
reflected above, Mr. Pons has refused to answer these or any other questions. (Letter

to Ronald Meyer dated 12/8/2016 with attached questions and letter from Ronald
Meyer dated 12/9/2016.)
C.

Real Property in Question

The photographic and video evidence shows that on multiple occasions,
Jackie Pons met separately with two women at a wooded property alleged in the

written narrative to be located off Christy Cary Lane in West Leon County and
owned by Paul Byrd. Mr. Byrd is a former School District assistant superintendent

who has had a long friendship with Mr. Pons outside of the workplace and is
currently awaiting a criminal trial on drug charges. According to Leon County
property records, Mr. Byrd owns a series of tracts in this area that are contiguous to

residential property on Ida Road which is also owned by Mr. Byrd. (Leon County
Property Appraiser's Map of Area and Records of Ownership)

Visual inspection of the unpaved entrance and exit driveways of the alleged
property location on Christy Cary Lane, and comparison to the property as seen in

the photographs and video, confirms that the meeting place depicted in the
photographs was likely the Byrd property located off Christy Cary Lane.
(Photographs of Property driveways) Mr. Pons has acknowledged this fact to

25

 numerous witness, thus, it appears to be undisputed. From what can be observed

from Christy Cary Lane, the property appears to be undeveloped and is heavily
wooded, although there are many homes on Christy Cary Lane adjacent to the
property and in the surrounding area. The nearest intersecting street with Christy
Cary Lane is Bethel Church Road.
D.

Persons Depicted in the Photographs

Jackie Pons is the former Superintendent of LCS and was first elected in 2006.

He was an employee of the School District, including the Principal at Deerlake
Middle School, prior to his election to superintendent. He is depicted in most of the
anonymous photographs and in the video, in a white, district -owned Ford Explorer

SUV that was assigned to him (Interview of R. Youngblood and License and Tag
Records), and on one occasion, in a black Ford Expedition personally owned by Mr.

Pons. The license plate/tag number of the white SUV was verified as one assigned
to a vehicle owned by the district, and the tag of the black SUV confirmed Mr. Pons'

ownership of that vehicle. (Background Records from Accurint)

Jane Doe 2 was a long time employee of LCSB, and most recently the
principal of Deerlake Middle School. She retired in May 2016 and has not worked
for LCSB since her retirement. (Personnel Records of Jane Doe 2)

Jane Doe 1 is currently the Program Coordinator of the F.I.T. Program.
(Personnel Records of Jane Doe 1) She started with the district in March 2012 as a

26

 substitute teacher. In late June 2012, she began working as OPS clerical help in the

Superintendent's office and was assigned to one of Mr. Pons' assistants, Celeda
Christie. (Personnel Records of Jane Doe 1 and Deposition Transcript of Jane Doe

1) It was in this OPS position that she says she first met Mr. Pons. (Deposition
Transcript of Jane Doe 1)

For 2012-2013 school year, Jane Doe 1 worked as a third grade teacher at
Conley Elementary. (Personnel Records of Jane Doe 1) In the summer of 2013, Jane
Doe 1 began working in the Title X Homeless Program (now known as F.I.T.) as a

resource teacher under Program Coordinator Dr. Pam Hightower at an increased
salary.. (Interview of P. Hightower; Personnel Records of Jane Doe 1)

All indications are that Jane Doe 1 was a dedicated and competent employee

for the district and particularly so in her position in the Title X Program under Dr.

Hightower. (Interview of P. Hightower) She performed her job at or above
expectations. (Interviews of P. Hightower, J. Lowe and Dr. M. Gayle) In this
position, Jane Doe 1 apparently also worked closely with Mr. Pons, including on
special projects outside of the direct supervision of her supervisor, and sometimes
without Dr. Hightower's knowledge of what the projects were. (Deposition of Jane
Doe 1; interview of P. Hightower) Around the same time, it became well-known that

she had unusual access to the superintendent based on her work relationship with
him. (Interviews of P. Hightower and G. Hagan)

27

 In July 2015, following Dr. Hightower being appointed the District's Title I

Director, Jane Doe 1 was appointed to the Program Coordinator position for the
Homeless Program. (Personnel Records of Jane Doe 1; interviews of J. Lowe and
Dr. M. Gayle) Pursuant to a directive from the Florida Department of Education, the

program became known as the Families in Transition (F.I.T.) Program around this
same time. (Interview of J. Lowe)
The General Classifications Specifications Factors for the position of Program

Coordinator require a B.A. or B.S. Degree with six years related experience.
(Program Coordinator Job Description and interview of V. Dennis) The related
experience requirement can be satisfied from work other than for the district, and for

non -instructor positions (such as the F.I.T. Coordinator), exceptions to the
experience requirements are sometimes made. (Interview of V. Dennis) However,
the typical professional progression for an administrative leadership position would

include several years as a classroom teacher and completion of a three-year

administrative leadership training opportunity provided by the district, and
oftentimes a post -graduate degree. (Interviews P. Hightower, Dr. M. Gayle, and S.
Bell)

Vacant administrative positions (like Coordinator Positions) involving

administrative leadership experience are typically coveted positions within the
district and such opportunities are often highly sought after by classroom teachers.
(Interview of S. Bell)

28

 At the time of her appointment as the F.I.T. Program Coordinator, Jane Doe
1 had one year of classroom teaching experience along with the approximately two

years of experience working in the Program. Mr. Pons ultimately approved the

promotion. (Personnel File of Jane Doe 1) In her new position as Program
Coordinator, Jane Doe 1 continued to work closely with Mr. Pons. (Deposition

Transcript of Jane Doe 1) The Program's constituents are at -risk students, so she
often worked with him on various projects related to this population, and they often

attended community events together related to the Program. (Deposition of Jane
Doe 1) By all accounts, Jane Doe 1 is passionate about serving these at -risk students

and their families and performs well in her position as Coordinator. (Interviews of
G. Hagan, J. Lowe, and Dr. M. Gayle)
E.

Depositions in Hildebrandt Criminal Case

Numerous district employees were deposed in the Hildebrandt Criminal Case
in the summer of 2016, including Jackie Pons. Thereafter, Jane Doe 1 was scheduled

to have her deposition taken on September 27, 2016. Prior to the deposition of Jane
Doe 1, Mr. Pons contacted the Assistant State Attorney handling the case and tried

to have the deposition canceled, stating that Jane Doe 1 did not have relevant
information to the criminal case and did not need to be deposed. (Interviews of L.

Bueno and J. Hunkiar) In addition, Jane Doe 1 also contacted the Assistant State

29

 Attorney on a number of occasions to try and have her deposition cancelled.
(Interview of L. Bueno)
However, the deposition of Jane Doe 1 went forward on September 27, 2016.
Jane Doe 1 was described as jittery and frantic both before and during the deposition.

At the deposition, a number of questions were asked about her relationship with Mr.

Pons. While she denied a special relationship with Mr. Pons, she indicated that she

worked closely with him but it was always "completely work related with the
superintendent." (Deposition of Jane Doe 1) She refused to answer direct questions

about meeting with Mr. Pons outside of work or knowing where Paul Byrd lived.
Also, when she was asked questions about the type of car she drove and the existence

of a Pons bumper sticker on her vehicle, she claimed she felt harassed and was upset

and concerned about being followed.

(Interview of L. Bueno and deposition

transcript of Jane Doe 1) Finally, when a photograph was shown to her (supposedly

similar to the ones anonymously delivered to the district) and she was asked if she
"knew where she was on August 26th, 2016 at 11:58" (a date/time corresponding to
one of the dated photographs) Jane Doe 1 reportedly reacted emotionally and became

very upset. (Interview of L. Bueno). Although this adverse reaction is not apparent

from the written transcript or audio recording of Jane Doe 1's deposition, the
Assistant State Attorney immediately stopped the deposition and indicated that she

30

 was filing for a protective order. (Deposition transcript of Jane Doe 1 and interview
of L. Bueno)

After the deposition, Jane Doe 1 remained upset about the deposition and the
personal questions asked during the deposition. She offered the explanation that the

only reason she would have been on the property with Mr. Pons was because there
were campaign signs out there. (Interviews of G. Hagan and L. Bueno).
F.

The Proffered Reasons for Being on the Property

While not part of the affidavit he delivered to us for this investigation, Mr.

Pons has made a number of statements to numerous employees of the district and
other third parties, to the effect that although it was a "stupid decision" to do so, the
reason he was on the Byrd Property with these woman as depicted in the photographs

was because his campaign signs were being stored at this property. (Interviews with
S. Bell, R. Bell, L. Bueno, J. Hunkiar and R. Triquett). He also indicated at one point

that cars were staged there in advance of neighborhood campaigning. (Interview

with J. Hunkiar) He explained that the necessity for sitting in the back seat with
anyone was due to him keeping so much junk piled up in his front passenger seat
that no one could sit down in it. (Interview of J. Hunkiar , R. Triquett, and R. Bell)

Also, Mr. Pons stated in his affidavit that "any meetings that occurred during work
hours with school district personnel were associated with school district business."
(Pons Affidavit)

31

 However, contrary to the statements about the storage of campaign signs on

the Byrd property, witnesses that also worked on the Pons Campaign and have
personal knowledge of the Pons campaign (including being in charge of the storage,
assembly, inventory and placement of such campaign signs) testified that there were
no campaign signs at any time being stored or kept at the Byrd Property. (Interviews
with R. Youngblood, R. Bell, and S. Bell) Instead, according to these witnesses, the

large Pons campaign signs were ordered from a sign company near Thomasville

Road and Monroe Street, picked up by these volunteers, and stored at the
Ghazvini/Premier Construction warehouse on Capital Circle Northwest. Small yard

signs were stored in Scotty Crowe's garage. These witnesses (including Mr. Pons'
designated campaign manager) were in charge of maintaining the sign inventory and

then providing the signs to volunteers as needed and instructing them where to place

the signs. (Interviews of R. Youngblood and R. Bell) When the inventory ran low
on signs, orders to the sign company were placed for new signs, and at no time during

the campaign, according to these witnesses, were any signs gathered, obtained from

or otherwise stored at the Byrd Property. (Interviews with R. Youngblood, R. Bell,
and S. Bell)

In addition, Jane Doe 2 specifically stated that there were no campaign signs

at this property (even though she was unaware that Paul Byrd owned the property

and had never been there before the time period depicted in the photographs) and

32

 that her visit there was not campaign related. (Telephone interview of Jane Doe 2)
She further stated that she and Mr. Pons were not conducting school district or any
work -related business, particularly since she was retired. (Telephone interview of
Jane Doe 2) While the specific purpose of the visits between Mr. Pons and Jane Doe

2 were not explained, Jane Doe 2 described it as simply a "conversation among
friends" and stated that she and Mr. Pons were "having a conversation." Jane Doe 2

said that she had great respect for Mr. Pons both personally and professionally.
(Telephone interview with Jane Doe 2)
Although the photographs are limited and the videos clearly edited, campaign
signs cannot be seen on the property in these photographs and videos.

Jane Doe 1 stated in her deposition that while she worked "closely with the

Superintendent," she only went places and did things with Mr. Pons that were
"completely work -related." (Deposition of Jane Doe 1) However, supervisors of

Jane Doe 1, including her past and current supervisors, as well as her Divisional
Director, are not aware of any work -related reason for Jane Doe 1 to meet with Mr.
Pons in the wooded area depicted in the photographs. (Interviews with J. Lowe, Dr.

P. Hightower, and Dr. M. Gayle)

Mr. Pons' refusal to either be interviewed or, alternatively, to answer very
specific questions that would explain and describe the circumstances depicted in the
photographs, the date/times that are depicted, and the nature of his relationships with

33

 the two women, further complicates a factual determination regarding his reasons
for being on the property with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Similarly, Jane Doe 1 's

refusal to explain the details of the situation also complicates a determination of
these facts.
G.

No Reported Complaint or Evidence of Sexual Harassment

No complaint of sexual harassment or hostile work environment, whether
formal or informal, has ever been made by Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2. A complaint,

however, is not a necessary element of the claim and thus the absence of such a

complaint does not prohibit a viable claim of sexual harassment or negate the
possibility of unwelcome behavior, especially if there exists a fear of repercussions
for complaining about the harassment and such fear can explain the absence or delay

in reporting an incident. However, this legal concept does not seem applicable to

these facts. Both women have affirmatively denied that any sexual harassment
existed or that they are victims of any kind of sexual harassment by Mr. Pons. They

also join Mr. Pons in denying that the anonymously submitted photographs depict
misconduct or illegal behavior of any kind.
Additionally, both coworkers and supervisors of Jane Doe 1 (the only current
LCSB employee) attest that they never observed any conduct or anything about Jane

Doe 1's actions or demeanor which, despite the absence of any complaint, caused
them to be concerned that she was being subjected to unwelcome conduct.

34

 VI.

FINDINGS

The following are the findings from the evidence gathered during the
investigation:

Former Superintendent Pons was present on the Byrd Property with Jane
Doe 1 on a number of occasions and with Jane Doe 2 on at least one
occasion.
The reasons for the women's presence with former Superintendent Pons at
the Byrd property are unexplained. There is no credible evidence that the

purpose was related to campaign signs.

Instead, the evidence from
numerous witnesses suggests that no signs were stored there, and there is
no readily apparent work -related purpose for meeting in that location.
The sexual harassment and hostile work environment training of the Leon
County Schools is extremely thorough and the district provides multiple
avenues for reporting any unwelcome conduct or workplace hostility. All
three individuals received the annual training and thus Jane Doe 1 and 2
were fully familiar with the policies and the procedure for reporting any
inappropriate behavior.

No complaints of sexual harassment or hostile work environment, whether
formal or informal, have ever been made by Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2.
Specifically, there have been no complaints by either woman of any
unwanted or unwelcome attention or harassment by Mr. Pons that would
result in either of them being a victim of sexual harassment. In fact, both
women have provided sworn statements that affirmatively state that they
have never been harassed by Mr. Pons and that there was nothing
inappropriate or illegal as it relates to these circumstances.

The key element of unlawful sexual harassment or hostile work

environment is an employee's subjection to unwanted sexual attention,
verbal or physical conduct or other hostility by a co-worker, supervisor, or
third party associated with the employer. Whatever the true nature of the
relationship and related behavior between Mr. Pons and the women, the
evidence indicates that it was voluntary and not unwelcome, and thus
cannot be sexual harassment.

35

 There is no direct or extrinsic evidence to suggest that Jane Doe 1 or Jane
Doe 2 were victims of unwelcome behavior by Mr. Pons.
Accordingly, we find that there is no evidence to establish that Jane Doe 1
or Jane Doe 2 were victims of sexual harassment or a sexually hostile work
environment. Thus, any concerns about potential sexual harassment arising
from the anonymously submitted photographs and narrative
are
unsubstantiated.

Respectf

submitted,
CHANAN, P.A.

STEVEN CARTER
!Florida Bar No. 896152
scarter@henryblaw.corn
LAURA BETH FARAGAS SO
Florida Bar No. 0654604
lbfaragasso@henryblaw.corn
Post Office Drawer 14079
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4079
(850) 222-2920: Telephone
(850) 224-0034: Facsimile
.

36