July 25th, 2018

Dear Ms. Baxter,
In response to the Summary Investigation Report, I wish to state the following:

I consider sexual harassment of any form to be unacceptable and particularly deplorable
conduct in or outside the workplace. Victims of this conduct suffer greatly and in ways that can
have a lasting impact on their professional and personal lives.

I respect that harassment is viewed from the eyes of the victim and that someone?s perspective
Is their reality. However, some consideration should be given to the mindset of the person
accused of such conduct.

In my communications with NR i never intended to make her uncomfortable. I apologize as it
did have that effect. My intent was to support a colleague who i felt was in need. The text
messages included in your report were those exchanged between NR and I, but they are
incomplete and, as such, do not demonstrate the full context of our communications.

I accept the view that my efforts to build relationships and communicate with staff beyond
school hours was not the best professional judgment. Constructive criticism is bene?cial and I
will learn from this experience.

Please understand that my actions were an extension of my efforts to foster a collegial and
caring environment within Stuart Middle School, one that I believe played an important role in
the school earning three consecutive ratings from the Florida Department of Education.

As one of just ten Principals selected in the nation by the National Institute for School
Leadership. to be the subject of a case study for other school leaders, I respect the need for the
highest level of professionalism in a leadership role. The perception alone that my actions fell
below that standard is disappointing, but something i will learn from.

Kindly include this response to the Summary Investigation Report.
Sincerely,

War/3C2

David S. Krakoff

Summary Investigation Report

Employee: David Krakoff, Principal
Worksite Location: Stuart Middle School
Complaint: Sexual Harassment
Complaint Received: April I l, 2018

Investigated by: Helene Baxter, Staff Attorney

K. Diane Smith, Chief Human Resource Of?cer

This investigation was initiated following a complaint of sexual harassment against Stuart
Middle School (SMS) Principal David Krakoff. The allegations are that Mr. Krakoff sent
inappropriate and unwelcome text messages to female teachers and threatened a teacher with a
lawsuit or termination if she ?led a complaint or talked to anyone on campus about her concerns.
There are also rumors at the school that Mr. Krakoff was having a relationship with one or more
teacher at his school.

In the investigation conducted by Ms. Baxter and Ms. Smith, the following witnesses were
interviewed: NR (teacher), KD (teacher), EM (teacher), Bill Bickley, Lori Desruisseau, Barbara
Velez, Tambi Kilp, Dee Ann Cox, Greg Hendricks, Jill Carroll, Arian Dineen, Lisa Estevez,
Vicki Jenkins, David Krakoff, Joanne Sweazey, Laura Taylor, Debbie Riley, KB (parent), MB
(parent), CJ (parent), and Ebony Jarrett.

Applicable Policies/Rules:

It is the policy of the School Board (Policy 1362 and 3362) to maintain an educational and work
environment that is free from all forms of unlawful harassment, including sexual harassment.
Under School Board Policy 1362, the Superintendent will take immediate steps to end the
harassment, prevent its reoccurrence, and remedy its effects, and individuals who are found to
have engaged in unlawful harassment will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

The relevant portions of the Policy for this complaint, de?nes sexual harassment as:

Unwelcome sexual other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature, when: [s]uch conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the
individual?s work; or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working
of the kind of conduct that may constitute sexual
harassment include, but are not limited to: Unwelcome ?irtations,. .. or pattern
of conduct, which can be subtle in nature, that has sexual overtones and is
intended to create or has the effect of creating discomfort and/or humiliation to
another. . .. Not all behavior with sexual connotations constitutes unlawful sexual
harassment. Sex?based and gender?based conduct must be suf?ciently severe,
pervasive, and persistent such that it adversely affects, limits, or denies an
individual's employment, or such that it creates a hostile or abusive employment
or educational environment.

Further, Policy 1362/3362 prohibits retaliation against a person who has made a report or ?led a
complaint alleging unlawful harassment, or who has participated as a witness in a harassment
investigation, is prohibited.

In addition, all Martin County Administrators are required to adhere to the Standards of Ethical
Conduct in Policy 1210, as well as the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education
Profession in Florida found in Rule Fla. Admin. Code. This Policy and Rule require
Administrators to exercise best professional judgment and to strive to achieve and sustain the
highest degree of ethical conduct because s/he is aware of the importance of maintaining the
respect and confidence of one?s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the
community. In addition, this Policy and Rule prohibit harassment or discriminatory conduct
which unreasonably interferes with an individual?s performance of professional or work
responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile,
intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment.

Findings:

Based on the investigation summarized above, it is determined that Mr. Krakoff did not exercise
best professional judgment in his interactions with staff outside of work. The text messages he
sent to NR on November 18, 2017 at 11:09 pm, were of a personal nature. The texts -- ?You?re
like my favorite person you need to find happiness?, think more of you than you know. I?m
afraid to tell you!? and hOpe you know I adore you? -- made the recipient uncomfortable,
which is a violation of Policies 1362/3362. Although Mr. Krakoff denied any improper or sexual
intent with the text messages, the analysis of sexual harassment focuses on the nature of the
conduct and the impact on the recipient. NR stated these were the first text messages received by
Mr. Krakoff that made her uncomfortable, and immediately she stopped all further
communication with him. When Mr. Krakoff became aware his texting made her uncomfortable,
he stopped any further texting. NR acknowledged that she had not received any further texts or
emails of this nature from Mr. Krakoff. A review of Mr. Krakoffs email activity did not find
any inappropriate correspondence. Although the text messaging was inappropriate, the behavior
stopped immediately, and therefore, does not constitute actionable sexual harassment under
Policies 1362/3362.

The investigation found that Mr. Krakoff text messages the majority of the SMS staff afterhours,
regarding both work and personal matters. The text message exchanges between Mr. Krakoff
and EM provided in the investigation were also of a personal nature and not work related. EM
stated during the investigation that Mr. Krakoff had not acted in a way that was unwelcome or
made her feel uncomfortable. Other than a text miss you?, the text exchanges we reviewed
between EM and Mr. Krakoff were not of a romantic or sexual tone. EM also explained that the
texting exchange between herself and NR regarding Mr. Krakoff was, from her perspective, in a
professional context. She stated she was discussing whether Mr. Krakoff?s mentoring was
leading her in the right direction professionally. EM also expressed concern that NR
intentionally led her in texting conversations so that is appeared that something more was going
on than it was.

Mr. Krakoff has developed friendships with several employees at SMS, and has met with
employees, both men and women, socially outside of work. While his intent was to create a
positive family atmosphere at SMS, conflicts in those ?work friendships? have instead created

questions of favoritism and loss of morale for some employees, which in turn, impacted the
overall employee morale at the school.

It was concerning to the investigators the amount of gossiping taking place at SMS regarding the
sexual activities of staff. The Speculation repeated several times was that Mr. Krakoff must be
having an affair with certain teachers due to the amount of time spent in their classrooms. There
was no evidence, however, to support the allegations that Mr. Krakoff was having a sexual
relationship with any staff member at SMS. These rumors, however, have been repeated as fact,
and have spread to work sites outside of SMS and to the parents of SMS. Pursuant to Policies
1362/3362, remarks speculating about a person's sexual activities or sexual history is conduct
that could constitute sexual harassment, and is prohibited.

Although it would be necessary to address the rumors and inappropriate gossiping among the
staff to determine if any misconduct had occurred, it was poor judgment on the part of Mr.
Krakoff to personally handle any part of this investigation. His inquiries were perceived by
several staff members, including NR, as threatening and retaliatory. Although Mr. Krakoff
denied threatening anyone with ?ling a lawsuit or getting ?red, he acknowledged that be
investigated the allegations and the evidence established that he met one-on-one with several
teachers to get to the bottom of the rumors which was not best practice.1

It was also clear in the investigation that employees would tell Mr. Krakoff information about
issues going on at the school, and Mr. Krakoff would then repeat those details to other staff,
causing a signi?cant increase in the con?ict. Instead of maintaining the con?dentiality of the
information provided to him, his approach created an atmosphere of mistrust among the staff and
an escalation of the rumors.

It is also concerning that Mr. Krakoff, in light of the on?going rumors, failed to adjust his
management routine one-on-one classroom visits) to stop any further perception of
inappropriate behavior. Despite the fact that the rumors of a relationship are unsubstantiated, as
the administrator of the school, Mr. Krakoff had the responsibility to engage in the highest
degree of ethical conduct so that he maintained the reSpect and con?dences of the staff, students
and parents.

Finally, there was no evidence that Mr. Krakoff gave preferential treatment to certain female
staff members in exchange for a personal relationship. In fact, the evidence established that Mr.
Krakoff treated male employees in the same manner as the female employees. For example,
Literacy Coach Bill Bickley was similarly mentored by Mr. Krakoff, and had even received a
promotion at SMS this school year. Mr. Krakoff stepped by Mr. Bickley?s room during lunch
and planning, and also texted him outside of work. Accordingly, the allegations against Mr.
Krakoff of quid pro quo sexual harassment are unsubstantiated. However, as an administrator,
Mr. Krakoff must use better judgment when mentoring and coaching staff and making promises
of future leadership positions. Employees, both men and women, reported feeling ?duped? or
?used? by Mr. Krakoff because they had worked/volunteered extra hours with the belief that it
would lead to leadership opportunities at the school, only to see him ?nd ?new? leaders in each
subsequent school year. This perception led to the loss of morale at the school.

Mr. Krakoff has no prior discipline.

 

1 It should be noted that subsequent to this investigation, Mr. Krakoff has ?led a complaint of sexual harassment
alleging the spread of false rumors have caused a hostile work environment.

3