Investigation of Ex-Wadsworth Principal Peacock Finds ‘Pattern of Misrepresenting Facts and Disregard Truth’

The independent investigation of former Wadsworth Elementary Principal Paul Peacock, whose 18-year career in Flagler schools ended this week as his contract was not renewed, centered on complaints by seven women and one man, the investigative report obtained by FlaglerLive reveals, and found Peacock to exhibit a “pattern of misrepresenting facts and disregard for the truth.”

Peacock was found in violation of the district’s policy forbidding bullying and harassment and its ethics policy, as well as in violation of various sections of the state’s Principles of Professional Conduct and the Florida Educational Leadership Standards.




The investigation found reasonable cause to believe that Peacock sought to thwart the efforts of a district investigator into allegations of his own misconduct, that Peacock “intended to harm the reputation” of the district’s investigator, and that he lied.

The 20-page investigative report (inclusive of Peacock’s responses) is a searing indictment of the last year of a leading administrator who commanded plaudits and a following for much of his career.

But the emergence in the past year of his missteps, mischaracterizations and backstabbing–he coached a sitting school board member on how to motion for the superintendent’s firing–reverberated well beyond his own sphere, tarnishing reputations and playing no small role in the board’s own groundless firing of the superintendent. (Peacock’s attorney, Michael Chiumento, sits on the local chamber’s board that voted to end the superintendent’s tenure.)

While a pattern emerges from the complaints, which with some exceptions describe Peacock as aggressive, intimidating and uncomfortable with women who challenge him, none, except one, rose to the level of policy violations and rule-breaking. The rest lacked documentations and left the investigator with cases of he-said-she-said (or, more accurately, he said and she, she, she, she, she, she and she said).




Ironically, the only complaint that led to the finding of violations was brought by Bob Ouellette, the district’s own internal investigator against whom Peacock had filed a complaint when Ouellette was originally investigating him for some of the women’s charges.

Peacock’s complaint against Ouellette may have been a tactical attempt to sideline the district investigator, since Ouellette couldn’t continue his investigations as that would have been a conflict of interest. The tactic backfired: it’s what led the district to appoint David Delaney, a school board attorney in Alachua County and elsewhere, to conduct the investigations.

The investigation summarizes each case.

There was S.B., a behavior interventionist at Wadsworth Elementary since 2019 (a position similar to that of dean), to whom Peacock said she’d have to reapply for her job when he became principal there in 2022 “because other men are out there,” a statement he denies making. Peacock selected a man for the position, offering S.B. a position teaching first grade, for which she was not certified. She ended up teaching at Indian Trails Middle.

There was A.C., who’d already reported being treated brusquely and dismissively by Peacock when she asked for the air conditioning unit in her class to be repaired after almost three weeks of malfunctions. Now she was unhappy about his turning down her proposal to start a mentorship program and his eliminating her responsibilities for the school’s social media accounts, though as with the AC matter, none of the subsequent issues were found to be “any sort of violation by Mr. Peacock.”




There was D.G., who’d been promoted to principal’s secretary after two years as a front-office aid at Wadsworth. When Peacock took over the school, he moved her to a clerkship in the guidance department, reducing her workdays from 261 to 226, a substantial financial hit. But Peacock was in his right to make such decisions, though she observed to the investigator that “Based on his facial expressions, she believes that he does not like women who talk back to him. She stated that he has made derisive comments or rolled his eyes in exasperation after dealing with women who disagree with him.” Peacock denies the claim.

There was M.H., a media specialist at Wadsworth with 44 years of experience in education. Like S.B., she was told she could interview for the position she wanted–media specialist–but Peacock hired someone else. She was reassigned to a first-grade teaching position.

There was B.R., a school nurse at Wadsworth Elementary. She told the investigator that Peacock was repeatedly condescending, that, in her words, “he makes you feel small, and not worthy, and that your position (job) is not safe.” The investigator reported that “Peacock made her feel that since she was not a man, her concerns or opinions did not matter.” Peacock denies the claim. The two only worked together for three and a half months before B.R. took a nursing job outside the school district.

There was S.S., who’d taught three different grades at Wadsworth since 2006 and was a union representative. “She blamed Mr. Peacock for setting a tone whereby other administrators at WES were part of the toxic environment,” the investigator reported. “However, she failed to identify with specificity any particular actions by other administrators that she found objectionable, much less a violation of policy. She referred to Peacock’s intimidating habit of walking around “with a baseball bat that he would tap against his leg or in his hand,” a detail A.C. had also noted as aggressive in a previous investigation. (Peacock says the baseball bat is a memento that helps him think.) Peacock said there are often disagreements between principals and union representatives.

There was M.Q., the bookkeeper at Wadsworth, who worked five months with Peacock before opting to retire in October 2022, and who described several occasions when she had to intervene to ensure that Peacock follow purchasing procedures. She insisted, for example, that “he could not use his preferred vendor for the purchase. Instead three quotes had to be obtained.” He bought $70,000 worth of furniture, but did so with district approval. He would “occasionally raise his voice and be mad at her when she asked questions,” the investigator reports. He denies it, saying rather that her influence had grown disproportionately over the years, and that he was reestablishing boundaries.




In none of these cases were any violations of policies or procedures found, Delaney concluded. “Most of the allegations in this matter came down to ‘she said versus he said’ disputes,” he wrote. “Contemporaneous documentation to convincingly resolve these disputes was not available. As a result, I did not have a basis for assigning more credibility to one witness over another. Furthermore, many of the issues raised by complainants simply do not rise to the level of any sort of violation. Several of the witnesses acknowledged that Mr. Peacock did not raise his voice. Others simply complained about his tone of voice.”

But Ouellette documented every step. He had been “simply carrying out his job” when he was confronted with Peacock’s obstructions and apparent dissembling. “Peacock intentionally misrepresented Mr. Oullette’s actions,” Delaney found. “There is also reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Peacock intended to harm the reputation of Mr. Oullette with his false statements, particularly in reporting Mr. Oullette to the Office of Professional Practices of the Florida Department of Education.”

Peacock appears to have used needling tactics to the end even with Delaney: despite Delaney’s request at the end of their interview on May 19 that Peacock provide any additional information to Delaney himself no later than May 26, he sent his response to Delaney’s assistant, and since the office was closed for Memorial Day, Delaney didn’t become aware of the response until after he’d submitted his initial report.

Still, Delaney reviewed what he called the “untimely submission,” which did not change the investigation’s findings that Peacock had violated policies and regulations. “In fact, Mr. Peacock’s submission continues his pattern of misrepresenting facts and disregard for the truth.” He added: “Mr. Peacock makes several statements in his response regarding Mr. Ouellette that are dishonest.”