Judges: CHARLES C. ADAMS
Agency: Department of Education
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 1978
Summary: Whether or not on March 16, 1977, the Respondent, Verna A. Robinson, entered the home of Edward Johnson at 1100 Little River Drive, Miami, Florida, and fired several shots at Edward Johnson, who suffered gun shot wounds in the wrist, upper arm and hip. Whether or not this alleged conduct described is in violation of Section 231.28, and 231.09, Florida Statutes; together with Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct that is grossly immoral and a poor exampl
Summary: Whether or not on March 16, 1977, the Respondent, Verna A. Robinson, entered the home of Edward Johnson at 1100 Little River Drive, Miami, Florida, and fired several shots at Edward Johnson, who suffered gun shot wounds in the wrist, upper arm and hip. Whether or not this alleged conduct described is in violation of Section 231.28, and 231.09, Florida Statutes; together with Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct that is grossly immoral and a poor example for students. Further, whether or not such alleged conduct raises serious questions as to the Respondent's emotional preparedness to properly deal with the normal stresses which arise in classroom teaching.Petitioner failed to prove its case against Respondent for gross immorality to provide good example.
More
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1771
VERNA A. ROBINSON, )
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, held at Room 358, State Office Building, 1350 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida, at 9:30 a.m., February 10, 1978.
For Petitioner: Robert J. Vosslar, Esquire
For Respondent: Elizabeth J. du Fresne, P.A.
Michael S. Hacker, Esquire Hacker, Phelps & Matters Ainsley Building, Suite 1400
Whether or not on March 16, 1977, the Respondent, Verna A. Robinson, entered the home of Edward Johnson at 1100 Little River Drive, Miami, Florida, and fired several shots at Edward Johnson, who suffered gun shot wounds in the wrist, upper arm and hip. Whether or not this alleged conduct described is in violation of Section 231.28, and 231.09, Florida Statutes; together with Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct that is grossly immoral and a poor example for students. Further, whether or not such alleged conduct raises serious questions as to the Respondent's emotional preparedness to properly deal with the normal stresses which arise in classroom teaching.
This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for the revocation of teachers certificate filed by the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, on July 29, 1977. This is an action against Verna A. Robinson, the Respondent, which attempts to suspend or revoke her Teaching Certificate no. 176010, Graduate, Rank II, which is valid through June 30, 1979, and covers the areas of Elementary Education and Junior College.
The facts in this case show that the Respondent was acquainted with one Edward Johnson, to the extent that they had been intimate over a period of seven years. By March 16, 1977, the relationship between Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Johnson had diminished to some degree. On that date, in the late afternoon, a telephone conversation was held between the Respondent and Johnson. The discussion concerned getting together to attend a movie. Johnson declined to go with Robinson and this was the cause of some consternation on the part of the Respondent.
The depth of that consternation was demonstrated when the Respondent went to the home of Johnson, later that afternoon and carried a pistol with her. When she arrived at the Johnson home she was admitted by Mr. Johnson's son and there ensued a short conversation. It should be indicated that the Johnson and Robinson families were social friends, and Mrs. Johnson was a teacher in the same school where the Respondent was employed. When Mrs. Robinson entered the home the son indicated that his father was changing clothes, to which Mrs. Robinson replied, "he doesn't need any clothes". She then approached Johnson, who was in the bedroom area of his home and stated to him "I'll teach you to fuck with me". She then fired several shots, five or six in number, at Johnson, striking him with three of the bullets in the area of his wrist, shoulder and hip. The wounds were not fatal.
The Respondent then turned around and left the house and was followed by the Johnson's teenaged son who threw an object through her windshield as she was departing the scene of the confrontation. During the course of this exchange at the Johnson home, the Johnsons to include the victim, Edward Johnson, his wife and son, did not find the Respondent to be overly excited.
The Respondent then went to the home of a fellow teacher one Linda Panapas. When she arrived, Mrs. Panapas described the Respondent as being agitated, disoriented, illogical and incoherent. She said the Respondent stormed about the house speaking in incompleted sentences and Mrs. Panapas found it very difficult to understand what had transpired. She did however discern that something had happened involving a shooting. The Respondent did not indicate who had been shot. Something in the conversation lead Mrs. Panapas to call the Johnson home where she was told that there had been a shooting.
One other factor in the shooting which was described by the Respondent, was the fact that she had thrown the gun away afterwards.
Early the next morning the respondent voluntarily surrendered herself to the Dade County Public Safety Department. She spoke with a police officer of that organization whose name is John Little. At that time the Respondent was given an opportunity to make a statement. After being advised of her constitutional rights she indicated that she remembered throwing out a gun while driving on Interstate 95 near Northwest 103 Street in Dade County, Florida. At the time of this interview, there was no sign of lack of control of her faculties, that could be detected by the officer.
The principal of the elementary school where the Respondent was working at the time of the shooting was contacted on the day after the incident. The school is the Norwood Elementary School, in Dade County, Florida. The principal in that school is Betty Angell. Ms. Angell stated that at the time of the incident she was unaware of the involvement between the Respondent and Johnson. When Robinson contacted the principal she stated that she would be taking some days off, but did not indicate for what reason. Later, on the Sunday following the shooting, Robinson spoke to Ms. Angell at Ms. Angell's residence. Mrs. Robinson explained to Ms. Angell that Robinson and Johnson had, "got to liking each other too much and she had more than she could take." The Respondent was interested in knowing what would happen to her career in view of the incident. It was explained to Mrs. Robinson, by Ms. Angell, that she might be recommended for suspension or placed in some other school. Mrs. Robinson was not opposed to being placed in another school.
During the conversation at the Angell home, the Respondent remained calm and appeared to be sorry for what had happened. The Respondent has not returned to the school where she teaches.
According to Ms. Angell, prior to this event, the Respondent had been a teacher of high caliber, even though she recalled a few deficiencies in Mrs. Robinson's teaching effectiveness. Ms. Angell now holds the opinion that Mrs. Robinson's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired because she has demonstrated an inability to manage conflict and in the mind of Ms. Angell this would translate itself into an ineffectiveness in dealing with the conflicts between the various students in Mrs. Robinson's class. Ms. Angell holds this view, notwithstanding the fact that the children and other people within the community and school are unaware of the incident itself. Moreover, Ms. Angell indicated that steps had been taken to keep the incident from becoming a matter of common knowledge within the community and within the Norwood Elementary School. She has made these efforts because she feels that if the incident became a matter of community knowledge it would create problems on the issue of the effectiveness of Mrs. Robinson.
The Respondent was charged with the shooting of Edward Johnson under the terms of Chapters 782.04(1) and 777.04(1), Florida Statutes. She was tried for those offenses of attempted murder in the first degree, and possession and display of a firearm. The outcome of that trial was a finding that the Respondent was not guilty because she was insane at the time of the commission of the offenses. This decision was reached in view of the opinion of several experts in the field of psychiatry and psychology. The same experts testified in the course of the hearing at bar. The experts testified about their observations of Mrs. Robinson shortly after the shooting and immediately prior to the hearing before the undersigned. The observations of the experts could be summarized; however, they are sufficiently critical to warrant examination separately.
One of the specialists who saw the Respondent at the request of the Circuit Court, was Jeffrey J. Elenewski. Mr. Elenewski has a doctorate in clinical psychology. Elenewski saw the Respondent in May, 1977. From his observation he concluded that the Respondent was suffering an acute disassociative reaction at the time of the shooting incident involving Mr. Johnson. This reaction rendered the Respondent out of contact with reality. Elenewski arrived at this opinion after doing psychological testing on the Respondent and through clinical observation of the Respondent.
Beginning on June 7, 1977, the Respondent was treated by Dr. Elenewski through individual psychotherapy. He saw her weekly for approximately one hour through the end of September, 1977. She has called and discussed her situation with Dr. Elenewski subsequent to September, 1977, as occasion demanded.
On January 30, 1978, Dr. Elenewski saw the Respondent for purposes of examining her mental state in the context of the present time. Again he conducted clinical interviews and gave her a battery of tests. The clinical interview took approximately one hour and the testing a period of two to three hours. His overall opinion of the Respondent based upon his January 30, 1978 observations and prior history, was to the effect that she has made an adequate psychological adjustment after the incident. At the January 30, 1978 session he found her to be relatively free of anxiety, to be energetic and innovative and someone who is extremely conscientious and dedicated to her profession. Dr. Elenewski currently believes the Respondent does not present a danger to herself or to other people, and would not pose any specific danger to children of the age group which she teaches. Moreover, Dr. Elenewski feels that the Respondent possesses attributes that make her an excellent role model for children. In his view, the Respondent has strong self-confidence and through the recent past has developed a high tolerance for frustration.
Dr. Elenewski believes that the shooting incident was an isolated incident and is extremely incapsulated and he does not feel that those stresses and pressures which lead to the incident would exist in the future.
Because the incident itself was one that the Respondent was not conscious of, it was therefore an act without premeditation, according to Elenewski.
The Respondent was also seen by Dr. Syvil Marquit. Dr. Marquit is a clinical psychologist who had examined Mrs. Robinson at the request of Mrs. Robinson's defense attorney. He saw her for a period of six or seven hours in the latter part of April, 1977, this interview sequence followed some initial testing in the beginning of April, 1977. His conclusions about the Respondent were that at the time of the offense, that she did not know right from wrong and was suffering from a frenzied disoriented state, to the extent that another personality emerged. By April, 1977, Dr. Marquit felt that the Respondent was no longer a danger to herself or to others but still might become a danger if not treated.
Dr. Marquit saw Mrs. Robinson again of February 3, 1978. At that time the interview phase and psychological testing that was done took place over a period of two hours. He found Mrs. Robinson to be much improved and not as depressed as of the time of the interview in April, 1977. Based upon the February, 1978 observation, Dr. Marquit feels that the Respondent could handle herself well in a classroom setting in times of stress.
In summary, Dr. Marquit felt that the Respondent was unaware of the events that took place during the course of the incident, but has sufficiently recovered to be able to continue in her role as a teacher.
At the time of the criminal offense, the Circuit Court also ordered the Respondent to be examined by Dr. Arthur D. Stillman. Dr. Stillman is a psychiatrist. Dr. Stillman saw the Respondent in April, 1977. His initial observations of the Respondent was to the effect that she was serious minded and cooperative in a studied way. She was able to respond to the questions readily and had no fragmentation of thinking, looseness, or dysphoria or euphoria. She
denied any delusions or hallucinations. Her memory, to his observation, was generally good except for the events in which she was found to be amnesiac. Those events pertained Lo the incident in question. At best she had vage screen memories of those parts of the incident. From his observations and the testing that was done, Dr. Stillman concluded that the Respondent showed evidence of a psychotic episode. He felt that she needed therapy for her condition, and that she presented potential for acting out. Specifically concerning the events that occurred in the shooting, Dr. Stillman felt that she was suffering from a temporary, transitory episode and was insane at the time of the commission of the offense.
Dr. Stillman saw Mrs. Robinson again in February, 1978, in his mind there had been some improvement and although the Respondent was not totally aware of her situation in terms of an emotional perception of the incident, she was improving. In Dr. Stillman's opinion, the patient would benefit from further attention in the area of the difficulty involved in the shooting incident. Dr. Stillman felt like Mrs. Robinson had not achieved enough insight about the why of the events of the shooting incident. The type of treatment that she needs is not a structured treatment plan. However, in his view, the chances of such an event reoccurring are remote. He did not find her to be a danger to herself or others or in particular, children. In Dr. Stillman's mind the Respondent is a good role model because she is stable after having suffered through a rather traumatic experience, and additionally because she got sick and recovered. The incident in itself in Dr. Stillman's opinion is an isolated event, and new he feels that she is sufficiently recovered to deal with stress.
In Dr. Stillman's analysis, the sickness caused her to commit the act, not a lack of morality.
Finally, Dr. Stillman feels that Mrs. Robinson would be more effective in helping children deal with their problems of stress, because of the experience she has suffered through.
One of the other witnesses that testified in the course of the hearing was Samuel Hudson Latimore. Mr. Latimore is the Detention Superintendent of the Dade Detention Facility. This facility deals with juvenile delinquents, and has as one of its functions the education of these children. Beginning in August, 1977, the Respondent volunteered to work in this facility. This voluntary service was not a condition imposed by any court. According to Latimore, the Respondent works at the facility twice a week, two or three hours a day and teaches 10 through 18 year old boys and girls. In his mind, the Respondent has demonstrated herself to be competent and effective in dealing with this type of young person. Latimore stated that she teaches survival skills, and aspects of getting jobs and helped to develop programs for these young people. In Latimore's opinion, Mrs. Robinson would be capable of working with any children in an education setting. He feels that she is very qualified to fulfill this function and believes this even after being made aware of the shooting incident.
Mrs. Robinson's husband, her minister and fellow employees at the school where she taught, also gave testimony. Those individuals stated that she has done well in the school setting in the past and has attempted to face up to the problem that lead to the incident with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Robinson, her husband, has stood by his wife during the pendency of the present charges and the criminal prosecution that was brought against her. His testimony demonstrated that he intends to continue living with his wife and to assist her in whatever fashion necessary to deal with the remnants of the problem which she has had.
The Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a number of violations. Specifically, a violation of Sections 231.28(1) and 231.09, Florida Statutes; together with Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1, and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code. The facts when considered in light of the language of those provisions of the Florida Statutes, and the Florida Administrative Code, demonstrate to the Petitioner that the Respondent is guilty of conduct which is grossly immoral and a poor example for students. The Petitioner further feels that those facts show that the Respondent is guilty of conduct which raises serious questions as to whether or not Verna A. Robinson is emotionally prepared to properly deal with the normal stresses which arise in classroom teaching.
In examining the basis of the charges, the provisions of Section 231.28(1), read as follows:
231.28(1) Suspension or revocation of certificates.-- The Department of Education shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying him the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (6) to revoke the teaching certificate of any person, thereby denying him the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to provisions of subsection (6) or to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person, provided:
It can be shown that such person obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means, or has proved to be incompetent to teach, or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system, or to teach in or to operate a private school, or has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, or has had his certificate revoked in another state, or has been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces
his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, or has otherwise violated the provisions of law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate, or has refused to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education or the school board in the district in which he is employed.
An examination of the testimony offered in the course of the hearing, with due regard to the fact that the testimony of the experts in the fields of psychiatry and psychology is unrefuted, leads to the conclusion that the Respondent is not guilty of immorality or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude, as alleged. At the time the offense was committed, the Respondent was found to be insane by the jury, and therefore was not convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. The same opinion which was expressed by the experts, to the effect
that the Respondent did not appreciate the nature of her act, leads to the conclusion that she was not capable of committing an immoral act, because such acts of immorality presuppose intent and knowledge. The Respondent being insane at the time of the commission of the act was incapable of such intent and knowledge.
Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, also deals with discipline for lack of effectiveness. The incident is not a matter of general knowledge, consequently her effectiveness cannot be said to be reduced because of the knowledge of the community or members of the school. The fact of the potential knowledge of such an incident is not a matter that may be considered at this juncture, if ever. Finally, the testimony of the experts strongly demonstrates that the Respondent has not had her effectiveness as a teacher reduced because of the incident.
An examination of the provisions of Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, leads to the conclusion that none of the provisions found in the charges have been violated by the act which the Respondent committed, for the reasons discussed in examining Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, to include the fact that the pupils in her school are unaware of the events for which Mrs. Robinson has been charged. Therefore, it can not be said that what she did is a poor example for pupils in their deportment and morals and in the future the accurate impression which has been offered by the psychiatrist and psychologist shows that she will be an example for people in their deportment and morals. The provision concerning deportment and morals comes directly from the Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes.
It should also be stated that that particular provision has been held unconstitutional in the case of Meltzer v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, etc., et al., 548 F.2d 559 (5th Circuit Court of Appeals). However, on petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, which is reported at 553 F.2d 1008, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing with the right for oral argument and the opportunity to submit supplemental briefs, with the date of the oral argument to be announced. That rehearing has been held but no decision has been rendered. Consequently, the remarks about the provisions, Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, have been offered with the caution that the section may be ultimately held unconstitutional.
In the charging document, the Petitioner makes further reference to certain rules of the Florida Administrative Code. The first reference is to Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Coda. That provision pertains to the procedures to be utilized in cases of this sort, and does not set forth substantive requirements, which if violated would constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Again, Rule 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Code of Ethics of the education profession in the State of Florida; however, it does not delineate substantive requirements which would be cause for consideration under the factual allegations in these charges.
Rule 6B-5.07, Florida Administrative Cede, reads as follows: Management Techniques.
In exercising management techniques, the competent educator shall:
Resolve discipline problems in accordance with law, state board regulations, school
board policy, administrative regulations and
accepted school policies,
Maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice,
Use management techniques which are appropriate to the particular setting such as group work, seat work, lecture, discussion, individual projects and others, and
Develop and maintain standards of conduct.
These provisions should be read in conjunction with the provisions of 6B-5.10 and 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, which state:
6B-5.10 Human and Interpersonal Relationships. Competent educators are held to possess effective human and interpersonal relations skills and therefore:
Shall encourage others to hold and express differing opinions or ideas,
Shall not knowingly misinterpret the statements of others,
Shall not show disrespect for or lack of acceptance of others,
Shall provide leadership and direction for others by appropriate example,
Shall offer constructive criticism when necessary,
Shall comply with reasonable requests and orders given by and with proper authority,
Shall not assign unreasonable tasks, and
Shall demonstrate self-confidence and self-sufficiency in exercising authority.
6B-5.11 Personal Requirements.
In assessing the mental or physical health of educators, no decision adverse to the educator shall be made except on the advice or testimony of personnel competent to make such judgment by reason of training, licensure and experience. However, certain behaviors are held to be probable cause to examine, and each competent educator within the scope of delegated authority shall:
Be able to engage in physical activity appropriate to the designated task except for temporary disability,
Be able to communicate so effectively as to accomplish the designated task,
Appropriately control his emotions, and
Possess and demonstrate sufficient intellectual ability to perform designated tasks.
When these requirements are examined in view of the facts that were offered in the course of the hearing, it is clear that the Respondent is able to resolve those problems of discipline in a proper manner and to deal with the interpersonal relationships between the students, to include students who are having conflict. Moreover, it is clear that the Respondent would be able to
control her emotions in the classroom setting and is emotionally prepared to deal with the normal stresses in classroom teaching.
In conclusion, the facts do not warrant the revocation of Verne Armstrong Robinson's teachers certificate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this cause.
Based upon am examination of the facts in this cause, it is concluded that the Petitioner has failed to establish that the Respondent has violated the conditions of Sections 231.28(1) and 231.09, Florida Statutes; together with Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the charging document.
It is recommended that the action for the revocation of the Respondent's teachers certificate be dismissed.
DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Robert J. Vossler, Esquire
Elizabeth J. du Fresne, P.A. Suite 1782, One Biscayne Tower
Michael S. Hacker, Esquire Hacker, Phelps & Matters Suite 1400 - Ainsley Building
