STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2898
)
RICHARD SANTORO, )
)
Respondent. )
) RALPH D. TURLINGTON, )
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-4084
)
RICHARD SANTORO, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to written notice a final hearing was held in these cases before Larry J. Sartin, duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 26, 1984, in Clearwater, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Usher L. Brown, Esquire
Associates School Board Attorney 1960 East Druid Road
Post Office Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518
For Respondent: Robert F. McKee, Esquire
KELLY & McKEE, P.A.
401 South Albany Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
STATEMENT OF THE CASES
By letter dated August 3, 1984, the Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools notified Richard Santoro, the Respondent in these cases, that he intended to recommend that the School Board of Pinellas County (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board") suspend the Respondent without pay and to dismiss him from employment with the Pinellas County school system. The
Respondent was subsequently suspended with pay effective August 6, 1984. By letter dated August 6, 1904, the Respondent, through his attorney, requested an administrative hearing on the School Board's recommendation that the Respondent be dismissed.
The request was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 8, 1984. The request was assigned case number 84-2898 and was initially assigned to Diane D. Tremor.
On September 7, 1984, an Amended Statement of Charges was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings in case number 84-2898.
On September 6, 1984, the case was set for hearing on October 16, 1984.
Pursuant to a Motion to Continue filed by the School Board the final hearing was rescheduled for November 26, 1984.
By letter dated November 1, 1984, an Administrative Complaint by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, was served on the Respondent. In response to the Complaint, the Respondent, through his attorney, requested an administrative hearing. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 15, 1984. This case, case number 84-4084, was assigned to the undersigned.
Pursuant to a Motion to Consolidate filed by the School Board in case number 84-2898 on October 29, 1984, the cases were consolidated on November 26, 1984, at the final hearing.
At the final hearing, the Petitioners presented the testimony of Dr. Ronald Stone, Nancy Zambito, and William Donal Gates, Jr. Dr. Stone was accepted as an expert in educational supervision and administration, with a special emphasis on personnel matters, and qualifications for teacher certification. Ms. Zambito was accepted as an expert in educational supervision and administration, with a special emphasis on teacher personnel matters and appropriate sanctions against a teacher's certificate for Code of Ethics violations. Petitioners also offered Petitioners' exhibits 1-9. All were received into evidence.
The Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered Respondent's exhibit 1, which was received into evidence.
The parties also submitted a Pre-Hearing stipulation in which, among other things, the parties stipulated to certain facts. The facts stipulated to are set out, infra, under Findings of Fact.
The Petitioners have filed a Proposed Recommended Order containing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes (1984 supp.). The Respondent filed a Post-Hearing Brief which contains a "statement of the Facts and of the Case." A ruling on each proposed finding of fact contained in Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order and Respondent's "Statement of the Facts" has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
ISSUE
Whether the charges contained in the Petitioners' complaints constitute a basis for discipline against Respondent's Florida teacher's certificate pursuant to section 231.28, Florida Statutes (1984 supp.), and for the suspension or dismissal of Respondent from employment with the school Board pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (1984 supp.)?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent is licensed as a teacher by the Florida Department of Department of Education. He holds Florida Education Certificate Number 486520 (this fact was admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation). The Respondent is employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract of employment (this fact was admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation).
The Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate qualifies him to teach "quantity food" at the Vocational-Technical level. Respondent was employed by the School Board to teach culinary arts at the Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute. The average age of students taught by Respondent was 25 to 30 years. During the 4 years the Respondent has been employed with the School Board he has received satisfactory and above satisfactory evaluations.
The following facts have all be admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation.
In 1972, in the State of Vermont, the Respondent pled no contest to possession
of 2.2 grams of hashish.
In 1976, in the State of Pennsylvania, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct. Adjudication is unknown.
In 1976, in the State of Florida, the Respondent was arrested for possession of less than 4 grams of marijuana and driving while intoxicated. Respondent pled no contest.
In 1977, in the State of Florida, the Respondent was arrested for possession of more than 4 grams of marijuana, resisting arrest with violence and assault on a police officer. Adjudication was withheld.
Detective William Donal Gates, Jr., Tampa Police Department, participated in Respondent's arrest in 1977. Detective Gates identified the Respondent as the individual he arrested. Detective Gates also testified that the Respondent engaged in a physical altercation with one of the arresting officers.
The record in these cases fully supports the facts admitted in the Pre- Hearing Stipulation. The record also supports the admission of the Respondent in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation that he did not disclose his criminal record when applying for a Florida Teacher's Certificate or employment with the School Board.
In applying for a Florida Teacher's Certificate and employment with the School Board, the Respondent failed to disclose any of his convictions and arrests listed above except his arrest for DWI; the arrest for DWI was reported on a Personal Data Sheet Post Employment Information form.
On September 11, 1980, the Respondent certified as true his response to questions he answered on an Application for Teacher's Certificate filed with the State of Florida. The Respondent acknowledged on the Application that he understood the following:
Florida Statutes provide for the revocation of teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means.
On the September 11, 1980 Application the Respondent answered "no" to the following question:
Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending
against you other than minor traffic violations?
Despite the Respondent's acknowledgement on the Application, Respondent's answer to this question was clearly untrue.
Respondent also untruthfully answered the same question on an Application for Teacher's Certificate and Reapplications for Temporary Certificate signed by the Respondent on May 13, 1981, April 13, 1982, and April 7, 1983. On each of these forms there was a statement to the effect that the Respondent, by signing his name thereto, acknowledged his answers were true and correct. There was also a statement on these forms that informed the Respondent that he could lose his teaching certificate if he obtained it through fraudulent means. The Respondent acknowledged this statement.
On September 24, 1980, the Respondent signed an application for employment as a teacher with the School Board, and his signature appeared under the following language on the application form:
[I]f employed by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida [I] do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida. I further certify that all information given on this application is true to the best of my knowledge.
Despite this statement, the Respondent answered "No" to the following question:
Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor (other than minor traffic violations), a felony, or any other offense involving moral turpitude?
The Respondent also answered this question negatively on an application for part-time employment filed with the School Board.
Finally, on December 2, 1980, the Respondent was asked the following two questions on a Personal Data Sheet Post Employment Information form:
Have you ever been arrested? YES( ) NO( ) If yes, please list all arrests by date, location, and charges.
Have you ever been convicted? YES( ) NO( ) If yes, please list convictions by date, and location.
In response to the first question, Respondent answered by placing an "X" after "YES and listed "D.W.I." Respondent also placed an "X" after "NO" in response to the second question. These responses were certified as true by the Respondent.
Respondent admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation and at the hearing that he failed to report his arrests and convictions when he applied for a Teacher's Certificate and for employment with the School Board. At the final hearing, the Respondent indicated that he did not disclose his arrests and convictions because he believed that his criminal record had been sealed. According to the Respondent, the attorney who represented him when he was arrested in 1977 told him that he would arrange to have the Respondent's criminal record sealed if he would cooperate with the authorities. His attorney also told him that the authorities had agreed to drop the charges against him if he would cooperate. The Respondent did in fact cooperate and the charges against him were dropped. The Respondent indicated that he believed his record had been sealed since the charges were dropped. There is no evidence, however, that the Respondent's attorney told him that the authorities had agreed that they would have his records sealed or that they had in fact been sealed, only that his attorney said he would have them sealed.
The Respondent, when first confronted with his prior arrests and convictions by Ms. Nancy Zambito, School Board Director of Personnel Services, in July of 1984, did not tell Ms. Zambito or Mr. Warren Laux, principal of Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute, who was also present, that he had not divulged his criminal record because he believed his record had been sealed. Instead, the Respondent gave other reasons for not answering the questions correctly including his concern that he would not be hired by the School Board if he told the truth.
Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the Respondent intentionally misrepresented his criminal history because he believed he would not be employed by the School Board or granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate if he divulged his criminal record.
Dr. Ronald Stone, the Executive Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources for the School Board, testified that, based upon the arrests and convictions of Respondent and his failure to disclose his record, the Respondent would not be granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate and should be dismissed from employment with the School Board.
Dr. Stone also testified that the School Board's policy as to the treatment of persons who disclose criminal offenses on their applications is to determine whether the crime involved was serious enough to render an applicant unsuitable to teach. Based upon the nature of Respondent's offenses, Dr. Stone indicated that the Respondent was unsuitable for employment as a teacher.
Ms. Zambito also testified that the appropriate sanction in these cases would be revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate and dismissal from employment with the School Board.
Both Dr. Stone and Ms. Zambito based their opinion on their conclusion that the Respondent's actions violated the public trust and because of the negative effect on students, regardless of their age, of a teacher with the Respondent's background.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.)
In a matter as grave as license revocation proceedings, the duty allegedly breached by the licensee must appear clearly from applicable statutes or rules or have a "substantial basis," in the evidence. Bowling v. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). License revocation proceedings have been said to be "`penal' in nature." State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487, 491 (Fla. 1973); Kozerowitz v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 289 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1974); Bach v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 378 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), reh. den. 1980.
At the final hearing, Petitioners had the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints. Walker v. State, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Reid v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 188 So. 2d 846 (Fla 2d DCA 1966). See The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1970).
The Respondent has been charged by the School Board with immorality, misconduct in office and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). The Commissioner of Education has charged Respondent with several violations of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.).
Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.) provides in pertinent part:
Any member of the district administrative or supervisory staff and any member
of the instructional staff, including any principal, who is under continuing
contract may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year; however, the charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. . . .
The School Board has alleged that the Respondent should be dismissed under this provision for "immorality, misconduct in office" and "conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."
The criteria for dismissal or suspension under Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), is provided in Section 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as "F.A.C."). Section 6B-4.09(2), F.A.C., defines "immorality" as:
. . . conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community.
The Respondent's conduct with regard to his criminal activities and his failure to disclose his criminal conduct was clearly inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. No evidence was presented, however, that his conduct was "sufficiently notorious" to bring the Respondent or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect. There was no evidence presented to show that the Respondent's conduct was a matter of public knowledge. See Adams v. State Professional Practices Council, 406 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Additionally, the Respondent's criminal activities occurred prior to his receiving a Florida Teacher's Certificate and his employment by the School Board. Therefore, his criminal activities, even if they were considered immoral would not alone be sufficient to discipline the Respondent. Therefore, it is concluded that the Respondent is not guilty of "immorality" under Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), as that term is defined by Section 6B-4.09(2), F.A.C.
Section 6B-4.09(3), F.A.C., defines "misconduct in office" as:
. . . a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.01, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.06, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
The School Board has argued that the Respondent's dishonesty constitutes "misconduct in office" as defined above. In particular, the School Board has charged the Respondent with violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida contained in Section 6B- 1.06(5)(g) and (h), F.A.C. Section 6B-1.06(5)(g), F.A.C., provides that no individual shall "submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities." Section 6B-1.06(5)(h), F.A.C., provides that no individual shall "make any fraudulent statement or fail to disclose a material fact in one's own or another's application for a professional position."
There is no doubt that the Respondent violated both of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Professional in Florida he is charged with violating. It is also concluded that those violations are so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system based upon the testimony of Dr. Stone and Ms. Zambito. Both of these expert witnesses testified that the Respondent's fraudulent applications for employment with the School Board and his Florida Teacher's Certificate undermined the trust which school officials must have in a teacher.
Mr. Laux, the principal of Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute, was asked the following question and gave the following response in his deposition testimony:
Q Knowing what you know about Mr. Santoro's prior arrest and conviction record, would you recommend Mr. Santoro for employment as a teacher at P.V.T.I.?
A Based on performance, yes, I would. I am
-- and I am saying that, and perhaps I am concerned about -- I think he knows how I feel about the relevancy as to not total truthfulness or disclosure of anything.
Because I think that we -- that's an important aspect in an employee-employer relationship. Mr. Santoro has done a good job in teaching. [Emphasis added].
The Respondent has argued that the above answer supports a conclusion that the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has not been impaired. To the contrary, Mr. Laux was only asked about the Respondent's arrest and conviction record. Even then, Mr. Laux qualified his "yes" answer by limiting it to the Respondent's performance as a teacher and then expressed a concern about the Respondent's lack of truthfulness. Mr. Laux's qualified answer is insufficient to overcome the opinions of the Petitioners' 2 expert witnesses, Dr. Stone and Ms. Zambito.
The Respondent has also argued that the evidence is unrefuted that he acted in good faith and had reason to believe that he was justified in not disclosing his prior arrests and convictions. It is the conclusion of the undersigned that the Respondent did not fail to disclose his prior record because of a good faith belief that his record had been sealed and that, even if he did, such reliance was not justified.
When first confronted with the fact that the School Board was aware of his prior criminal record by Ms. Zambito, the Respondent did not indicate he had lied because of any belief that his record had been sealed. Instead, based upon the testimony of Ms. Zambito and Mr. Laux, the Respondent indicated that he did not disclose his record because he did not think he would be employed and because he did not interpret the questions as requiring that he list his arrests and convictions. It was not until a week and a half or 2 weeks later that Respondent indicated that he had not revealed his criminal record because he believed his record had been sealed.
Additionally, according to Respondent's own testimony, he was never told that the "authorities" had agreed to seal his record if he cooperated with them in 1977. He was only told that the authorities would drop the charges against him. The Respondent's attorney told him that he, the attorney, would have the Respondent's record sealed after the charges were dropped. The charges were in fact dropped. The Respondent, however, did not indicate that he was ever told that his record had in fact been sealed or that he ever made any effort to find out if his record had been sealed.
Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent's testimony that he lied on his application for employment and Florida Teacher's Certificate because he believed his record had been sealed is rejected. The Respondent is therefore guilty of "misconduct in office."
Under Section 6B-4.09(6), F.A.C., "moral turpitude" is defined as follows:
Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time, a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude.
"Moral turpitude" has also been defined in State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 146 So. 660 (Fla. 1933) as follows:
Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. [Citations omitted.] It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principles, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error or judgement when wrong was not contemplated. As a teacher, the Respondent is subject to a high moral standard. See Adam v. State Professional Practices Council, supra.
Respondent's involvement with illegal drugs and related charges constitute crimes involving moral turpitude as that term is used in Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). Respondent's involvement with drugs took place prior to his employment with the School Board and his certification to teach in Florida. The Respondent is therefore not guilty of having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which he can be disciplined. The fact that the Respondent has been convicted of such crimes and the fact that the Respondent would not have been hired if he had disclosed his criminal record does, however, support a finding that the Respondent should be fired for failing to disclose his criminal record.
The Commissioner of Education has charged the Respondent with several violations of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.) provides, in pertinent part:
The Education Practices Commission shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in
228.041(9) or (10) 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 (4); 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 the provision of subsection (4); to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person; or to impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that such person:
Obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means;
(c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude;
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation;
Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board;
(h) Has otherwise violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate.
As discussed, supra, the Respondent did submit fraudulent information and made fraudulent statements on his application and reapplications for Florida Teacher's Certificate. Those fraudulent statements and the fraudulent information assisted the Respondent in obtaining his Florida Teacher's Certificate. The Respondent's excuse for not revealing his criminal record is rejected for the reasons discussed, supra. It is therefore concluded that it has been shown that the Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.)
The Respondent is not guilty of "gross immorality" under Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), as concluded, supra. The Respondent is, however, guilty of an act involving moral turpitude. The Respondent has also clearly been convicted of crimes. The problem, however, is that Respondent's acts involving moral turpitude and his convictions occurred before he was certified to teach in Florida. Section 231.28(1)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), contemplate disciplining a teacher for acts involving moral turpitude and convictions which occur after certification. The Respondent's criminal activities occurred before he was certified. The Respondent is therefore not guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) or (e), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). The fact that the Respondent would be subject to discipline under these sections if his criminal activities had occurred after certification and the fact that the Respondent would not have been certified had he disclosed his criminal record, however, supports a finding that the Respondent should have his certificate revoked for failing to disclose his criminal record.
As discussed, supra, the Respondent has been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.)
Finally, the Respondent has violated Section 6B-1.06(5)(g) and (h), F.A.C., by submitting fraudulent statements and information on his applications and reapplications for employment with the School Board and his application and reapplications for Florida Teacher's Certificate. Therefore, Respondent has violated Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.).
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found not guilty of "immorality" under Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), and "gross immorality" under Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found guilty of "misconduct in office" in violation of Section 231.36(36)(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984) Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found not guilty of being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found guilty of obtaining his teaching certificate by fraudulent means in violation of Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found not guilty of an act involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found not guilty of having been convicted of a crime in violation of Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1984) Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be dismissed from his employment with the School Board and his continuing employment contract be cancelled. It is further
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate be permanently revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1985.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Usher Brown, Esquire
Associate School Board Attorney 1960 E. Druid Road
P.O. Box 6374
Clearwater, Florida 33513
Robert McKee, Esquire KELLY & McKEE, P.A.
401 S. Albany Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Department of Education
Education Practices Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as
Commissioner of Education,
Petitioner,
vs. FINAL ORDER
DOAH Case No. 84-4084
RICHARD SANTORO,
Respondent.
/
Respondent, RICHARD SANTORO, holds Florida teaching certificate number 486520. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against the certificate.
Respondent requested a formal hearing and one was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order has been forwarded to the panel pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S.; it is attached to and made a part of this Order. The Exceptions to the Recommended Order are also attached to and made a part of this Order.
A panel of the Education Practices Commission met on June 14, 1985, in Sarasota, Florida, to take final agency action. The Petition was represented by Usher L. Brown, Esquire. The Respondent was present and represented by Robert
F. McKee, Esquire. The panel has reviewed the entire record in the case.
The panel adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order, excluding the Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order to which Petitioner has taken exception. The panel specifically rejects the hearing officer's Conclusions of Law that Section 231.28(1)(c) and (e), F.S., does not contemplate imposition of discipline upon a certificate holder for acts or convictions occurring prior to certification or employment. The panel adopts Petitioner's exceptions to the hearing officer's conclusions of law and more specifically, concludes that acts or convictions occurring prior to certification or employment may be considered for purposes of imposing discipline pursuant to Section 231.262(6), F.S. The panel specifically concludes that Respondent is guilty of acts of moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(e) is also guilty of having been convicted of a crime in violation of Section 231.28(1)(e).
With regard to the penalty, the panel specifically rejects the hearing officer's recommended penalty of permanent revocation and instead revokes Respondent's certificate for five (5) years. In reducing the recommended penalty, the panel relies upon the fact that permanent revocation leaves no room for a showing of rehabilitation and that the record in this case and Respondent's conduct within the past five years have shown his potential for rehabilitation. Furthermore, the length of time between Respondent's last offense (1977) and his eligibility (1990) will allow for further demonstration of eligibility.
Wherefore, Respondent's certificate is revoked for a period of five (5) years. This Order takes effect upon filing.
This Order may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68)2), F.S., and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within 30 days within 30 days of the date of filing.
DONE AND ORDERED this 26 day of June, 1985.
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Marlene Greenfield, Administrator
Professional Practices Services
Helen Juarez, Presiding Officer
Susan Tully, Esquire
Attorney General' s Office I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy
of the foregoing Final Order Judith Brechner, General Counsel in the matter of RDT v.
Richard Santoro has been
Donald L. Griesheimer furnished to Robert McKee, Office of Teacher Certification Esquire, Fire Station No.
8, 401 South Albany, Tampa,
Usher L. Brown Florida 33606, by U.S. Mail,
P.O. Box 6374 this 2nd day of July, 1985. Clearwater, Florida 33518
Larry J. Sartin, Hearing Officer KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk Division of Administrative Hearings
Dr. Scott Rose, Supt. Pinellas County Schools
P. O. Box 4685 Clearwater, Florida 33518
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 04, 1990 | Final Order filed. |
| May 06, 1985 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 26, 1985 | Agency Final Order | |
| May 06, 1985 | Recommended Order | Teacher convicted of drug violations. Failed to disclose on application for employment. |
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL vs. JOHN A. LETTELLEIR, 84-002898 (1984)
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. WALTER PHILLIPS, 84-002898 (1984)
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. JIM WILKINS, 84-002898 (1984)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MARY ANN HAVRILAK, 84-002898 (1984)
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs LINCOLN M. LOUCKS, 84-002898 (1984)
