STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF MADISON COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 84-4085

)

GLOVER E. JONES, )

)

Respondent, )

) RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as )

Commissioner of Education, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 84-4357

)

GLOVER E. JONES, )

)

Respondent, )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Consistent with an Order of the undersigned dated December 21, 1984, which set this matter for hearing after consolidating the two cases filed herein pertaining to the Respondent, a hearing was held before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Madison, Florida, on March 8, 1985. The issues for consideration were, as to the case involving the Madison County School Board, whether the Respondent should be dismissed as a teacher with the Madison County schools because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by that agency; and as to the case involving the Commissioner of Education, whether the Respondent's certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by that agency.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner, J. David Holder, Esquire School Board of Post Office Box 1694 Madison County: Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For the Petitioner, George Waas, Esquire Ralph D. Turlington: 1114 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For the Respondent: Fred H. Flowers, Esquire

328 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On October 18, 1984, Randall Buchanan, superintendent of Schools for Madison County, Florida, filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent herein, alleging various violations of the Florida Statutes and reflecting that in September 1984, Respondent engaged in improper, inappropriate, and unprofessional behavior with a 15-year-old female student in the classroom. By this Administrative Complaint, Petitioner School Board sought to dismiss Respondent from his position as a teacher in the school system.

Thereafter, on November 15, 1984, the Florida Commissioner of Education also filed an Administrative Complaint in a second case against the Respondent seeking to discipline Respondent's teaching certificate because of the same allegations of misconduct which, if true, constituted a different violation of the statutes. Respondent requested a formal hearing in each case and the undersigned consolidated both cases for hearing by Order dated December 21, 1984. The hearing was held as scheduled.

At the hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of Pamela Ann Hale, the student to whom the alleged remarks were directed; Clyde Alexander, Jr., a math teacher at Madison High School; Loretta L. Sealey, also a student at Madison High School; Lou S. Miller, assistant principal at Madison High School; James A. Ray, principal of Madison High School; and Randall M. Buchanan, Superintendent of Schools for Madison County, Florida. Respondent testified in his own behalf and together the parties introduced Joint Exhibits 1 through 5.

The parties have submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact 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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Glover E. Jones, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida holding certificate number 556798, covering the area of mathematics, and was employed by the Madison County School Board as an adjunct instructor at Madison County High School, Madison, Florida.

   
   

2. The uncontroverted facts in this case show that Pamela Ann Hale, the alleged recipient of the remarks in question here, was born on August 28, 1969. As of the date of the hearing, she was living with her mother in Live Oak, Florida, attending the 10th grade at Suwannee High School there. At the time of the alleged incident here, she was living with her father in Madison and attended Madison County High School. Her mother and father are divorced.

   
   

3. While attending Madison County High School, Hale had the Respondent as her math teacher during the third period of the school day during the month of September 1984, at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year. She did not have him for any other subjects nor did she know him prior to the beginning of the school year. This class was made up of students who required extra assistance and consisted of approximately 15 to 16 students in remedial math.

   
   

4. On the day in question, Hale was selling candy during the class period to raise money for a school organization. She sold candy not only to her fellow students but also to the Respondent. At this point the stories told by Ms. Hale and by the Respondent begin to diverge. Ms. Hale contends that when she

   approached Jones on the date in question to buy candy he advised her to come back after class and she could sell him some. She contends, also, that she came back after the other students left even though she had another class (health) to attend, sat down at a student desk, and Respondent sat down facing her approximately three or four feet away.

   
   

5. It is at this point that, she says, he asked her simple questions about herself and her family. When she answered, he then allegedly asked her if she had ever "fucked" a black man before. He allegedly told her she looked sexy that day. She says he asked her if she noticed that he "had a hard on" and touched himself in the genital area, asking her if she thought she could handle that. At no time, however, did Respondent ever touch the witness. She says he asked her if she had ever "fucked" anyone while someone else was in the room. She replied that she had not. He allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend and when she said she did, he is alleged to have responded, "I'll bet you fuck him because he's not black."

   
   

6. This conversation went on until about 10 or 15 minutes before the fourth period was over. As was stated previously, the witness had health the fourth period and cut the class because, as she tells it, Respondent asked her to stay. While she was in the room with Jones alone, a Mr. Alexander, also a math teacher, entered, along with two other students. While in the room, Alexander asked Respondent if the witness was having any trouble with her work to which Respondent replied that she was, but indicated he would take care of it. Alexander verifies this with the exception that according to his testimony, when he came into the room, Respondent was seated at his desk writing a note and Hale was standing in front of him. This is not a significant difference. After Alexander left, Respondent asked the witness several questions about her siblings including her sister who formerly went to Madison High, but who quit when she had difficulty with some black students the previous year. He asked her if she was going to go to the ball game the following Thursday and, when she replied that she was, she says he suggested that perhaps they could get together that night.

   
   

7. Ms. Hale contends she was amazed that Respondent talked to her in this fashion but she also contends she did not leave because she was afraid of him, though he made no threats, either verbal or physical, toward her and made no effort to prevent her from leaving. She also made no comment to Alexander when he and the other students came into the room even though these suggestive statements had already been made. She finally terminated the conversation toward the end of the fourth period by stating she had to go to her next class. Before she left, she asked Respondent for a note, which he gave her and asked her not to repeat the conversation they had had.

   
   

8. During fifth period, Hale had lunch scheduled and during lunch with Loretta Sealy, she related in general terms, to Sealy, what had happened. After lunch, she went to the remainder of her classes and went home but even that night, she failed to tell her father of the incident because she was afraid he might do something as a result of his hot temper.

   
   

9. Sealy indicates that when she first saw Hale after the incident, when Hale came into the ladies' room, she appeared nervous, upset, and near tears. She said that Respondent had said things which upset her--in essence propositioning her. At first, Hale did not want to report the incident because she felt nobody would believe her. However, Sealy finally convinced her to do so and the two girls went to see the assistant principal, Ms. Miller, two days after the incident took place.

10. Hale told Ms. Miller what had happened and signed the first of several written statements which was prepared for her signature by Miller based on the report given. Later on, she agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding her story. No evidence was presented as to whether the exam was given or not.

    
    

11. Ms. Hale attended class with the Respondent during the several days between the time of the alleged incident and the report to Ms. Miller, but once the story came into the open, she was removed from his class. She talked with Miller rather than the principal because she had known Ms. Miller from her prior school. The fact that she did not talk with the principal had nothing to do with the fact that he is black.

    
    

12. Respondent's version of the story differs from that of Hale in that he contends that at the end of the class period on the day in question, Hale asked him if she could stay after class. He contends that her remaining had nothing to do with buying candy because he bought candy from her when she came to class. He also claims that she did her homework during this fourth period when she and he were the only people in the room. While she was working, he was behind his desk and she was sitting at a student desk off to his left. Respondent contends that it was Hale who made the first non-business statement by asking him if she could go smoke. He told her that she could not since smoking was not allowed on campus. She responded that another teacher, Mr. Hendrix, had allowed her to smoke in the school building and then went on to indicate that she had "messed" with guys in their twenties when she was twelve. This statement, which came immediately after the comments about Mr. Hendrix and smoking, shocked him. The only reason he did not ask her to leave was because she appeared to have a problem and he thought he might be able to help her.

    
    

13. During the course of the conversation she indicated that some blacks had attacked her sister the previous year on campus which had caused her sister to leave school and that, in general, all black students at Madison High were wild. Though Ms. Hale, in her testimony, indicated that when asked by Respondent if she had ever fucked a black man, she responded by asking him if he'd ever fucked a white woman, Respondent denies that Hale ever asked him this question nor did she mention drugs to him in any fashion. He denies making any of the comments attributed to him by Hale or any of the suggestive movements she claimed he made, though in the letter he submitted to the principal the morning after being confronted by the accusations against him, denials were not so strong or so widespread. In fact, in that written statement, he commented, "I'm not saying that the statement made is totally wrong, but there are two things that trouble me most about it." He then goes on to list these two troublesome areas as the statement makes it appear as though he is the culprit and that some things in it are either false or turned around. He then goes on to list the several things Hale is supposed to have said to him that were not included in her statement, such as her sexual activity and her obvious antipathy toward black men.

    
    

14. When Hale finally went to see Miller, she appeared to be quite upset though she was not crying. She was somewhat reluctant to talk to Ms. Miller until finally Miller released Sealy to go back to class and after Sealy left, Hale told Miller her entire story. Once Hale had completed her version of the story, Miller asked her to wait and went to talk with the principal who returned to the office with her to talk with Hale.

15. After discussing with the resource officer how to take a statement, Miller returned to the office and took a detailed statement from Hale a second time in the form suggested to her and had it signed by Hale and notarized.

    
    

16. Later that morning, Ms. Miller, the principal, Mr. Yanessy, the resource officer, and Mr. Buchanan called Respondent into the principal's office and showed him a copy of Hale's signed statement. Respondent read it, handed it back, and said that the statement was not "exactly" true--that Hale had twisted a lot of things around. He contended that in reality it was Hale who asked a lot of the questions, not him, and that he would do anything to clear his name. Respondent contended he had no interest in either Hale or any other young girl. At this point the investigating group advised him that they would talk with him later and take a statement from him.

    
    

17. About two hours later they did meet again and at this time, Respondent repeated his comments made earlier in the day to the extent that while a conversation took place, it did not happen as Hale said it did. At this point, though the school officials wanted to take Respondent's statement, Respondent did not want to speak on the record then. The following morning he gave the principal the letter which was referred to above.

    
    

18. Based on an evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hale, Ms. Sealy, the Respondent, and Ms. Miller, all of which bears on the credibility of the Respondent vis-a-vis his accuser, it becomes clear, and it is so found, that a conversation did take place in the classroom during the fourth period on September 10, 1984, between Respondent and Ms. Hale when the two of them were the only persons in the room. It most likely will never be determined exactly as to who said what to whom. There is no doubt, however, that the Respondent permitted a student who he knew had a class to attend, to remain in his classroom with him at the expense of her absence from that succeeding class. Though Respondent advised Mr. Alexander that he was helping Hale with her school work, there is no other evidence that he did so. Ms. Hale contends he did not and he admits he did not stating only that she did her homework while in the room with him. Whatever the conversation was, it is clear that it was sexually oriented and Respondent used extremely poor judgment in allowing the situation to develop as far as it did. The evidence establishes that Ms. Hale's background is not without cloud. At the age of sixteen she is admittedly sexually experienced and has experimented with various controlled substances such as marijuana and cocaine. Ms. Miller indicated that her academic background was marginal--that while she can do her work and can be an average student, she has, nonetheless, failed. The nature of her testimony on the stand was not so clear as to give a certain picture as to what happened. It is most likely that Ms. Hale herself does not recall the incident with certainty. What is clear is that aside from her discussion with Ms. Sealy over lunch, she failed to make any complaint to anyone with authority to do something about it until several days after the incident took place and then only upon the urging of her friend.

    
    

19. In substance then, it is obvious that the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two stories. When Respondent found out that Ms. Hale had no legitimate reason to be in his classroom, he allowed her to remain and engaged in a conversation with her that should not have taken place. While the exact words are in question, the subject matter is not. It was sexually oriented and the parties were a twenty-five-year-old male teacher and a fifteen- year-old female student. His judgment in allowing that to happen is abysmal and

    his professionalism in that instance was nonexistent especially in light of the fact that he was warned twice at the beginning of his employment with the school system by his principal, to be very careful of his conduct in dealing with female students.

    
    

20. Mr. Ray, the principal, indicates that if the allegations against the Respondent are true, it would seriously reduce his effectiveness as a classroom teacher because of the need for a teacher to observe the strictest propriety in his relationships with students. Such conduct as alleged here would undoubtedly be harmful to the learning process and would create an embarrassment to the student.

    
    

21. If the allegations are true he would not want Respondent back working for him. In his opinion, for a situation such as this, if established, there are no less drastic remedies than termination. He believes that there is no place in Madison County for a teacher guilty of these allegations and in addition to termination, revocation of the teaching certificate would be appropriate.

    
    

22. On the other hand, if it were to be established that the allegation was not true, then Respondent's effectiveness would not be diminished and the credibility of the student would be damaged. However, in his experience it is very unusual for female students to make sexual advances toward teachers. While it could occur, in his opinion it is not likely and over the 19 years he has been in education, it has never happened to him.

    
    

23. Mr. Buchanan, who has been in place as Superintendent of Schools in Madison County for over 8 years, is familiar with the allegations in this case and Respondent's denial. His analysis of the case resulted in his recommendation that the School Board suspend the Respondent from his teaching position and in addition, he reported Respondent to the Education Practices Commission. He took this step because he felt an obligation to report substandard conduct of an educator. Assuming that the allegations are true, in his view, the effectiveness of the Respondent is reduced because in a case like this the teacher loses credibility with his students. He feels that if true, Respondent's conduct would be harmful to the learning process and embarrassing to the student and would have an adverse impact on the relationship between the parents and the school system.

    
    

24. Viewing the evidence in its totality and weighing the credibility of all witnesses, as alluded to before, it becomes clear that a one on one conversation took place between the Respondent and Ms. Hale. It is most likely that Respondent did not prompt the conversation and did not request that Ms. Hale remain after class. To the contrary, it would appear that she requested to remain after class. No doubt improper comments were made by both Ms. Hale and the Respondent and it makes no difference whether Ms. Hale or the Respondent initiated the colloquy. It is quite clear that subject matter improper for a conversation between a student and a teacher of opposite sexes, involving sexually suggestive comments took place and that both Respondent and Ms. Hale used language of this nature.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

25. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.

26. Both Administrative Complaints filed herein allege that the Respondent, in September 1984, made lewd, lascivious, and sexually suggestive comments to a minor student 15 years of age. The evidence is clear that such comments were made. Whereas the evidence is sufficient to establish the allegation contained in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education and also establishes a part of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Madison County School Board, it does not, however, establish sufficiently that Respondent propositioned Ms. Hale for sexual favors or discussed his own use of contraband drugs. The comments made were sexually explicit and the questions asked were sexually explicit but there is no evidence that he propositioned Ms. Hale for sexual favors or discussed his own drug usage.

    
    

27. In the Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education the Petitioner alleges a violation of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude (Subparagraph c); has been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board (subparagraph f); and has otherwise violated rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which includes revocation of the teaching certificate (Subsection h). This latter allegation infers a violation of Rule 6B-1.06, F.A.C., which requires a teacher:

    
    

    to make a reasonable effort to protect a pupil or student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety by intention- ally exposing a student or pupil to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement and by exploiting or attempting to exploit a professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.

    
    

28. In the Administrative Complaint filed by the Madison County School Board, the Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated Section 231.36(61(a), Florida Statutes, which permits the suspension or dismissal of a member of the instructional staff of a district school system for just cause which includes, inter alia, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

    
    

29. Taking the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Madison County School Board, the evidence is clear that Respondent asked Ms. Hale sexually explicit questions and made sexually explicit remarks to her in his classroom. The evidence does not establish that he propositioned her for sexual favors or discussed his use of contraband drugs. His conduct, however, which was established, constitutes misconduct in office which supports discipline under the paragraph cited. Since Respondent has not been tried or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, that portion of the Administrative Complaint which alleges his guilt of immorality as the basis for his dismissal has not been established. It is clear, however, that his misconduct in office is sufficiently grave, and shows such poor judgment as a teacher, that his effectiveness in the Madison County school system has been irrevocably compromised.

    
    

30. Returning to the Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education, however, the evidence does not establish that the Respondent is guilty of either gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. It does, however, establish that he has been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board and that his

conduct intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment in violation of Rule 6B-1.06, F.A.C. The overriding consideration in both cases is that even if Ms. Hale had been the prime mover in this relationship, she was a minor, female student and he was the teacher. He should not have permitted the situation to develop in the first place or let it continue for as long as it did. That he did so establishes his failure as a teacher, not insofar as he can impart mathematics skills, but insofar as his judgment is absolutely lacking.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore:

RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, GLOVER JONES, be discharged from employment with the School Board of Madison County; and, that the Respondent, GLOVER JONES' teaching certificate number 556798, issued by the State of Florida, be suspended for a period of two years.

RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 9th day of May 1985.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May 1985.

COPIES FURNISHED:

J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

George Waas, Esquire 1114 East Park Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Fred H. Flowers, Esquire

528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 84-004085

Orders for Case No: 84-004085