STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE No. 91-6986
)
STEVEN G. MILLER, )
)
Respondent. )
) BETTY CASTOR, as Commissioner ) of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE No. 92-0968
)
STEVEN G. MILLER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a formal hearing in these consolidated cases on May 5, 1992, in St. Petersburg, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner, Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Pinellas County Post Office Box 2942 School Board: Largo, Florida 34649
For Petitioner, John Gilroy, Esquire Betty Castor: Department of Education
352 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
For Respondent: Lawrence D. Black, Esquire
650 Seminole Boulevard
Largo, Florida 34640 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether or not Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct warranting his dismissal; to-wit, gross insubordination and misconduct in office; and, whether Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct warranting revocation, suspension or other administrative penalty to his teaching certificate; to-wit, gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude; personal conduct which seriously
reduces his effectiveness as a teacher; violations of the provisions of law or rules of the Board of Education; failing to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety; intentionally exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and exploiting professional relationships with students for his personal gain or advantage.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated October 21, 1991, Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County (Board or Superintendent), advised Respondent, Steven G. Miller, that at its regularly scheduled Board meeting for November 13, 1991, Petitioner Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, would recommend his dismissal effective November 14, 1991. Petitioner Board's recommendation was based on allegations that: in September and October 1991, Respondent made sexually suggestive remarks to, and touched in an inappropriate sexual manner, two female students and were untruthful in discussing this matter with district staff and that Respondent has been counseled by a colleague and his principal regarding such remarks and harassment of female students. Petitioner Board concluded that such conduct constituted gross insubordination and misconduct and amounted to just cause for Respondent's dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent denied the allegations and the conclusion that such alleged conduct justified his dismissal. On December 4, 1991, the matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing.
By Administrative Complaint dated January 21, 1992, Petitioner Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner), advised Respondent that she would recommend, based on the alleged misconduct, that the Education Practices Commissioner (EPC), impose an appropriate penalty against Respondent's teaching certificate pursuant to Sections 231.262(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes.
Respondent also denied these allegations and requested a formal hearing to contest those charges.
On January 7, 1992, the dismissal matter was initially scheduled for hearing for March 20, 1992. On March 16, 1992, Petitioner's cases were consolidated and the matters were rescheduled on March 23, 1992 for hearing on May 5, 1992, in St. Petersburg, Florida, and was heard as scheduled.
At the final hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of student witnesses Leslie Kemp, Mackalia Hadley, Barbara Gamble, Janice Polk, Christine Obenshain, Alvi "Nikki" Poole, DeShawn Blue, Principal Barbara Broughton, Superintendent J. Howard Hinesley (by deposition), teacher witnesses: Kenneth Jackson, Al Davis, Christine Albino, and personnel administrator Steven Crosby. Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of his wife, also a teacher, as well as student witnesses Sabrina Herring, Carmelita Fitzpatrick, Laninlla Williams, Brent Keller, Valencia Walker, Shawna Ziertck; and fellow teachers Kay Rewes, Don MacNeale, Roger Magee, Norman H. Baylson, Bill Wartock, Claudia Francis Miller and Bonnie Thompson who testified to Respondent's popularity and good character.
The parties submitted proposed recommended orders which were considered in preparation of this Recommended Order. Proposed findings which are not incorporated herein are addressed in an appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, Steven G. Miller, is a teaching veteran in excess of 20 years and holds Florida teaching certificate #524693, valid through June 30, 1995, covering the area of social science. During times material herein, Respondent was assigned as a teacher to St. Petersburg High School.
During times material, Respondent's wife, Claudia Miller, was also a teacher at St. Petersburg High School and their daughter was a student there.
During the 1989-90 school year, Respondent taught an African/American student, Leslie Kemp, in his sociology class. Kemp attended St. Petersburg High School for approximately six months.
During Kemp's enrollment at St. Petersburg High School, Respondent told her he was attracted to her, asked if she had a boyfriend and inquired if he could get to know her outside school. These questions and statements were embarrassing to Kemp and as a result, she altered her schedule to avoid contact with Respondent.
After Kemp graduated, Respondent called her at home and went uninvited to her home during the school day.
During the occasion on which Respondent went uninvited to Kemp's home, Kemp called another teacher at St. Petersburg High School, Kenneth Jackson, and told him that Respondent was, at that point in time, returning to the school.
Jackson, on receiving that phone call from Kemp during the morning hours of a school day, went into the parking lot of the school and observed Respondent walking from his van toward the school.
As a result of Kemp's call to Jackson, and based on his belief that Respondent had been attempting to contact Kemp at home, Jackson approached a mutual acquaintance and teacher, Coach Al Davis, and advised Davis to "tell [your] boy to back off."
Jackson referred to Respondent as "your boy" when speaking to Coach Davis and did not specifically identify Respondent otherwise. Because of the close relationship enjoyed between Miller and Davis, Jackson assumed that Coach Davis understood that he was talking about Miller. As Jackson in fact assumed, Coach Davis conveyed Jackson's message to Respondent.
Respondent acknowledged receiving the message to "back off" from Coach Jackson through Coach Davis, but claimed never to have given it a thought or to have asked Coach Jackson what was meant. However, Coach Davis did not indicate any playfulness in his comments to Respondent.
Thereafter, Kemp did not receive any further contacts, either by phone or personal visits at her home, from Respondent.
During times material, another African/American student, Mackalia Hadley, also attended St. Petersburg High School.
Hadley played varsity basketball and Respondent was her coach.
While attending school, Hadley was told by Respondent that his fantasy was to have sex with a "black lady." Respondent asked Hadley if she ever had
sex with an older white man and inquired of her preference about sexual positions, asking if she would rather be on top or the bottom.
Respondent told Hadley that he was afraid of having sex with her as she could probably "handle him."
Respondent would usually always preface his conversations with young female students by telling them that if the topic offended them, they should advise him and he would stop.
On one occasion, Respondent patted Hadley on the "butt" as she exited his classroom.
Ms. Hadley was not offended by Respondent's remarks to her or having touched her on the butt as she did not want him to be penalized on the basis of his actions towards her since she considered that Respondent was a friend. However, Hadley was led to believe that had she been so inclined, Respondent was available for sex with her.
Hadley never affirmatively filed a complaint about Respondent's behavior, either while a student or afterwards.
Hadley became aware of the disciplinary action against Respondent based on newspaper and other media coverage and during a counselling session with Ms. Christine Albino, Hadley's former "parenting" instructor, subsequent to graduation.
Hadley did not want to be a witness in any disciplinary action against Respondent, although Ms. Albino advised Hadley that she would have to provide the information that she had about Respondent to Petitioner Board's personnel director, S. Crosby, who was investigating Respondent.
Barbara Gamble, another African/American female student who attended St. Petersburg High School during the fall semester of 1991, was a student of Respondent.
Respondent made frequent comments to Gamble, which she understood to be sexual. One such remark was "Oh Barbara, you're so fine. You turn me on. You have to stop doing this." Respondent inquired if Gamble would ever consider cheating on her boy friend.
Respondent knows that Gamble had two children at the time of her enrollment in his class. On one occasion while in class, Respondent told her "If you ever want to have another kid, I'm always available."
On one occasion, during his fourth period class, Respondent asked Gamble to come to his room during seventh period to review a test. Upon her arrival, Respondent placed the exam on his desk. He then told her that if anyone came into the room, they would pretend that the test was being reviewed, but he assured her that he had called her there for other reasons.
Respondent told Gamble how physically attracted he was to her and asked if they could meet somewhere to be together. He also inquired of her if she had anything against him being white, older and married as far as the two of them being with each other was concerned.
Shortly thereafter, Gamble withdrew from Respondent's class citing her fear of Respondent and of being alone with him.
Gamble contacted Christine Albino who had been informed of Respondent's behavior toward Gamble through a conversation with another of Respondent's students, Janice Polk.
Gamble's recall, which was confirmed by Principal Broughton after review of the official school records, indicates that she had no apparent problem with academics in Respondent's course.
Janice Polk is also an African/American female student who was in Respondent's class from August 1991 through January 1992. Polk became acquainted with Respondent in his third period class, and as his teacher assistant during the sixth period.
During the time when Respondent was Polk's instructor, he told her that he was physically attracted to her and asked her if she would consider cheating on her boy friend. Respondent cautioned Polk that his comments should not be disclosed because he could lose his job and his family. He also stressed that he would deny ever making any sexual comments to her if his remarks ever surfaced.
On one occasion while Polk was working with Respondent alone as his assistant, during a Friday afternoon while most students at school were preparing for a football pep assembly, Respondent grabbed Polk from slightly to the side, put his arm around her waist and placed his hands on her butt and pulled her to him. Respondent grabbed Polk's breast, commenting that she was very "grown." He attempted to kiss Polk on the mouth and asked her if she wanted to touch him. Respondent told her that she didn't have to be afraid because he too was scared. Polk was in a position to notice that Respondent had an erection during their contact. Polk retracted and declined Respondent's advance. Respondent then let go of Polk without a physical struggle advising her not to tell anyone about the incident.
Upon leaving Respondent's class, Polk encountered a friend, Alvie "Nikki" Poole, in the hallway. Poole observed that Polk was in a state of shock and she inquired if Polk had seen a ghost. Ms. Polk told Nikki about the incident and she (Polk) thereafter withdrew from Respondent's class and her assistantship as a result of Respondent's advances. Polk was afraid, embarrassed and felt disparaged based on Respondent's advances.
Respondent's classroom, while situated in a relatively high student traffic area, and although his classroom was unlocked at the time of the encounter with Ms. Polk, was in a section of the building which was abnormally quiet and unoccupied since the pep assembly was ongoing. Students who did not attend the assembly were taking the opportunity to leave the campus early thereby significantly reducing the chances of a student unexpectedly entering Respondent's classroom and interrupting his encounter with Polk.
The behavior engaged in by Respondent in relation to students Leslie Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk included sexual innuendos, invitations, propositions, comments about physical attractiveness and attractions, and were laden with sexual implications. Respondent's conduct and behavior was therefore inappropriate and diminished his effectiveness as a School Board employee and a responsible instructional certificate holder.
Respondent had been looked upon and has shown a sense of being sensitive to the needs and concerns of minority students who regarded him as their mentor.
Respondent has, in the past, assisted a number of students become enrolled in college and was, indeed, in a position to be a role model for such students.
Respondent was well respected by minorities, including Blacks and Asians, and they often turned to him for advice. A large number of the minority student population at St. Petersburg High School regarded Respondent as an informal counselor and he was universally regarded as such.
Respondent was extremely popular with the student body and he spent a great deal of time shaping his students' lives. That fact, however, does not detract from the seriousness of the conduct which he engaged in relative to students Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk. It is indeed unfortunate that a teacher of Respondent's caliber and ability to shape the lives of their vulnerable students 1/, would engage in acts of immortality as noted. Respondent's conduct toward these students cannot be overlooked.
Respondent's contention that these students engaged in a plot to get back at him was considered and rejected. First, there was no showing that the students were motivated to devise such a scheme. A review of the students' academic transcripts indicated that, during times material, they were making satisfactory progress from an academic standpoint. In the one instance where it was shown that one student received an incomplete grade due to a failure to complete the required coursework, there was no nexus shown between the incomplete grade and Respondent's conduct which was inappropriate. Moreover, the transcripts fail to demonstrate that the students were receiving failing grades and therefore motivated to get rid of him (as a teacher). Finally, Respondent's contention that the order in which the complaints were filed against him evidenced a scheme by the Board to build a case to terminate him is likewise without basis in fact. The facts lend no support for Respondent's contention and more to the point, the evidence shows that the students, in the main, barely know each other and were reluctant to testify against Respondent. As to the Board's involvement, its agents were simply fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as school officials concerned about the well-being of its students.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Petitioner Commissioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding and such proof must be clear and convincing. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
The Petitioner Board has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the actions of Respondent constitute misconduct in office and gross insubordination so as to support its proposed dismissal (of Respondent).
Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, authorize discipline of a teacher provided such discipline is imposed as a result of immorality,
misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Education Practices Commission is the administrative agency authorized to issue final decisions regarding the imposition of discipline and penalties against a teacher's certificate. Sections 231.261, 231.262 and 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Pertinent to this case, Petitioners charge that Respondent's conduct violated the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, provides:
The Education Practices Commission shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in s. 228.041(9) or (10) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying that person 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 that person the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed
10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions 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:
* * *
(c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude;
* * *
(f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's 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.
And, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides:
Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual's teacher certificate, or other penalties as provided by law.
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety.
* * *
(e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
* * *
(h) Shall not exploit a professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.
Petitioner Commissioner has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent, Steven G. Miller, has violated Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule Sections 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner Castor has also proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent was guilty of gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude in violation of subsection 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes. See State ex. rel. Tulledge v. Hollingsworth, 146 So.2d 660, 661 (1933).
The moral standard to be upheld must be viewed in context with the profession at issue. Teachers charged by Sections 231.09 and 231.28(1) with providing leadership and maintaining effectiveness as teachers are traditionally held to a high moral standard in the community. In Betty Castor as Commissioner of Education v. Samuel E. Steadman, Ed FALR 240 (Final Order 1989), the EPC found that educators are held to more rigorous moral standards than other professionals due to their role in educating children.
Applying these standards, it is clear that Respondent, as an educator, has been guilty of both gross immorality and acts involving moral turpitude. Sexual advances towards students is a serious breach of a teacher's trust and responsibilities. In this case, teenage girls who had already experienced pregnancy during high school were selected as objects of affection and propositions for sexual contact.
Respondent's conduct is not excusable based on his offer to stop at the student's request or that such would somehow either prevent disclosure or cushion the severity of the incidents. Impressionable students have the right to attend school free from sexual advances from their instructors, regardless of the students perceptions or tolerances.
The Petitioner Commissioner was offered clear, credible and consistent testimony to establish numerous instances of inappropriate and immoral conduct by Respondent towards students in his charge. These students did not all know each other and had neither apparent motive or means to fabricate their allegations. Ms. Hadley's reluctance to testify against Respondent was obvious yet she recounted serious instances of misconduct.
Student Polk's account of being physically assaulted was highly credible under the circumstances as described and was corroborated by Ms. Poole's account of Ms. Polk's physical and outward emotional appearance.
Student Kemp had the presence of mind to call a credible third party, Coach Jackson, when she found Respondent at her front door. Coach Jackson independently verified the circumstances in reporting that mid-morning incident with Kemp.
Respondent failed to offer credible support for his contention that the students were lying or that the Petitioner Board's administrators had conspired to generate a movement against him or that Ms. Broughton and the official school records inaccurately portrayed the academic status of the students.
The Petitioner Commissioner has established, clearly and convincingly, that these were acts of gross immorality and moral turpitude which seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as a school board employee. Respondent abused his position and used his relationship with students to his own personal advantage in an attempt to satisfy his own sexual interests. In the process, several students were seriously affected such that they requested and received authorization to be transferred from Respondent's class. The destruction of a healthy learning environment and the development of a fear to be too close to Respondent led some of these students to avoid further contact with him.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that:
Petitioner Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent's employment as an instructor from the Pinellas County School System.
Petitioner Commissioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years, followed by a two year probation upon re-entry, conditioned upon a psychiatric evaluation, clearance and counseling as well as appropriate remedial course work to be specified by the EPC. Additional specific terms and conditions of probation, including restrictions on student contact, should be determined as appropriate by the EPC.
DONE and ORDERED this 3 day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this
3 day of September, 1992.
ENDNOTES
1/ Several of the students that Respondent had sexual contacts with were teenage parents. This fact was well known to Respondent and he seized upon their misfortune to attempt to further aggravate their ability to function as responsible teenage parents.
APPENDIX
Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Paragraph 3, Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 32-34, Recommended Order.
Paragraphs 5-9, Rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.
Rulings on Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education Proposed Findings of Fact:
Paragraphs 7 and 10, Rejected, unnecessary.
Paragraph 17, Adopted as relevant, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 30, Adopted as relevant, Paragraph 40, Recommended Order.
Rulings on Petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County Proposed Findings of Fact:
Paragraph 10, Rejected, unnecessary.
Paragraph 16, Adopted as relevant, Paragraph 27, Recommended Order. Paragraph 26, Addressed in Paragraph 40, Recommended Order.
COPIES FURNISHED:
BRUCE P TAYLOR ESQ SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942
LARGO FL 34649 2942
JOHN GILROY ESQ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
352 FLORIDA EDUCATION CENTER
325 W GAINES ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0400
LAWRENCE D BLACK ESQ 650 SEMINOLE BLVD
LARGO FL 34640
J HOWARD HINESLEY Ed.D. PINELLAS COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942
LARGO FL 34649 2942
BETTY CASTOR
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE FL 32399
KAREN B WILDE/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION
301 FLORIDA EDUCATION CENTER
325 W GAINES ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0400
JERRY MOORE/ADMINISTRATOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES SERVICES
352 FLORIDA EDUCATION CENTER
325 W GAINES ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BETTY CASTOR, as
Commissioner of Education,
Petitioner,
EPC CASE NO. 92-007-RT
vs. DOAH CASE NOS. 91-6986, 92-0968 EPC INDEX NO. 92-085-FOF
STEVEN G. MILLER,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, STEVEN G. MILLER, holds Florida educator's certificate No.
524693. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking suspension, revocation, permanent revocation or other disciplinary action against the certificate.
Respondent requested a formal hearing and such was held before a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order was forwarded to the Commission pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., which is attached to and made a part of this Order.
A panel of the Education Practices Commission (EPC) met on November 13, 1992, in Tampa Florida, to take final agency action. Petitioner was represented by Margaret O'Sullivan, Esquire. Respondent was present and represented by Lawrence D. Black, Esquire. The panel reviewed the entire record in the case.
The panel ruled as follows on Respondent's exceptions to the recommended order:
Respondent's first exception was rejected in that no essential requirement of law was violated and no prejudice to Respondent found.
Respondent's second exception was rejected in that there was competent substantial evidence to support the disputed Finding of Fact.
Respondent's third exception was accepted without objection by Petitioner in that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record that Respondent was coach of the individual designated in the exception.
Respondent's fourth exception was rejected in that there was competent substantial evidence supporting the disputed Finding of Fact.
Respondent's fifth exception was rejected in that the disputed Finding of Fact was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Respondent's sixth exception was rejected in that the disputed Finding of Fact was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Respondent's seventh exception was rejected in that the disputed Finding of Fact was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Respondent's eighth exception was rejected in that the disputed Finding of Fact was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Having concluded ruling on the exceptions to the Findings of Fact, the panel adopted the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order as the Findings of Fact of this Final Order with the exception that the words "and Respondent was
her coach" are deleted from paragraph 13 of the Findings of Facts in accordance with the ruling on Respondent's exception number three.
The panel rejected Respondent's exception nine to the Recommended Conclusions of Law in that clear and convincing evidence of the violations was offered and the charges proven. Thereupon, the panel adopted the Recommended Conclusions of Law as the Conclusions of Law of this Final Order.
The panel did not accept Respondent's exception to the recommended penalty in view of the ruling of exceptions and adoption of Findings of Fact and conclusions as previously stated.
The panel amended the penalty from that recommended by the hearing officer in the Recommended Order for reason that the EPC precedents of cases with similar violations as stated in the adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law indicate that the penalty be reduced in regards to the period of revocation, and also increased in regards to the period of probation in order to impose appropriate monitoring of the Respondent for the protection of students.
Wherefore, it is ORDERED that Respondent's Florida educator's certificate be revoked for one year and that prior to any recertification as a Florida educator that the Respondent provide written verification from a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or mental health counselor that he poses no threat to children and is capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator, and that upon recertification and reemployment as a Florida educator that he serve three years of probation during said employment following recertification. The terms of probation shall be that Respondent shall notify the EPC immediately upon employment as an educator in any public or private school in the State of Florida; arrange for his immediate supervisor to submit performance reports to the EPC at least every three months; submit true copies of all formal observation/evaluation forms within ten days of issuance; engage in counseling with a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, or mental health counselor until discharged from treatment; arrange for a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, or mental health counselor to submit quarterly reports of participation and progress in counseling; complete three hours of college level course work in the area of sensitivity training; verify completion of sixty hours of community service, specifically service with youth.
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 Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within 30 days of the date of filing.
DONE AND ORDERED, this 6th day of December, 1992.
AARON WALLACE, Presiding Officer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of
the foregoing Order in the matter of BC vs Steven G. Miller was mailed
to Lawrence D. Black, Esquire, 650 Seminole Blvd., Largo, FL 34640-3625 this 10th day of December, 1991,
by U.S. Mail
KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk
COPIES FURNISHED:
Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services
Daniel Bosanko, Esquire Attorney General's
Sydney McKenzie, III General Counsel
Florida Admin. Law Reports
Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Supt. Pinellas County Schools
P.O. Box 2942
Largo, Florida 34649-2942
Steve Crosby, Director Personnel Services Pinellas County Schools
James Bradwell, Hearing Officer Division of Admin. Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Margaret O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 1701, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
vs. DOAH Case No. 91-6986
STEVEN G. MILLER,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
WHEREAS, by letter dated October 21, 1992 the Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, Florida recommended to the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida that Steven G. Miller be dismissed from his employment, that his professional service contract be terminated, and that he be suspended without pay pending the conclusion of any administrative hearing that was requested, which letter set forth the grounds therefor, and
WHEREAS, said Steven G. Miller timely requested an administrative hearing,
and
WHEREAS, an administrative hearing was conducted on May 5, 1992 before
James E. Bradwell, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and
WHEREAS, said James E. Bradwell has issued a Recommended Order, dated September 3, 1992, and
WHEREAS, each party has submitted exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, which together with the Recommended Order, the transcript of the administrative hearing, each exhibit introduced into evidence at the hearing, and each side's proposed Recommended Order, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is hereby accepted, adopted, and incorporated herein, in its entirety, except as specifically set forth herein, and it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's exception number 1 to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is accepted, and the word "immorality" is hereby substituted for the word "immortality", and it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's exception number 2 to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is hereby accepted, and the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Petitioner must prove Respondent to be guilty of misconduct in officer or gross insubordination is rejected, to the extent that
it may limit Petitioner's ability to impose discipline for "just cause" on a teacher employed by means of a professional service contract, and in place thereof it is concluded that discipline may be imposed on such a teacher for any "just cause", and it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's exception number 1 and 10 to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are hereby rejected as not being based on any provision of law, and is not seen how the use African American can be in any way detrimental to any party to this cause, and it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's exceptions numbered 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are hereby rejected, as there is competent substantial in the record to support each factual finding and the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, is best able to determine witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given evidence, and it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's exception number 3 to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is accepted, but only to the extent that the witness, Hadley, was not on a team of which Respondent was the designated coach, but it is noted that the record supports a finding that Respondent was a junior varsity basketball coach, while Hadley was on the varsity basketball team, and that Respondent worked with Hadley, informally, while she was on the varsity team, and it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's exception number 9 to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is hereby rejected, as not pertaining to issues addressed in this Final Order, and it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Steven Miller is hereby dismissed from his employment, his professional service contract with the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida is hereby terminated, effective this date, and his suspension without pay since November 14, 1991 is hereby sustained.
Any party adversely affected by this Order has the right to appeal to the Second District Court of Appeals, in Lakeland, Florida, by filing notice of intent to do so with the Clerk of that Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED on this the 9th day of December, 1992 in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: Chairman
Attest: Ex-Officio Secretary
cc: Lawrence Black, Esquire Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire
James E. Bradwell, Hearing Officer
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 17, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1992 | Final Order (in 92-0968) filed. |
| Nov. 05, 1992 | Order sent out. (the grant of an award of fees and costs to Petitioner is not warranted under the circumstances) |
| Oct. 14, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to Motion to Amend filed. |
| Oct. 09, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion to Amend Recommended Order to Include Award of Costs and Attorney`s Fees to Petitioner filed. |
| Oct. 09, 1992 | Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner`s Motion to Amend Recommended Order to Include Award of Costs and Attorney`s Fees to Petitioner to Include Award of Costs and Attorney`s Fees to Petitioner filed. |
| Sep. 03, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 5-5-92. |
| Jun. 29, 1992 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jun. 29, 1992 | (Petitioner`s) Proposed Recommended Order w/Appendix filed. |
| Jun. 23, 1992 | Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Supporting Argument filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1992 | Transcript (Volumes 1&2) w/cover ltr filed. |
| May 11, 1992 | (no attachments) Letter to JEB from Bruce P. Taylor (re: Recommended Order in case of School Board v. Lawrence Lynn & the Final Order of School Board adopting Recommended Order) filed. |
| Apr. 23, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike filed. |
| Mar. 27, 1992 | (Respondent) Response to Request to Produce; Response to Request for Admissions filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1992 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum w/Certificate of Non-Attendance filed. |
| Mar. 23, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5-5-92; 9:00am; St. Petersburg) |
| Mar. 20, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion to Compel Discovery filed. |
| Mar. 16, 1992 | Letter to JEB from Bruce P. Taylor (re: Motion to Continue from Lawrence Black) filed. |
| Mar. 16, 1992 | Order Consolidating Cases and Continuing Hearing sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 91-6986, 92-0968; hearing set for March 20, 1992 is cancelled) |
| Mar. 13, 1992 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Mar. 09, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1992 | Motion to Consolidate (with 92-968) and Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Feb. 06, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 31, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion in Limine and for Protective Order filed. |
| Jan. 13, 1992 | Petitioner`s Responses to Respondent`s Request for Production filed. |
| Jan. 07, 1992 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for March 20, 1992; 9:00am; Clearwater). |
| Jan. 03, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition (4) filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1992 | Petitioner`s First Requests for Admission; Petitioners Notice of Interrogatories; Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories; Petitioner`s First Request to Produce filed. |
| Dec. 20, 1991 | (Respondent) Request to Produce filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1991 | Petitioner`s Answers to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Feb. 18, 1992; 9:00am; Clearwater). |
| Nov. 25, 1991 | Ltr. to JEB from Bruce P. Taylor re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Nov. 18, 1991 | Respondent`s Notice of Interrogatories w/Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. |
| Nov. 04, 1991 | Initial Order issued. |
| Oct. 30, 1991 | Agency referral letter; Request for Administrative Hearing, letter form; Agency Action Letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 09, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 03, 1992 | Recommended Order | Whether respondent engaged in gross insurbordination and misconduct warranting his dismissal. |
POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MARY L. CANOVA, 91-006986 (1991)
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs GUYETTE DUHART, 91-006986 (1991)
POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MARY L. CANOVA, 91-006986 (1991)
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KENNETH C. PATTERSON, 91-006986 (1991)
BETTY CASTOR, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MARETTA WESLEY, 91-006986 (1991)
