STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BETTY CASTOR, as )
Commissioner of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 92-0175
)
TIMOTHY R. MORRIS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on June 2-4, 1992, in Orlando, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: John F. Gilroy
Department of Education
352 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
For Respondent: Joseph Egan, Jr.
EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A.
P.O. Box 2231
Orlando, Florida 32802 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated October 8, 1991; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case began on October 14, 1991, when the Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, filed an administrative complaint against the Respondent, Timothy R. Morris. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct toward minor female students by inappropriately touching them; by telephoning them at home regarding non- school related topics; by writing "I love you" on a student's hand; by hugging a female student; and by participating in an unauthorized student activity, a "slambook." The Petitioner alleged that the foregoing conduct constituted violations of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, as well as Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code.
The Respondent filed an election of rights, disputed the factual allegations against him, and requested a formal hearing. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on January 9, 1992.
At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Timothy R. Morris, the Respondent; Karen McCue, a student at Union Park Middle School; Natalie Cox, a student at Union Park Middle School; Stacey Lambusta, a former student at Union Park Middle School; Jessica Rakes, a former student at Union Park Middle School; Cheryl Rakes, Jessica's mother; Andrea Brown, a student at Union Park Middle School; Jamie Smith, a student at Union Park Middle School; John Hawco, senior manager of employee relations for the Orange County Public Schools; and Glenn Terry, principal at Union Park Middle School. Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1, 2, and 3 were admitted into evidence.
The Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered the testimony of the following: Shaun Brown, a former student at Union Park Middle School; John Hawco; Star Thomas, a student at Union Park Middle School; Dustin Goodman, a student at Union Park Middle School enrolled in Respondent's class; Larine Bayes, a student at Union Park Middle School enrolled in Respondent's class; Scott Mankovich, a former student at Union Park Middle School; and Jessica Beatty, a teacher at Union Park Middle School.
The transcript of the proceeding was filed on June 25, 1992. Respondent filed a motion for an extension of the time within which to file a proposed recommended order to which the Petitioner agreed. By order entered July 7, 1992, the parties were granted leave until July 20, 1992, to file their proposed orders. Respondent filed a second request for an extension on July 21, 1992, which the Petitioner opposed. By order entered July 30, 1992, Petitioner was granted leave until August 10, 1992, to file a reply to the Respondent's proposed recommended order which had been filed July 28, 1992. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are included in the attached appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made:
The Respondent is the holder of a teacher's certificate, number 617425, for the area of social studies. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1996.
During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent was employed by the Orange County School District as a teacher at Union Park Middle School (Union Park).
All allegations material to the case against Respondent occurred during his employment at Union Park and involved female students who were either enrolled in his class or members of the social studies club Respondent sponsored.
During 1990-91 school year, Respondent placed telephone calls to female students. The purpose of such calls was to convey school-related or social studies club information to the student; however, Respondent frequently allowed the subject matter of the telephone conversations to extend to private, non-
school topics. These private topics included discussions regarding who liked who for boyfriends and girlfriends as well as the personal appearance and conduct of various students. Additionally, the length of time involved in such conversations varied from a matter of minutes to almost an hour in length.
Also during the school year, Respondent participated in the completion of a "slam book." A "slam book" is an unauthorized school activity in which students are not to participate. In general, a "slam book" is a book wherein students make comments about others. In many instances such comments may be unflattering or uncomplimentary. If discovered, teachers generally confiscate such books and admonish students regarding them.
In Respondent's case, when he was asked to sign a "slam book" belonging to Karen McCue, Respondent completed many of the headings with personal comments about others known to the students completing the book. The completion of the book by a student, much less a teacher, was against school policy.
On one occasion, Respondent wrote on a student's hand by drawing an eyeball, a heart, followed by the letter U. The student interpreted, and Respondent intended, the message to mean "I love you." As a result, the student became self-conscious and went to the restroom to wash the message off. While Respondent did not intend the message to embarrass the student, such action, nevertheless, made her uncomfortable.
On several occasions, Respondent made female students uncomfortable by touching them. None of the touches were intended or interpreted by the students as sexual in nature. None of the touches involved inappropriate parts of the body. All such touches occurred in full view of the class or others. None of the touches made the students uncomfortable at the time they were made; only later, in retrospect, did the students feel uncomfortable. Such touches included playing with a female student's hair, holding a female student's hand, or a side-to-side hug.
After Respondent confiscated a Gloria Estefan concert program book from one of the female student leaders, the allegations of impropriety at issue in these proceedings were raised. Prior to that incident, Respondent had enjoyed considerable popularity with the students in his classes and the social studies club.
Rumors of improper touchings, not substantiated or alleged in this case, were rampant. Understandably, parent concern and administrator involvement as a result of the complaints followed.
On March 28, 1991, the Orange County School District issued a letter of reprimand to the Respondent based upon the alleged inappropriate verbal and written comments to students.
Additionally, at the conclusion of the school year, Respondent's teaching contract was not renewed for the 1991-92 school year.
Because he engaged in behaviors that interfered with the student/teacher relationship, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was substantially reduced. Respondent failed to maintain a proper, professional distance between himself, as the teacher, and the female students. By engaging in personal telephone conversations and the "slam book," Respondent failed to establish his role as the disciplinarian and authority figure inherent in being their teacher.
Respondent enjoyed a good teaching reputation among his fellow teachers and received favorable recommendations and evaluations from his principal.
Respondent did not commit any act reflecting gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.
Respondent did not commit any act that resulted in a failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety.
Respondent did not intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
Respondent did not intentionally exploit his professional relationship with students for personal gain or advantage.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
In order to revoke a professional license, the agency bears the burden of proof to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent has committed a violation for which such penalty is appropriate. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:
The Education Practice 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 provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate.
Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, which lists the principles of professional conduct for the education profession in Florida, provides, in pertinent part:
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.
In this case, the Petitioner has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent failed to maintain his professional distance from students and that as a result, the female students did not accept discipline from "their friend." Instead, they became uncomfortable with the Respondent and raised the factual matters of his past informal conduct to justify their newly found discomfort. Had Respondent not engaged in the inappropriate personal activities, his effectiveness could not have been compromised. By engaging in telephone discussions of a personal nature, by participating in their "slam book," by writing on a student's hand, or any of the other "friend" activities, Respondent sent the students a confusing message. Obviously, when the rumors of impropriety spread, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was irreversibly injured.
To his credit, Respondent cooperated with school administrators and has been honest, if not inappropriately naive, regarding the factual matters of this case. How Respondent considered participation in the "slam book" an appropriate teacher activity is fairly indicative of his naive nature.
More important, however, Respondent did not inappropriately touch any female student. Nor did his conversations with them descend to an immoral or base level. He simply communicated with them as they did amongst themselves; which is, in itself, inappropriate for a teacher. Just as there is a line between parent and child, Respondent allowed the line between teacher and student to become obscured. Consequently, although the incidents were very minor in nature, collectively they resulted in his effectiveness as a teacher being seriously impaired.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent for the conduct set forth above.
DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JOYOUS D. PARRISH
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1992.
APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0175
RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER:
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted.
With regard to paragraph 6, the last sentence is accepted; otherwise rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 7 is accepted.
Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or argument.
The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as recitation of testimony or unnecessary. It is accepted that a slam book is an inappropriate activity for students as well as teachers.
Paragraph 10 is accepted.
Paragraph 11 is rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 12 is rejected as recitation of testimony and/or argument.
Paragraph 13 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence (except as addressed in the foregoing findings of fact).
Paragraph 14 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. It is accepted that Respondent's informal conversations with students did not maintain an appropriate level of professional distance; otherwise rejected as indicated.
Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or irrelevant to the extent not addressed in the findings of fact.
Paragraph 16 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant.
Paragraph 17 is rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant, or unnecessary.
To the extent not addressed in the findings of fact, paragraphs 18 through 32 are rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or recitation of testimony. For the most part, the
allegations suggested by the findings proposed constitute much ado about little. Respondent clearly did not maintain an appropriate distance from students; however, his conduct did not rise to a level to reflect a lack of moral character or be grossly immoral. In essence, Respondent's error was to try to be the student's friend more than their teacher. As a result, his role as their teacher was compromised.
Paragraph 33 is accepted with the deletion of the word "embarrassment." Respondent experienced a breakdown in the student/teacher relationship, he did not intend to embarrass the students.
The first sentence of paragraph 34 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
The first sentence of paragraph 35 is accepted; the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant.
With regard to paragraph 37 it is accepted that Respondent's behaviors seriously undermined his effectiveness at Union Park; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Further, it has not been shown that such behaviors were widely known in the community or that his effectiveness in another location would be compromised. Clearly, the incidents of this case were fairly minor, isolated, and impacted but one school. Since the Respondent has been appropriately disciplined, such prior conduct should not prohibit the Respondent from teaching in another location where his effectiveness has not been questioned. It might be concluded that Respondent has learned from the errors of his past.
RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
To the extent not accepted and addressed by the findings of fact above, Respondent's proposed findings of fact are rejected as irrelevant, repetitive, contrary to the weight of the evidence, argumentative, or unnecessary. Respondent was well-liked and considered a "good teacher" by many of his students. In that his principal did not know of Respondent's informal relationships with students, he considered Respondent a "good teacher." Respondent's ability to maintain an appropriate professional distance from his students is the only violation established by this record.
COPIES FURNISHED:
John F. Gilroy, Esquire Attorney
Professional Practices Services
352 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Joseph Egan, Jr.
P.O. Box 2231
Orlando, Florida 32802
Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission
301 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services
352 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 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 ORDER OF REMAND FOR CLARIFICATION
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BETTY CASTOR, as
Commissioner of Education,
Petitioner,
EPC CASE NO. 91-236-RT
vs. DOAH CASE NO. 92-0175
TIMOTHY RAY MORRIS,
Respondent.
/
ORDER OF REMAND FOR CLARIFICATION
The Recommended Order in this case is Remanded to the Hearing Officer for clarification by addition of express and explicit rulings on Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact, Kinast vs. Deaftment of Professional Regulation, 458 So2d 1159, (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), Pelham vs. Superintendent of School Board of Wakulla County, 436 So2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Island Harbor Beach vs.
Department of Natural Resources, 476 So2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
It is further requested that said clarification be rendered as soon as reasonably possible in order to minimize delay in final adjudication of this matter.
Respectfully submitted, this 22nd day February, 1993.
JUDITH RATZLAFF, Presiding Officer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Order in the matter of
BC vs. Timothy R. Morris mailed
to Joseph Egan, Esquire, 918 Lucerne Terrace, Orlando, Florida 32806, this 25th day of February, 1993, by U.S. Mail.
KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk
Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services
Daniel Bosanko, Esquire Attorney General's Office
Sydney McKenzie, III General Counsel
Florida Admin. Law Reports
Margaret O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 1701, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Joyous D. Parrish, Hearing Officer Division of Admin. Hearings
The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
=================================================================
DOAH ORDER ON REMAND
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BETTY CASTOR, as Commissioner ) of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 92-0175
)
TIMOTHY R. MORRIS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
ORDER ON REMAND
On March 15, 1993, the record in the above-styled case was provided in order to comply with an order directing that explicit rulings be entered for Respondent's proposed findings of fact. In accordance with that directive the following rulings are made:
1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 40, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53,
54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, 81, 86, 87, 94, 95, 97, 101, 106, 107,
108, 109, 113, 114, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 129, 130, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149,
150, 154, 161, 162, 163, 164, 169, 171, 172, 176 are accepted.
Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, vague or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or if a statement of fact contrary to the weight of the evidence presented.
Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. The Respondent's relationship with students was "good" only in the sense that they liked him and he related to them at their level; unfortunately, he did not maintain his role as teacher at his level.
Paragraph 14 is rejected as vague or if meant to include effective, such statement is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 29 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 31 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 32 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 33 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 34 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 37 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 47 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 49 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 62 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 66 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.
Paragraph 67 is rejected as irrelevant, vague, and unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 69 is rejected as repetitive.
Paragraph 70 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 71 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 72 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 73 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 74 is rejected as irrelevant, not supported by the weight of credible evidence, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 75 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 76 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 77 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 78 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 79 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 80 is rejected as inconsistent with Respondent's own proposed finding (no. 49), irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 82 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 83 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 84 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 85 is rejected as irrelevant, inconsistent with Respondent's own proposed finding (no. 49), or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 88 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 89 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 90 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 91 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 92 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 93 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 96 is rejected as irrelevant.
The first sentence of Paragraph 98 is accepted; otherwise rejected as argument or irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
Paragraph 99 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 100 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 102 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 103 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 104 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 105 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 110 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 111 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 112 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 115 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 116 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 117 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 118 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 119 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case.
Paragraph 120 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 125 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary; Respondent touched leg not in a romantic or immoral manner.
Paragraph 127 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 128 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 131 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary; Respondent's hug made student feel uncomfortable.
Paragraph 132 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 133 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 134 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 135 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 136 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 137 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
The second sentence of paragraph 138 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 139 is rejected as vague or irrelevant.
Paragraph 140 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 142 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 143 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 144 is rejected as repetitive, conflicting with own proposed findings of fact, irrelevant or unnecessary.
Paragraph 145 is rejected as irrelevant, vague, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 151 is rejected as irrelevant, vague, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 152 is rejected as irrelevant, vague, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 153 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 155 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case. Also comment taken out of context of witness' overall testimony.
Paragraph 156 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 157 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 158 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 159 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 160 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case; and not supported by the record cited.
Paragraph 165 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 166 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 167 is rejected as vague, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 168 is rejected as vague, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 170 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 173 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 174 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 175 is rejected as vague, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 177 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 178 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 179 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 180 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 181 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 182 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 183 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 184 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 185 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
Paragraph 186 is accepted as stated in finding of fact paragraph 17; otherwise rejected as argument.
Paragraph 187 is accepted as stated in finding of fact paragraph 18; otherwise rejected as argument.
Paragraph 188 is rejected as rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 189 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 190 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
Paragraph 191 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of the case.
DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JOYOUS D. PARRISH
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 6th day of May, 1993.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services
352 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission
301 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Joseph Egan, Jr.
Post Office Box 2231
Orlando, Florida 32802
John F. Gilroy
Professional Practices Services
352 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Pat Wright
Education Practices Commission
301 Florida Education Center
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BETTY CASTOR, as
Commissioner of Education,
Petitioner, CASE NO. 91-236-RT DOAH CASE NO. 92-0175
vs. EPC INDEX NO. 93-078-FOF
TIMOTHY R. MORRIS,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, TIMOTHY R. MORRIS, holds Florida educator's certificate no.
617425. 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 issued by the Division Hearing Officer on October 20, 1992 was forwarded to the Commission pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., (copy attached to and made a part of this order). The matter was subsequently remanded to the hearing officer and an Order of Remand issued on May 6, 1993.
A panel of the Education Practices Commission (EPC) met on June 22, 1993 in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, to take final agency action. Petitioner was
represented by Margaret O'Sullivan, Esquire. Respondent was represented by Joseph Egan, Jr. Esquire. The panel reviewed the entire record in the case.
Petitioner and Respondent both filed exceptions to the Recommended Order.
Copies of those exceptions are attached to and incorporated by reference.
RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS
Exception Number 1 is accepted and modifies Conclusion of Law 23.
Exception Number 2 is accepted.
Exception Number 3 is rejected ads not being a rule of the Commission.
Exception Number 4 is rejected since Respondent was on notice of the witnesses against him.
Exception Number 5 is rejected since the May 6, 1993, Order on Remand cleared that defect.
RULINGS OF PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS
Exception Number 1 was withdrawn by Petitioner, based on the Rulings of Respondent's Exceptions.
Exception Number 2 was rejected as moot, based on the Rulings of Respondent's Exceptions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Commission adopts as its Findings of Fact paragraphs 1-18 of the hearing officer's Findings of Fact to the extent they are not modified by Rulings on exceptions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission specifically rejects the last sentence in paragraph 25 of the hearing officer's Conclusions of Law. By accepting the Respondent's Exceptions, this conclusion is not supported. Similarly, paragraph 23 is overruled by the acceptance of the Exceptions.
The Commission adopts paragraphs 19-22, 24, and 25, as modified by the Exceptions, in the hearing officer's Conclusions of Law as its Conclusions of Law.
PENALTY
The Commission, finding that the evidence did not support a conclusion that Mr. Morris' effectiveness as a teacher was seriously impaired, cannot consider a penalty. Instead, the Commission Orders the case closed and the charges dismissed.
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 10th day of July, 1993.
GREGORY DICK, Presiding Officer
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services
Ann Cocheu, Esquire Attorney General's Office
Sydney McKenzie, III General Counsel
Admin. Law Reports Orange County Schools
434 North Tampa Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802
Michael Mekdeci, Assoc. Supt. Department of Personnel Services Orange County Schools
Joyous Parrish, 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
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Order in the matter of
BC vs. Timothy R. Morris was mailed to Joseph Egan Esq., P.O. Box
2231, Orlando, Florida 32806, this 14th day of July 1993, by U.S. Mail.
KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 15, 1993 | Final Order filed. |
| May 06, 1993 | Order on Remand sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Mar. 15, 1993 | Order of Remand for Clarification w/Original Transcript & Exhibits filed. (From Pat Wright) |
| Mar. 02, 1993 | Order of Remand for Clarification filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1992 | Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1992 | Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held June 2-4, 1992. |
| Aug. 20, 1992 | (ltr form) Response to Order filed. (From John F. Gilroy) |
| Jul. 30, 1992 | Order sent out. (Petitioner is granted 10 days leave to file a reply to the reply to the Respondent`s proposed recommended order) |
| Jul. 28, 1992 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1992 | CC Letter to John Gilroy from Kristyn Coppena (re: PRO) w/cover ltr filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1992 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondent`s Request for Extension of Time &cover ltr filed. |
| Jul. 21, 1992 | (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| Jul. 20, 1992 | (Petitioner`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 07, 1992 | Order sent out. (motion Granted) |
| Jul. 06, 1992 | (Respondent) -Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| Jun. 25, 1992 | Transcript (Vols 1-8) filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1992 | Respondent`s Reply to Order to Show Cause w/Respondent`s Position on Prehearing Statement; Respondent`s Amended Witness List filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1992 | Respondents Position on Prehearing Statement filed. |
| May 27, 1992 | Order to Show Cause sent out. (parties to show cause why this case should not be closed, must file reply by 6-1-92) |
| May 22, 1992 | Prehearing Stipulation w/cover ltr filed. (from John B. Giroy) |
| Apr. 24, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for June 2-4, 1992; 11:00am; Orlando) |
| Apr. 22, 1992 | Order sent out. (hearing set for June 2 through 4, 1992; 11:00am; Orlando, parties shall file their prehearing statement no later than 5:00pm, 5-22-92) |
| Apr. 20, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Hearing Date and Prehearing Order filed. |
| Apr. 06, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (motion to continue granted; parties shall confer and report to undersigned, no later than 5:00pm, 4-30-92, to advise as to whether a hearing will be required in this case) |
| Apr. 03, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Apr. 03, 1992 | Letter to JDP from John F. Gilroy (re: Proposed arrangement regarding the final hearing) filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 10, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 8, 1992; 1:30pm; Orlando). |
| Jan. 22, 1992 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1992 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jan. 09, 1992 | Agency referral letter; Respondent`s Reply to Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 10, 1993 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 20, 1992 | Recommended Order | Teacher's effectiveness seriously reduced by informal actions with students no showing of immoral conduct. |
