STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BETTY CASTOR, as Commissioner ) of Education, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 93-2215
)
LARRY O. WILLIAMS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on October 6, 1993, before Daniel M. Kilbride, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire
BOND & BOYD, P.A.
411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: No Appearance
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined in accordance with Sections 231.262(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, for alleged acts of misconduct as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint, dated May 19, 1993, in violation of Sections 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and the Florida Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, dated October 1, 1990, with the Education Practices Commission (EPC), seeking disciplinary sanctions against his teaching certificate. Respondent denied the allegations in the complaint, and elected to have a formal hearing. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for adjudication. Petitioner filed a motion, with supporting documents, to remand the case to the EPC for an informal hearing.
The Hearing Officer granted the motion over the objection of Respondent, and held that Respondent was only entitled to an informal hearing at which he could
present evidence in mitigation to reduce or eliminate the penalty. The EPC conducted an informal hearing, and entered a Final Order revoking Respondent's Teacher's Certificate.
Respondent appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal of Florida, who reversed the Final Order, and remanded the case to the EPC for a formal hearing de novo. Larry O. Williams v. Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, Case No. 92-758 (Fla. 1st DCA, January 26, 1993). The Mandate of the court was issued on March 9, 1993, and this matter was remanded to the Division for formal hearing on April 15, 1993.
The parties engaged in active discovery immediately. Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint, and the Motion was granted over the objections of Respondent. The case was set for hearing based on the seven count Amended Administrative Complaint, dated May 19, 1993. The formal hearing was continued at the request of the Respondent in order to provided the parties with additional time for discovery. Following other prehearing motions, including motions to continue, in which Respondent participated, the formal hearing was held on October 6, 1993.
Immediately prior to the hearing, Respondent engaged in inapproprite prehearing conduct with the Petitioner's witnesses. An example of their conduct shows that on or about October 1, 1993, Respondent sent Cristie Braddy a Subpoena Ad Testificandum. On the back of the subpoena, he wrote a personal note which urged Cristie to call Respondent before the hearing, and it proclaimed his innocence. The note also stated, that he "knows where her father lives", and that Kristina Adkins, the victim in the criminal charges, is lying. He stated to Cristie that it is not right to destroy his teaching career.
Respondent signed the note L.W. Cristie Braddy recognized Respondent's handwriting on the subpoena. The witness did not like Respondent telling her not to testify, and did not like the fact that he knew where to find her.
On or about October 5, 1993, Monica Graham received a Subpoena Ad Testificandum. On the back of the subpoena Respondent wrote a personal note which urged Monica to call him as soon as possible. He wrote that this case will not end on October 6, 1993, and that he will appeal. It also stated that she should stop what she is doing. Monica Graham interpreted the note to mean that Respondent was trying to stop her from testifying at the formal hearing. She was familiar with Respondent's handwriting and recognized the handwriting on the note to belong to the Respondent.
Tiffany Gormly received a Subpoena Ad Testificandum from Respondent with a handwritten note on the back which she received on or about October 5, 1993.
The handwritten note said that Respondent had taped a phone call between Tiffany Gormly and Cristie Braddy that he had made in the past. The taped conversation, according to what Respondent wrote, indicated that Tiffany wanted him back as a teacher, and Respondent questioned why she was testifying against him. Tiffany interpreted the note that Respondent was trying to scare her into not testifying and coming to the formal hearing.
This inappropriate conduct was one reason for the denial of Respondent's repeated requests for a continuance.
At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of six (6) witnesses: Diana Floyd (Detective, Edgewater PD), John L. Reichert (EOC Coordinator, Seminole County School District), and four students, Naomi Whitker, Cristie Braddy, Monica Graham, and Tiffany Gormly. The Petitioner also introduced into evidence Exhibits 1-9.
The Respondent did not appear in person, through a representative, or present any evidence.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Petitioner elected to have the hearing transcribed. The parties present were advised to submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, within ten (10) days of the filing of the transcript with the Clerk of the Division. The Respondent was telephonically advised following the hearing. The transcript was filed on October 26, 1993. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the form of Proposed Recommended Order was timely filed on November 5, 1993. The Respondent has not filed proposed findings as of the date of this Order. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner have been treated in this Recommended Order, and are specifically ruled on as provided in Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, in the Appendix attached thereto and incorporated by reference herein.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 454394, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior High School Science, and Administration and Supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1994.
At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Mary Elementary School in the Seminole County School District.
On or about March 14, 1988, Respondent was arrested in Volusia County, Florida, and charged with Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority and Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. A Felony Arrest Warrant for Respondent was issued by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, dated March 11, 1988.
An Information was thereupon filed against Respondent in the case of State of Florida v. Larry O. Williams, Case No. 88-17776, and it charged Respondent with two (2) offenses: Count I: Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority, and Count II: Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child.
The state issued a Nolle Prosequi to the charge of Sexual Activity with a Child. Respondent entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to the lesser included charge in Count II of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child, a third degree felony.
On or about April 16, 1990, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child by the circuit court. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years probation, pay $41.00 per month for the cost of supervision, pay $225.00 in court costs and fines, and
successfully complete sexual offender counseling. He was also ordered to have no further contact with the victim or any other individuals involved in the case.
Detective Diana Floyd, with the Edgewater Police Department, was one of the detectives who assisted in the investigation of Respondent. The victim of the criminal activity by Respondent was Kristina Adkins.
Detective Diana Floyd interviewed Kristina Adkins as part of her investigation on March 9, 1988.
or about March 15, 1988, the Respondent was suspended with pay by the Seminole County Superintendent of Schools, Robert W. Hughes.
On or about March 24, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the School Board of Seminole County.
Respondent was on an annual contract, and his contract called for a renewal each year. The School Board, on or about March 24, 1988, decided not to renew his contract for the following school year.
During the 1987-1988 school year, Naomi Whitker was a fifth grade student at Lake Mary Elementary School, and was frequently in Respondent's classroom because her best friend, Cristie Braddy, was a student in Respondent's class. At that time, Naomi Whitker was ten years of age.
Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy would regularly assist in Respondent's classroom, generally after school.
On a regular basis, Respondent would touch Naomi Whitker's buttocks and hug her while she was in his classroom. This occurred during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School. The student would put her arms around Respondent's waist, and he would put his hands around her back and then move them slowly down until he touched her buttocks.
Naomi Whitker did not think that it was right for a teacher to touch her in that way, and she felt uncomfortable and confused.
A similar incident occurred when Respondent hugged Naomi and grabbed her buttocks as he was dropping the two girls off after taking them to dance class.
On one occasion in late February or early March, 1988, Naomi was hanging up something on Respondent's classroom wall, and was standing on a chair. Respondent came over, reached under her clothing, and put his hands on her stomach while he was holding her.
As a result of this touching of Naomi's stomach, she turned and ran out of the class. She felt afraid, angry, and embarrassed. She did not tell him to stop, but was so afraid that she ran out of the room.
On another occasion, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker, Cristie Braddy, and another girl out during the 1987-1988 school year to Monday night skate night, and to Show Biz Pizza thereafter. Respondent paid for the entire evening. As they were driving Respondent asked Cristie if she had any underwear on. Respondent also told Cristie that he was not wearing any underwear either.
Cristie Braddy, a student in Respondent's fifth grade class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, and best friend of Naomi Whitker at that time, was touched by Respondent. He would rub Cristie's back and stomach and then go down to her buttocks. He would also rub her shoulders.
Respondent also touched Cristie Braddy outside of the classroom, specifically at Show Biz Pizza, where he touched her back and shoulders. Also on a school sponsored camping trip he rubbed Cristie Braddy and touched her on the outside of her clothes, when he touched her back and shoulders, but on the inside when he touched her stomach.
The touching of Cristie Braddy by Respondent occurred during the entire 1987-1988 school year, and was not an isolated incident. It occurred on a daily basis.
On separate occasions, Respondent asked Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to come over to his apartment, and help clean it. However, they declined.
On another occasion, Respondent gave Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy a silver ring which said "love" on it. In handing the ring to Naomi and Cristie, Respondent said that he wanted them to have it because "I love you".
Also during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to the beach or to the mall with him, but they did not go with him.
Respondent made inappropriate comments to students in his classroom. For example, he would talk about how he and his wife got divorced because she would not have sex with him. He would also look at Naomi, and say that she needed to shave her legs, or that she was in a bad mood because she was beginning her period. He would also ask about whether the girls were kissing boys.
On another occasion in Respondent's fifth grade classroom at Lake Mary Elementary School, Cristie Braddy was sitting in the teacher's chair.
Respondent came up from behind her and sat on the chair directly behind her with his legs spread around her. Cristie Braddy quickly jumped out of the chair and went to a different part of the room.
Monica Graham, a student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, was also touched by Respondent. Respondent touched Monica Graham inappropriately on the shoulders and buttocks on the outside of her clothing, and on one occasion, he pinched her buttocks.
Monica Graham, as a result of the touching by Respondent, felt weird and embarrassed because he did it to her in front of the other students. She was also angry and hurt by Respondent touching her.
On the same camping trip that Christie Braddy and Monica Graham attended, Respondent, who was a chaperon, told the girls on the camping trip that if they got scared at night, they could come sleep in his tent.
Respondent invited Monica Graham to go swimming at his house, and one night asked if she wanted to come over and eat dinner with him. Monica Graham did not go because she told her parents, and they said it was inappropriate.
Respondent gave Monica Graham his home phone number. He told Monica it was for help in homework, but when she called, he did not talk about homework.
Tiffany Gormly, a fifth grade student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary school class at Lake Mary Elementary School during the 1987-1988 school year, was touched by Respondent. Respondent rubbed her shoulders, and tried to hold her hand. When Respondent tried to hold Tiffany Gormly's hand, she kicked him. As a result of Respondent's touching Tiffany Gormly, she felt uncomfortable and embarrassed. There were other students in front of her when Respondent rubbed her shoulders. She was angry, and told Respondent to stop.
Respondent also invited Tiffany Gormly to come to his apartment and go swimming. It bothered her, and she did not go.
On occasion, Respondent would look under the long table where students sat, as they watched movies in his classroom, and would try to look up the dresses of the girls.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and subject matter of these proceedings. Sections 120.57(1) and 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.
This proceeding involves disciplinary action against Respondent's teaching certificate. Therefore the burden of proof to establish the facts upon which the Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's teaching certificate is on the Petitioner. Balino v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The charges must be proved by the Petitioner through the introduction of clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Section 231.28(1), Florida Statues, authorizes the Education Practices Commission to suspend, revoke, or otherwise penalize a teaching certificate provided it can be shown that the holder of the certificate:
(c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude;
* * *
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation;
Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board; and
* * *
(h) Has otherwise violated the provisions of laws or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate.
In the determination of whether a violation of Section 231.38(1)(e) has occurred, the legislature has stated:
(2) The plea of guilty in any court, the decision of guilty by any court . . . shall be prima facie proof of grounds for revocation of the certificate as listed in subsection (1) in the absence of proof by the certificate holder that the plea of guilty, forfeiture of bond, or admission of guilt was caused by threats, coercion, or fraudulent means. Section 231.38(2), Florida Statutes.
Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, defines misconduct in office which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system as a violation of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part:
The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and shall apply to any individual holding a valid Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual teacher's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.
Obligations to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make a reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety.
* * *
(e) Shall not immediately expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
* * *
(h) Shall not exploit a professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.
The term "immorality' is defined in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
(2) Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standard of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education
profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individuals's service in the community.
The term "moral turpitude" is defined in Rule 6B-4.009(6), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which, according to the accepted standards of the time, a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statutes fixes the moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude has also been defined by the Supreme Court of Florida as follows:
Moral turpitude involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society . . . It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated.
Turlington v. Hollingsworth, 108 Fla. 607, 146 So. 660,661 (1933).
In the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, it has been alleged that he has committed the acts prohibited by the provisions of Section 231.28(1)(c),(e),(f) and (h), Florida Statutes. Further that he violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code.
The Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the felony of attempted lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child, on April 16, 1990. The circuit court adjudicated Respondent guilty after he entered a plea of nolo contendere. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 231.28(2), Respondent had the opportunity to present evidence that his plea was entered as a result of threats, coercion, and fraud. By his failure to attend at the hearing, he chose not to do so. Therefore, such an adjudication of guilt is a violation of Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and can be considered as grounds for revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate.
However, the adjudication of guilt in the criminal case is not conclusive proof of the facts upon which the underlying charges were based. The Respondent's no contest plea represents only the accused's unwillingness to contest charges against him, and does not constitute an admission of guilt and may not be used as direct evidence of guilt in an administrative proceeding. Larry O. Williams v. Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, Case No. 92-758 (Fla. 1st DCA January 26, 1993); Kelly v. HRS, 610 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The only evidence offered by the Petitioner for proof of the underlying charges pertaining to acts of misconduct, gross immorality or moral turpitude relating to the child, Kristina Adkins, is hearsay.
Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions, Section 120.58, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.026(3), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, Respondent must be found not guilty on Count One.
In regard to Respondent's conduct toward the four students, the cumulative effect of Respondent's behavior toward these children demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession did occur. Had the incidents described by the witnesses been isolated occurrences, none of them would have risen to the level of a violation. However, the incidents were not isolated or harmless when the age of the children and the number and type of events are evaluated. Therefore, Respondent should be found guilty of Counts Five, Six, and Seven of the Amended Complaint for violation of Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a),(e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code. Due to such violations, Respondent's personal conduct seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, and is a violation of the rules of the State Board of Education. Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Larry O. Williams is
not guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; but is guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for having been convicted of a felony; and is guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, due to his inappropriate touching and conduct with four of his students. It is further
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for the above violations.
DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
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 24th day of November, 1993.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2215
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.
Petitioner's proposed findings of fact.
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8 (in
part), 9, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,
62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 117.
Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43.
Rejected as irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 7(in part), 8 (in part), 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 55, 63, 67, 70, 71, 77, 78, 79, 90, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,
94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115.
Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert J. Boyd, Esquire BOND & BOYD, P.A.
411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Larry O. Williams
403 North Monroe Street Versailles, Missouri 65084
Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director
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 the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their 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.
=================================================================
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ORDER
=================================================================
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
LARRY O. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner/Appellant,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1994 CASE NO. 83,L34
District Court of Appeal,
v. 1st District - No. 93-3952
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, ETC., DOAH CASE NO. 93-2215
Respondent/Appellee.
/
This case having heretofore been submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b), Florida Constitution (1980), and the Court having determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed and the petition for review is denied.
GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur
A True Copy BH
cc: Hon. Jon S. Wheeler, Clerk
TEST:
Mr. Larry O. Williams Ms. Karen B. Wilde
Sid J. White Mr. Robert Boyd
Clerk, Supreme Court Mr. Daniel M. Kilbride
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 06, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Mar. 10, 1995 | Motion for an extension of time (up to 90 days) to file the appellant's "motion for rehearing/clarification" filed. |
| May 12, 1994 | Order from the SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (RE: declining to accept jurisdiction & ordered that the appeal is DISMISSED and the petition for review is DENIED) filed. |
| Feb. 18, 1994 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance and/or Stay Pending Judicial Review filed. |
| Feb. 15, 1994 | (Respondent) First Briefs filed. |
| Jan. 21, 1994 | Appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction filed. |
| Jan. 07, 1994 | (Respondent) Motion for A Continuance and/or Staty Pending Judicial Review filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1994 | Order Certifying Indigency sent out. |
| Dec. 27, 1993 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1993 | Copy of Certificate of Service from (First DCA) filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1993 | (Respondent) Motion to Object to "Motion to Dismiss Appeal" by D.O.E. Attorney filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1993 | Respondent's Exceptions Noted filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1993 | AGENCY APPEAL, ONCE THE RETENTION SCHEDULE OF -KEEP ONE YEAR AFTER CLOSURE- IS MET, CASE FILE IS RETURNED TO AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL. -ac |
| Nov. 24, 1993 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held October 6, 1993. |
| Nov. 08, 1993 | Letter to Clerk of Records from Larry O. Williams (re: requests complete, precise clear-copy of transcripts) filed. |
| Nov. 05, 1993 | Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 26, 1993 | Transcript w/cover ltr filed. |
| Oct. 21, 1993 | Request Documents filed. (From Carl K. Zolezzi) |
| Oct. 15, 1993 | (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service & Request for Subpoena to be Served filed. |
| Oct. 06, 1993 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 01, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover ltr filed. (From Lydia Figueva) |
| Sep. 30, 1993 | Order sent out. (Responden't Motion for Appointment of Public Defender Denied; Respondent's Motion to Reconsider Ordering Release of Records of Potiention Witnesses or for Taking Deposition Testimony in theirHomes Denied) |
| Sep. 30, 1993 | Order sent out (Respondent's Motion to Disqualify HO Denied; Respondent's Renewed Motion for Continuance Denied; Respondent's Motion to Redefine Limits of Focus Denied; Respondent's Motion to Object to Petitioner's Exhibits in Partial Content Denied; Resp |
| Sep. 29, 1993 | Response to Motion to Disqualify Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride;Motion to continue the Above Styled Case For Four Months; Motion to Re-Define the Limits of Focus in the Above Case; Motion to Object to Petitioner's Exhibits in Partial Content; And Re |
| Sep. 28, 1993 | Petitioner's Exhibit List filed. |
| Sep. 27, 1993 | (Respondent) Motion to Disqualify the Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride; Motion to Continue the Above Styled Case foer Four-Months; Motion to Re-Define the Limits The Limits of Focus in the Above Case; Motion to Object to to Petitioner's exhibits in Par |
| Sep. 21, 1993 | Letter to DMK from L. Hester (re: notification of no facts pertinent to case); (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum; (2) Notice of Hearing to Respondent's Witness; Additional Information for Subpoena Duces Tecum; Notice of Continuance of DOAH Hearing to October 6th, |
| Sep. 21, 1993 | Letter to DMK from C. Ahl (re: no pertinent facts to case); Subpoena Duces Tecum; (Respondent) Notice of Hearing To Respondent's Witness filed. |
| Sep. 20, 1993 | (Respondent) Subpoena Duces Tecum (4); Notice of Service; Notice of Hearing filed. |
| Sep. 20, 1993 | Respondent's Lists of Witnesses to Be Called for Deposition and/or for Appearance at Final Hearing; Certificate of Service filed. |
| Sep. 17, 1993 | Letter to DMK from C. Ahl (re: witness request not to appear at hearing) filed. |
| Sep. 13, 1993 | Letter to DMK from Lisa Hester (re: Subpoena & Notice of Hearing Continuance) filed. |
| Sep. 09, 1993 | (Petitioner) Response to Motion to Afford the Respondent the Servicesof a Public Defender for Leagal Counsel Without Charge and Motion to Continue this Case for Four Months filed. |
| Sep. 09, 1993 | Notice of Hearing; Sworn Testimony of Kristina Lynn Adkins; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. (From Kristi Adkins) |
| Sep. 08, 1993 | (Respondent) Motion to Afford the Respondent the Services of a PublicDefender for Legal-Counsel Without Charge and Motion to Continue thisCase for Four Months filed. |
| Sep. 02, 1993 | Order for Prehearing Conference sent out (To be held 9/10/93; 9:30am) |
| Aug. 31, 1993 | Response to Motion to Supplement: Motion to Object to Response to Objection to Issuance of A Protective Order by D.O.A.H. filed. (From Michael J. Glazer) |
| Aug. 30, 1993 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Aug. 30, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover ltr filed. (from Allen A. Hans) |
| Aug. 27, 1993 | Letter to DMK from Phil Wiley (re: no file or record on respondent) filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1993 | Certificate of Service, Supplement to: Motion to Object (Regarding Protective Order) w/Motion to Supplement: Motion to Object to Response to Objection to Issuance of A Protective Order by DOAH filed. |
| Aug. 24, 1993 | Letter to DMK from Robert J. Boyd (re: petitioner's correct address) filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1993 | Petitioner's Witness List filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover ltr filed. (From Lori Stokes) |
| Aug. 23, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/cover ltr filed. (From R. R. Herndon) |
| Aug. 19, 1993 | Letter to DMK from Dempsey Lawson (re: motion to quash subpoena) filed. |
| Aug. 19, 1993 | CC (ltr form) Response to Subpoena Ducest Tecum Served by Mail on Northeast Gwinnett Cablevision) filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1993 | Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. (From Sherry Schmidt Ellison) |
| Aug. 13, 1993 | (Request for Subpoenas) Order for Additional in-Blank Subpoenas filed. |
| Aug. 04, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Return of Service filed. (From Larry O. Williams) |
| Jul. 28, 1993 | Petitioner's Response to Respondent's First Request for Admissions and First Request for Discovery filed. |
| Jul. 27, 1993 | Respondent's Prehearing Stipulation Share filed. |
| Jul. 26, 1993 | Request for Waiver of Indigency filed. (From Larry O. Williams) |
| Jul. 23, 1993 | Motion for A 120 (Four Month) Continuance of Case No. 93-2215 and Motion for Extension of Indigency to Include Costs and Expenses and Supplemental List of Witness & Materials filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1993 | Motion to Object to Response (Motions Regarding Protective Order); Motion to Object to Response to Objection to Issuance of A Protective Order by DOAH filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1993 | Order Continuing Hearin sent out. (set for 10/6-8/93; 1:00pm; Orlando) |
| Jul. 22, 1993 | (Respondent) Supplement to Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Jul. 20, 1993 | Order Quashing Subpoena sent out. |
| Jul. 19, 1993 | Order Quashing Subpoena sent out. |
| Jul. 14, 1993 | (Respondent) Motion for at Least a Forty-Five Day Continuance of CaseNo 93-2215 filed. |
| Jul. 14, 1993 | Response to Motion to Object to Issuance of Protective Order filed. (From Micheal J. Glazer) |
| Jul. 09, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service filed. (from Larry O. Williams) |
| Jul. 09, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service filed. (From Larry O. Williams) |
| Jul. 08, 1993 | Letter to DMK from J. Woods (re: Records of Kristina Lynn Adkins) filed. |
| Jul. 07, 1993 | Petitioner's Preliminary Witness List filed. |
| Jul. 06, 1993 | Respodnent's First Lists of Materials and Documents for Use in Defense of This Case filed. |
| Jul. 06, 1993 | Certificate of Service; Additional Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum in-Blanks; Respondent's First Lists of Prospective Witnesses to Be Called for Deposition and/or Appearance at Final Hearing; Respondent's First Lists of Prospective Witnesses to Be Called |
| Jul. 06, 1993 | (Respondent) Motion to Object to Issuance of Protective Order filed. |
| Jul. 06, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service filed. (From Larry O. Williams) |
| Jun. 30, 1993 | Letter to Larry O. Williams from Arlene Lee (re: Kristina Lynn Adkins psychological treatment) filed. |
| Jun. 29, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Returns of Service filed. (From Larry O. Williams) |
| Jun. 24, 1993 | Motion for Protective Order filed. (From Michael J. Glazer) |
| Jun. 23, 1993 | (Respondent) First Request for Discovery filed. |
| Jun. 22, 1993 | CC (no enclosures) Letter to Larry O. William from S. E. Smith filed. |
| Jun. 21, 1993 | (5) Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Return of Service filed. (From Larry O. Williams) |
| Jun. 17, 1993 | Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service filed. (From Larry O. Williams) |
| Jun. 16, 1993 | Notice of Propounding Petitioner's First Interrogatories to Respondent; Request for Production; Petitioner's First Request for Admissions by Respondent filed. |
| Jun. 15, 1993 | Ltr. to DMK from R. Boyd re: non-objection to 40 subps. filed. |
| Jun. 14, 1993 | Subp DT filed. |
| Jun. 11, 1993 | Order Certifying Indigency sent out. |
| Jun. 10, 1993 | Motion to Withdraw and Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Jun. 08, 1993 | Order sent out. (RE: motion for leave to amend administrative complaint, granted) |
| Jun. 08, 1993 | Notice of Hearing and Initial Prehearing Order sent out. (hearing set for 08/04-06/93; 1:00pm; Orlando) |
| May 28, 1993 | (Respondent) Motion to Object to Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint to Comply With Order of Remand filed. |
| May 26, 1993 | Letter to M O`Sullivan from DMK sent out. (Re: additional request for subpoenas) |
| May 24, 1993 | (Respondent) Request for Subpoenas ; Motion to Be Declared Indigent filed. |
| May 19, 1993 | (Petitioner) Motion for Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint to Comply With Order of Remand w/attached opinion filed. |
| May 19, 1993 | (Petitioner) Amended Administrative Complaint filed. |
| May 14, 1993 | Letter to L. Williams from D. Lambert (response to request for 50 subpoena, enclosing 10) filed. |
| May 11, 1993 | (Respondent) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| May 11, 1993 | Letter to DMK from L. Williams (Request for Subpoenas) filed. |
| May 10, 1993 | Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel filed. (From Robert J. Boyd) |
| May 05, 1993 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1993 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 20, 1993 | Agency referral letter; Mandate; Opinion; Record on Appeal (record on appeal tagged) filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 23, 1994 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 24, 1993 | Recommended Order | Respondent's teaching certificate can be revoked based on adjudiction of guilt by court of felony; underlying charges not proven; improper touching of students. |
STEVE J. LONGARIELLO vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 93-002215 (1993)
DOUG JAMERSON, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs DAVID L. SMITH, 93-002215 (1993)
FRANK T. BROGAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs LISA COHEN, 93-002215 (1993)
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL vs. ERNEST B. BROWN, 93-002215 (1993)
RUSSELL JOHN DAVIS, JR. vs. EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, 93-002215 (1993)
