STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BETTY CASTOR, AS COMMISSIONER ) OF EDUCATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3376

)

DANITA WYNNE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on October 5, 1993, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jill M. Boyd, Esquire

BOND & BOYD, P.A.

411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Danita Wynne, Pro Se

9277 Dunwoody Lane

Indianapolis, Indiana 46229 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 1, 1993, the Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, who was, at the times pertinent hereto, a certificated teacher in the State of Florida. Respondent's certificate had expired at the time of the formal hearing. The Administrative Complaint contained certain factual allegations and charged that Respondent is incompetent to teach or to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system in violation of Sections 231.28(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), and that the Respondent had been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the school board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1993). The Respondent timely filed an Election of Rights, and this proceeding followed.

At the hearing the Petitioner presented the testimony of the following seven (7) witnesses: Ronald S. Wright, Faye Henry, Ellis James Dardeen, Erma Lucille Sloan Harrison, Dr. Valoria Latson, Shirley Logan, and Lucy Thomas. Mr. Wright is Director of Professional Standards for the Broward County School Board. Ms. Henry is the office manager at Castle Hill Elementary School. Mr.

Dardeen is an investigator for the Special Investigative Unit, Broward County School Board. Ms. Harrison is a data processing clerk at Castle Hill Elementary School. Dr. Latson is the principal of Castle Hill Elementary School. Ms.

Logan is a teacher at Castle Hill Elementary School. Ms. Thomas is a personal friend of the Respondent and the principal of Walker Elementary School. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. Benjamin Barnea and of Sonja Bernard as transcribed in the September 4, 1991 formal hearing heard before DOAH and its duly designated Hearing Officer, William Dorsey, in the case of Virgil L. Morgan

v. Danita Wynne, DOAH Case No. 91-2839. Because Petitioner established that these two witnesses were unavailable for the formal hearing, their former testimony is accepted as substantive evidence pursuant to Section 90.804(2), Florida Statutes. Dr. Barnea is a psychiatrist who conducted evaluations of the Respondent. Ms. Bernard is a personal friend of the Respondent. Petitioner presented nine (9) exhibits, each of which was accepted into evidence.

At the hearing, the Respondent did not testify on her own behalf, did not present the testimony of any witnesses, and did not offer any exhibits into evidence.

Respondent received Petitioner's First Request For Admissions, but she did not serve a written answer or objection to the Petitioner's Request For Admissions within the time permitted by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Respondent offered no valid reason for her failure to respond to the Requests for Admission. Pursuant to Rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, these requests for admission were deemed conclusively admitted.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 595057, covering the area of Speech and Language Impaired, which is valid through June 30, 1993.

   
   

2. At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, the Respondent was employed as a Speech Therapist at Castle Hill Elementary School (hereinafter "Castle Hill") in the Broward County School District.

   
   

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Dr. Valoria Latson was the principal of Castle Hill, Ronald Wright was the Director of Professional Standards for the Broward County School Board, Mark Seigle was the Associate Superintendent of the Broward County School Board, and Virgil Morgan was the Superintendent of the Broward County School Board.

   
   

4. In the Spring of 1990, the Respondent began to exhibit unusual and bizarre behavior both in and out of school. Such behavior included:

   
   

   1. Claiming that students in her class and children around her neighborhood were watching her;

   2. Claiming that students and teachers were talking about her personal life;

   3. Claiming that her classroom, apartment, phone and car contained covert listening devices;

   4. Claiming that unknown persons were breaking into her car and home on a frequent basis;

   5. Calling police on numerous occasions requesting them to investigate and/or fingerprint her apartment and car because they were tampered with;

   6. Claiming that she was being followed by friends, staff members, church members and the State of Florida;

   7. Claiming that her lesson plans had been stolen and copied;

   8. Claiming that her lesson plans were being photographed by a camera in the light bulbs or air conditioner in her classroom;

   9. Claiming that staff members were listening in on her class through the school intercom.

      
      

5. The accusations and claims made by the Respondent were the product of delusional thought processing and paranoia.

   
   

6. Dr. Latson became concerned about Respondent's bizarre behavior, which she described as exhibiting overt signs of paranoia. In July of 1990 Dr. Latson referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"). This referral did not benefit the Respondent.

   
   

7. With the onset of the 1990-91 school year, Dr. Latson remained concerned about Respondent's continued bizarre behavior. On September 10, 1990, Dr. Latson advised Mr. Wright of her concerns about Respondent and about the referral to the EAP. On September 21, 1990, Dr. Latson advised Mr. Wright that she had not observed any significant changes or improvements in the Respondent. Mr. Wright recommended that Dr. Latson have her Assistant, Ms. Weissberg, observe the Respondent at least 2 to 5 minutes a day, 3 to 4 days a week, to be certain that nothing was going on in that classroom that should not be.

   
   

8. On or about October 26, 1990, Dr. Valoria Latson had a conference with the Respondent and the Assistant Principal, Ms. Weissberg, at which time the Respondent indicated that she was "tired of this shit" and would be giving them her letter of resignation. The Respondent failed to bring in her letter of resignation.

   
   

9. The Respondent had also informed Ms. Laura Rogers, Program Specialist with the Exceptional Student Education Department for the central area, that she was going to resign.

   
   

10. After further observation of Respondent's behavior, it was determined that a formal psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent would be appropriate.

11. On November 5, 1990, Dr. Latson met with Mr. Seigle and Ms. Lucy Thomas, a friend of the Respondent, regarding the Respondent's unusual behavior. Dr. Latson was concerned about the Respondent's ability to function as a classroom teacher and her ability to work with children and adults in a school setting. Dr. Latson requested that Mr. Seigle make arrangements for a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent. She also requested that Respondent be taken out of the classroom until her emotional and mental stability was assessed.

    
    

12. Dr. Latson believed that a psychological evaluation of the Respondent was necessary because of her bizarre behavior and her unusual accusations. Dr. Latson believed that the Respondent's effectiveness in the classroom had been reduced, and that it was in the best interests of the students for Respondent to be evaluated.

    
    

13. Dr. Benjamin Barnea, a physician trained in Neurology and Psychiatry, conducted an initial evaluation of the Respondent on November 8, 1990. Dr. Barnea summarized his findings in a letter to Mr. Seigle on November 12, 1990. Dr. Barnea's impression of Respondent's condition was that of schizophreniform disorder. His recommendation provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    The patient presently shows overt delusional thought processing that prevents her from functioning and interacting with her peers and students. I would not recommend that she be returned to her regular employment until she seeks treatment and is stabilized. Since she has never had a formal workup for her disturbed thought processing, I would recommend that she receive an MRI of the brain and an EEG for completeness sake to rule out possible underlying pathology that might be amenable to treatment. In addition, the patient will need to be started on anti- psychotic medications and I have broached this subject with her but she shows no insight into her illness and does not show willingness to participate in treatment.

    The prognosis is unfortunately guarded, if her workup is totally negative then the long- term picture is one of probable continued mental illness.

    
    

14. In this initial evaluation of the Respondent, the Respondent indicated to Dr. Barnea that she believed her phone conversations at school were being monitored, that her lesson plans were being photographed from the light bulb in her room, that someone at the school knows whose behind this and is doing it, that she is being followed wherever she goes by the Methodist Church that she belongs to, and that her students who are in the age range of five (5) to six

    (6) years old are aware of who she is dating and sleeping with because, as the Respondent explained, her boyfriend has a pet snake and the students were making hissing sounds in class.

    
    

15. During a follow-up evaluation on December 3, 1990, with Dr. Barnea, Respondent again showed evidence of a "fixed delusional system involving people getting into her apartment and moving things around in collusion with her church and her school". Dr. Barnea noted that this was continual evidence of an

    underlying delusional thought processing that was ongoing with the Respondent, and not merely a transit thing that happened on one particular day.

    
    

16. During a follow-up evaluation on December 13, 1990, Dr. Barnea again attempted to convince the Respondent to consider treatment with anti-psychotic medication. Dr. Barnea noted that Respondent refused his advice and was of the opinion that she had no insight that she has a mental problem.

    
    

17. Respondent underwent the physical tests recommended by Dr. Barnea. These results of these tests revealed no physical abnormalities. Following his evaluation of Respondent on January 30, 1991, Dr. Barnea noted that Respondent remained delusional with no insight into her illness and that she continued to refuse treatment in the form of anti-psychotic medication for the underlying thought disorder.

    
    

18. Dr. Barnea again saw the Respondent briefly on February 4, 1991. It was still his opinion that Respondent was unable to function as a classroom teacher or in an educational setting as long as the underlying delusional thought processing was present.

    
    

19. With the exception of anti-psychotic medication, there is no other treatment for a delusional thought disorder. There was no evidence in this proceeding that Respondent's condition had improved since her last evaluation with Dr. Barnea. There was no evidence that she has sought or received treatment or that she was on any type of medication that would benefit her.

    
    

20. Without proper treatment, Respondent's delusional thought processing makes her behavior unpredictable. Her behavior could range from being totally docile to physically violent. Although there was no evidence that she had become physically violent, Dr. Barnea was of the opinion that persons suffering from Respondent's mental condition have the potential to become violent because of the underlying delusional thought processing. Respondent should not be placed in a position of responsibility and is incapable of teaching.

    
    

21. On or about April 23, 1991, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the Broward County School Board and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Pursuant to the petition for formal proceedings, filed by the Broward County Superintendent of Schools, Virgil Morgan, the Respondent requested a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and the case was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-2839. The formal hearing conducted in that case was heard before William Dorsey on September 4, 1991. On November 7, 1991, a Recommended Order was issued by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case No. 91-2839 that concluded, in pertinent part, that Respondent's ". . . thought disorder places any children who would be assigned to her class at unreasonable risk of harm which could result from unpredictable reactions by Ms. Wynne to those students. She is currently not competent to perform her duties as a teacher." The Recommended Order recommended that Respondent's contract with the Broward County School Board be terminated due to her mental incompetency. On January 17, 1992, the Broward County School Board entered a Final Order which adopted the Recommended Order in its entirety, including the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, and the school board thereby terminated the Respondent from her employment effective April 23, 1991.

    
    

22. Based on the School Board's position that the Respondent was mentally incompetent and unfit to hold a teaching certificate, Mr. Wright reported the allegations against the Respondent to Professional Practices Services ("PPS) of the Department of Education.

23. The Respondent is incompetent to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system based upon her mental incompetency. Consequently, her effectiveness as an employee of the school board has been lost.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1) and Section 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.

    
    

25. Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the allegations against Respondent. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 550 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Evans Packing, supra, 550 So. 2d 112, 116, fn. 5, provides the following pertinent to the clear and convincing evidence standard:

    
    

    That standard has been described as follows:

    [C]lear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the evidence must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact the firm belief of (sic) conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

    
    

26. The Education Practices Commission is created by Section 231.261, Florida Statutes, and has the authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 231.261(8)(b) and Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, to impose discipline and penalties against a teacher's certificate.

    
    

27. Section 231.262(5), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Commissioner of Education to file a formal complaint and prosecute complaints against a teacher's certificate pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, upon a finding of probable cause against the teacher.

    
    

28. Section 231.262(6)(g), Florida Statutes, authorizes the EPC to enter a final order based on the complaint of the Commissioner of Education against a teacher whose teaching certificate has expired as follows:

    
    

    (6) A panel of the commission shall enter a final order either dismissing the complaint

    or imposing one or more of the following penalties:

    * * *

    (g) Imposition of an administrative sanction upon a person whose teaching certificate has expired for an act or acts committed while

    that person possessed a teaching certificate,

    which sanction bars that person from applying for a new certificate for a period of 10 years or less, or permanently.

    
    

29. Even though the Respondent's teaching certificate has expired in this case, the EPC continues to have jurisdiction over this matter and can impose a sanction on the reapplication by Respondent for a new teaching certificate.

    
    

30. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:

    
    

    (1) 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:

    * * *

    (b) Has been proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school;

    * * *

    (f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board. . . .

    
    

31. The Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is incompetent to teach or to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system, in violation of Section 231.28(1 )(b), Florida Statutes.

    
    

32. The Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent's bizarre, personal conduct caused her effectiveness as an employee of the school board to be lost, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order

which finds Respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(l)(b) and

231.28(l)(f), Florida Statutes, and which bars the Respondent from reapplying for a new teaching certificate for a period of three (3) years. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that prior to recertifying Respondent as a teacher in the State of

Florida, the Education Practices Commission require Respondent to submit documentation from appropriate mental health professionals that establishes that Respondent does not represent a threat to the safety or well-being of students under her supervision or care, that she is receiving any recommended treatment, and that she is competent to perform her educational and administrative duties in an acceptable and satisfactory manner.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

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 17th day of December, 1993.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3376

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are unnecessary as findings of fact, but are incorporated in the Preliminary Statement section of the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 34, 35, 41, 43, 44, 45, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, and 74 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71, and 75 are subordinate to the findings made.

The post-hearing submittal filed by Respondent contained no proposed findings of fact.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jill M. Boyd, Esquire Bond & Boyd, P.A.

411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26

Danita Wynne, pro se 9277 Dunwoody Lane

Indianapolis, Indiana 46229

Karen Barr 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

Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education

The Capitol, PL-08

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 ten 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.

Docket for Case No: 93-003376

Orders for Case No: 93-003376