STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRANK BROGAN, as Commissioner ) of Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-1754

)

STEVEN A. WILLIAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided, and on February 6, 1995, a formal hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing location was Room 431, Yates Building,

231 East Forsyth Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Charles C. Adams was the hearing officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Nathan L. Bond, Esquire

2121 Killarney Way, Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308

For Respondent: Steven A. Williams, pro se

6200 South Barnes Road, P-20 Jacksonville, Florida 32216-5633

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Did Respondent leave the Southside Middle School campus without permission in the 1989-90 school year; in that same year, did Respondent make a threatening complaint in writing to Vice Principal, Peggy Williams; in that same year, did Respondent fail to submit a written report of a fight between students; did Respondent use profanity in the school year 1990-91 while employed at Southside Middle School; did Respondent leave campus without permission and leave his classes unattended in the school year 1991-92 while employed at Lake Shore Middle School; did Respondent engage in inappropriate conduct with students by grabbing a male student, M.F., by the shoulders and squeezing that student's shoulders and making that student go to his knees in the school year 1992-93 while employed at Lake Shore Middle School; did Respondent in that same year grab and hit A.H. in the chest and in the stomach; did Respondent in that same year pull the student, J.W.'s ear; did Respondent in that same year plan a field trip to Walt Disney World, Florida, without approval from the Duval County School District; did Respondent fail to follow district procedures for purchasing t-shirts and sweatshirts for students; did Respondent in the school year 1993-94 while employed at the Lake Shore Middle School fail to comply with guidelines in submitting a "no show" list related to student attendance; and did Respondent engage in profanity in the presence of students in that same year?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

When Respondent was served with the Administrative Complaint in PPS Case No. 93-4080-C, he requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

The case was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 31, 1994. The case was originally scheduled to be heard on October 3, 1994. A continuance was granted, and the case was rescheduled for December 22, 1994. A further continuance was granted, and the case was heard on the aforementioned date.

Petitioner presented the testimony of K.A. (student), Timothy Hamel, Arlene Guthrie, and Beverly Davis. Petitioner's exhibits 1-6 were admitted as evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent's exhibits 1-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 22, and 23 were admitted as evidence.

A hearing transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 27, 1995. The parties had ten (10) days from that date to submit proposed recommended orders. The parties did not submit proposed recommended orders.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate number 638543 covering the areas of health, biology, and physical education.

   
   

2. In the fall of 1989, Respondent began employment with the Duval County, Florida, School Board in a teaching position at Southside Middle School.

   
   

3. While serving as a teacher at Southside Middle School, Respondent broke up a fight between two students that was occurring in a hallway. Following the incident his obligation was to file a written report detailing the facts. That report was due immediately. The Respondent had to be reminded twice before rendering the report. The report was rendered before the students met with a school hearing officer to resolve the incident.

   
   

4. In the fall of 1991, Respondent voluntarily transferred to an assignment at Lake Shore Middle School. That school is also part of the Duval County School District.

   
   

5. On one occasion while Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School, Timothy Hamel, another teacher at that school, observed that Respondent's class had been left unattended from approximately 3:40 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.

   
   

6. On another occasion, while Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School, Respondent left campus at a time when he did not have classes and did not return until after school had concluded for the day. As a consequence, he missed instruction periods for some classes that he was responsible for teaching. This circumstance was established through testimony from Arlene Guthrie, Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Lake Shore Middle School. The proof submitted at hearing did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the Respondent had made arrangements to cover classes which he missed on this occasion.

7. In the spring of 1993, Respondent was interested in taking some students on a field trip to Walt Disney World, Florida. A conversation was held between the Principal at Lake Shore Middle School and the Respondent concerning this field trip. The principal was persuaded that it was too late in the year to schedule a field trip. Nonetheless, Respondent replied that he was going on the field trip and would rent a van on his own to transport the students, separate and apart from school sanctioned transportation.

   
   

8. In the conversation concerning the field trip, the principal asked Respondent if he had obtained parent/guardian permission slips for the students to attend the outing. Respondent replied in the affirmative.

   
   

9. A permission information sheet directed to the parents or guardians pertaining to the nature of the field trip was prepared on the Lake Shore Middle School letterhead and signed by Respondent, as sponsor for a school club known as Manhood, Achievement, Community Service. That information sheet indicated that the trip would take place on May 28-30, 1993. Further, it indicated that expenses would be taken care of, except for meals and spending money for the students. The correspondence went on to indicate that the parents or guardians would be informed of the hotel address after receipt of confirmation of room reservations. The information sheet indicated the departure and return time. Respondent confirmed the knowledge of the parents about those details by having them sign the information sheet. As discussed between Respondent and the principal, there was no mention in the information sheet about Respondent arranging for transportation on his own by renting a van.

   
   

10. When the principal asked Respondent about the duration of the trip, Respondent indicated that it was more than a single-day trip. The principal wanted to know if Respondent had made arrangements for a place to stay. At that time, Respondent replied that no such arrangements had been made but that Respondent would obtain a place to stay. The principal was not convinced that the parents and guardians were sufficiently apprised of the nature of this outing and told Respondent that Respondent could not take the trip. After the conclusion of the conversation between the Respondent and the principal, Respondent still insisted that he was going on the field trip to Walt Disney World.

    
    

11. In the conversation between the principal and Respondent concerning the field trip, the issue related to the payment for the trip was addressed. The principal was concerned that there was not enough money to pay for the trip and asked the Respondent how the balance of the money was to be paid. Respondent replied that the parents would pay. When the principal asked if Respondent had consulted with the parents concerning this additional cost, the answer was no.

    
    

12. The conference between the principal and Respondent was held two or three days before the trip was to take place.

    
    

13. When it became obvious that the school district, from the principal's perspective, did not wish to sanction the trip, matters were left in the posture that if the Respondent wanted to go on the trip as an adult in charge of those children, then that arrangement would have to be carried out between Respondent and the parents. In that setting of a private trip the school district did not want the Respondent to create the appearance that the trip was a trip sanctioned by the school district.

14. Eventually correspondence was given to the Respondent from Gerlieve R. Oliver, Assistant Superintendent, Middle Schools, Duval County School System, confirming that the Respondent did not have permission to take an official school trip to Disney World. The correspondence also informed the Respondent that he could not take a non-school related trip, given that the written communications to parents concerning the trip was made on school letter head, thus creating the appearance of being a school sponsored trip. This appearance caused the school district to instruct the Respondent that he could not take a non-school trip either. This communication dated May 26, 1993, informed the Respondent that the parents or guardians of the students who were to be taken on the trip would be made aware of the telephone conversation between the Respondent and Ms. Oliver concerning the field trip. The conversation between Respondent and Assistant Superintendent Oliver was instigated by Respondent. It is that telephone conversation that led to the preparation of the correspondence. The correspondence from the assistant superintendent to the Respondent reminded the Respondent that if he failed to follow the directions that he might put himself in jeopardy concerning employment with the district and admonished Respondent to be more careful in adhering to directions.

    
    

15. The correspondence from Ms. Oliver to Respondent also mentioned that if Respondent were more careful about following procedures in the future that this would result in the Respondent being able to provide opportunities for his students. This is taken to mean opportunities such as field trips.

    
    

16. While Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School there was a policy related to what is referred to as a "no show" list. In particular, at the commencement of the school year a given school counts the number of students in attendance as a means of determining the amount of money the school is entitled to for conducting its operations. The expectation is that the individual school teacher will document this count by calling a roll each day and turning in a slip to the administrative offices verifying the students who did not attend school on that day. Respondent did not comply with that requirement.

    
    

17. While Respondent was teaching at Lake Shore Middle School an incident occurred between male students K.A. and M.F. in the school lunch room. K.A. and

    M.F. were arguing. Respondent came over and broke up the argument by grabbing both of the students by their respective shoulders.

    
    

18. On two other occasions while Respondent was in the lunch room with the students, he grabbed A.H. around the neck in the first encounter and the second encounter grabbed that student by the shoulder.

    
    

19. When Respondent grabbed A.H. around the neck the student winced and frowned. The reason for that initial encounter between the Respondent and A.H. is not clear.

    
    

20. On the second occasion Respondent grabbed A.H. by the shoulder, A.H. had similar expression in that he winced and frowned. Again it is unclear concerning the reason for Respondent's actions.

    
    

21. In the experience of K.A., while attending a class taught by Respondent, he observed Respondent curse in class on a somewhat frequent basis. That frequency was as much as four times a day, three days a week.

    
    

22. On one occasion K.A. observed Respondent grab D.A. around the neck and tell D.A. to sit down or Respondent was going to be "kicking his fucking ass."

    Other curse words that K.A. heard the Respondent use were words like "ass", "damn", and "asshole".

    
    

23. According to Ms. Guthrie, an expert in education, cursing in front of students, using inappropriate discipline such as grabbing necks and shoulders of students and leaving the class unattended on more than one occasion, constitutes a circumstance in which the Respondent has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. That opinion by Ms. Guthrie is accepted.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

25. Petitioner must prove the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint by clear and convincing evidence. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

    
    

26. The first count to the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in that he violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by engaging in personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school district. That count has been proven. The determination of loss of effectiveness is based upon the opinion by Ms. Guthrie.

    
    

27. The second count to the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in that he violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by otherwise violating provisions of laws and rules of the State of Board of Education, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate. That count has been proven in that the Respondent has violated other provisions of laws or rules.

    
    

28. The third count to the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in that he violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the students' mental and/or physical health and/or safety. That count has been proven. Leaving students unattended in a classroom, using profanity and physically accosting students constitute the violation.

    
    

29. The fourth count to the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in that he violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, by intentionally exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. That count has been proven. D.A. was disparaged by Respondent's remarks directed to the student.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of the four counts in the Administrative Complaint and suspending the Respondent's teaching certificate for thirty (30) days.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

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 March, 1995.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Nathan L. Bond, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way, Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308

J. David Holder, Esquire 1408 Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312

Steven A. Williams

6200 South Barnes Road, P-20 Jacksonville, Florida 32216-5633

Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission

301 Florida Education Center

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Kathleen M. Richards, 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 to the agency 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: 94-001754

Orders for Case No: 94-001754