STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
OSCEOLA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 96-6062
)
DEWEY ROWE, )
)
Respondent, )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
An administrative hearing was conducted on September 3 and 4, 1997, in Kissimmee, Florida, by Daniel Manry, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: G. Russell Petersen, Esquire
3339 Cardinal Drive, Suite 200 Vero Beach, Florida 32963
For Respondent: Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire
Egan, Lev and Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether there is just cause, within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (1997), to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher.
(All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated December 3, 1996, Petitioner informed Respondent that he was suspended with pay and that Petitioner intended to seek termination of Respondent's employment by the
Osceola County School Board (the "Board"). Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH").
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of nine witnesses and submitted 27 exhibits for admission in evidence. Respondent testified in his own behalf, presented the testimony of 11 witnesses, and submitted six exhibits.
The identity of the witnesses and exhibits, and the rulings regarding each, are set forth in the transcript of the hearing filed on November 10, 1997. Petitioner and Respondent filed proposed recommended orders ("PROs") on December 11 and 18, 1997.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner employed Respondent as a member of the instructional staff at Beaumont Middle School, now known as Kissimmee Middle School ("Kissimmee"), pursuant to a written annual contract as required in Section 231.36(1). Respondent first taught at Kissimmee in the 1995-96 school year. Prior to that, Respondent taught school in Virginia.
On November 29, 1996, Respondent was in his second year at Kissimmee. However, he had not yet signed his annual contract for the 1996-97 school year.
On November 29, 1996, Respondent was arrested in the Florida Mall in Orange County, Florida. He was charged with indecent exposure of sexual organs.
The charging affidavit alleges that Respondent masturbated while standing at a urinal in the men's room of a
Sears department store in the Florida Mall. The affidavit also alleges that a male at an adjacent urinal also masturbated.
Petitioner proceeded with disciplinary action against Respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the contract between Petitioner and the Osceola Classroom Teachers Association. In a letter dated December 3, 1996, from Dr. Thomas McCraley, Superintendent, Osceola County School District, Petitioner suspended Respondent with pay.
By letter dated December 16, 1996, Respondent requested an administrative hearing. On December 17, 1996, the Board voted unanimously to suspend Respondent without pay ". . . because the employee is requesting an administrative hearing."
The Board referred the matter to DOAH to conduct an administrative hearing. The ultimate issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Just cause is defined in Section 231.36(1) to include misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. In the letter from Dr. McCraley, Petitioner expands the statutory definition of just cause to include immorality and misconduct other than misconduct in office.
Dr. McCraley's letter is the only charging document in this case. The charging document is the instrument by which the Board provides Respondent with notice of the charges against him.
The charging document states that there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based solely on: the alleged
sexual acts, including masturbation; and the subsequent arrest. In relevant part, the charging document provides Respondent with notice of the following charges against him:
This letter will serve to formally advise you that you are hereby suspended with pay from your position . . . effective immediately.
Also, please be advised that I will recommend to the . . . . Board at the December 17, 1996 Board meeting that your contract with the School District be terminated. Please
be advised that in the event you timely request a hearing, I will be recommending to the . . . Board that you be suspended without pay until this matter is fully adjudicated.
Your recommended termination is based on the following information:
On or about November 29, 1996 while you were on or about the Sears restroom in the Florida Mall . . . you were observed and did perform inappropriate and improper sexual acts in the presence of a minor person. These acts include . . . masturbation. You were thereafter arrested by law enforcement for those acts.
The above-described acts and subsequent arrest constitute grounds under Section
231.36 . . . for your termination, including
. . . misconduct in office, immorality, misconduct, and, if convicted of this offense, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. . . .
The charging document does not charge that Respondent's teaching ability is impaired. However, Petitioner did disclose in its responses to interrogatories that it intended to present evidence relevant to this additional charge.
Petitioner provided Respondent with adequate notice of the additional charge of impaired teaching ability. Evidence relevant to this additional charge did not exist when Petitioner
issued the charging document. When Petitioner discovered such evidence, Petitioner properly disclosed the additional charge to Respondent during discovery.
This proceeding is not penal in nature. It does not propose disciplinary action against Respondent's license.
The original charges in the charging document are based solely on the alleged sexual acts in the men's room. The charges disclosed in the responses to discovery are based on alleged adverse publicity and its effect on the school environment.
Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed any sexual acts in the men's room. Without proof of the underlying facts, Petitioner lacks just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds stated in the charging document.
Just cause is statutorily defined to include the conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Respondent was not convicted in criminal court of a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 231.36(1). On August 4, 1997, the judge in the criminal case granted a motion for judgment of acquittal and excused the jury.
The charge that Respondent engaged in sexual acts in the men's room is based solely on the observations of Deputy Steven Franklin of the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Franklin and Deputy Tina Durden were at the Florida Mall on November 29, 1996, to investigate complaints of homosexual acts committed in bathrooms at the mall.
Deputy Franklin went into a men's room to urinate. He used a urinal adjacent to the urinal used by Respondent at the same time. Another male was adjacent to Respondent but on the opposite side of Respondent from Deputy Franklin.
Deputy Franklin observed Respondent and the other male for less than two seconds. While he was waiting for a urinal, Deputy Franklin also observed Respondent from behind for a few minutes. However, Deputy Franklin could not observe Respondent's hands before he stood beside Respondent at the urinal.
The observations by Deputy Franklin for less than two seconds are insufficient to determine whether Respondent was masturbating or voiding Respondent's urinary tract. Respondent has a medical history that makes it difficult for Respondent to determine whether his urinary tract is empty after he urinates.
On November 29, 1996, Respondent went to the Florida Mall to obtain a fresh supply of a cleaning solution he used to avoid scratching reflective lenses in eyeglasses that Respondent purchased from Sears Optical in August 1996. The Sears Optical at the Florida Mall was the store location closest to Respondent's residence. However, it was approximately a 45- minute drive from Respondent's house.
During the drive, Respondent drank a large bottle of water. He drank the water as part of the treatment for a kidney infection that developed after Respondent passed a kidney stone approximately two days prior to November 29, 1996.
Respondent had a long medical history of kidney stones. Since 1972, Respondent had passed numerous kidney stones.
After locating a parking place at the Florida Mall, Respondent needed to urinate. He went to the men's room adjacent to Sears Optical.
Respondent had to wait for a urinal to become available. November 29, 1996, was the day after Thanksgiving, and the men's room was crowded.
Respondent went to the first urinal that became available. He was at the urinal for no more than two minutes.
When Respondent first attempted to urinate, he felt some pain in the kidney area. Respondent leaned forward to reduce the pain. He placed his left hand against the wall to avoid touching the urinal.
Respondent was not sure he had voided all of the urine from his urinary tract. Respondent has no feeling in his penis due to an automobile accident that occurred in 1988.
The automobile accident caused nerve damage. The loss of feeling makes it difficult for Respondent to determine whether or not he has emptied all of the urine from his urinary tract.
To be sure all of the urine was eliminated from his urinary tract on November 29, 1996, Respondent shook and stroked his penis several times. Respondent's penis was not erect.
Respondent can not have an erection without injection of a specific medication. Respondent has not had an injection
since 1991 because the injections are painful and last for only a brief period.
Deputy Franklin observed Respondent's hands and penis for less than two seconds and incorrectly concluded that Respondent was masturbating. In fact, Respondent was making sure there was no urine remaining in his urinary tract.
While Respondent was at the urinal, he neither spoke to anyone nor touched anyone else. He was not aware of those around him other than a man standing behind him at the electric hand dryer who later identified himself as Deputy Franklin.
After Respondent finished urinating, he washed his hands and left the men's room. He was arrested outside the men's room.
Deputies Franklin and Durden also arrested the male who had used the urinal next to Respondent. The deputies escorted Respondent to a hearing aid store across from the waiting room of Sears Optical and told him to sit down.
The deputies brought the other man to the area where Respondent was sitting. They asked Respondent and the other man if they knew each other. Both men stated that they did not know each other. The deputies searched and hand cuffed both men.
The deputies detained both men for approximately 15 minutes. During that time, Respondent asked why he had been arrested but received no answer.
The deputies then took both men in handcuffs through the mall to a security office near the hotel in the mall.
Respondent remained at the security office for approximately three to four hours.
While Respondent was in the security office, the deputies informed Respondent of the charges against him. Respondent repeatedly denied the charges.
Respondent was taken to the 33rd Street jail at about 4:00 p.m. He was booked, photographed, finger printed, and placed in a holding cell. He was allowed to make a telephone call at about 5:00 p.m.
Respondent telephoned one of his two sons and asked his son to provide bail. Respondent was allowed to leave the jail at about 8:00 p.m.
As soon as Respondent reached his son's house, Respondent attempted to report the incident to Principal John Beall. Principal Beall was not available. Respondent telephoned Assistant Principal Karen Turner, who subsequently reported the incident to the principal.
The decision to suspend Respondent with pay was made by Petitioner after a meeting on December 3, 1996, between Respondent, his representatives, and representatives for Petitioner. Petitioner did not undertake an independent investigation of the matter but relied solely on the police report, the arrest, statements by Petitioner's director of human resources, and the attorney for the Board.
At the meeting, Respondent disclosed his medical condition and offered to provide documentation. He subsequently signed a medical authorization to release those records.
At a meeting of the Board on December 17, 1996, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay. Respondent did not have an opportunity to discuss his case with the Board. The Board relied on the advice of its counsel who in turn relied solely on the criminal arrest and underlying documents.
Two local newspapers covered the arrest and suspension of Respondent. The articles were first published after the Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay on December 17, 1996.
Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher is not impaired. A copy of a newspaper article was gratuitously distributed at Kissimmee in early January 1997. The publicity has not impaired Respondent's effectiveness with students, faculty, or parents.
Approximately a dozen students, out of a student body of approximately 400, referred to the incident in class. The discussions were brief and dissipated after four or five days.
Many of the students who discussed the matter in class have moved on to high school and are no longer at Kissimmee. Respondent has a very good rapport with students, even though he is strict and does not play or horse around with them.
Teachers have not observed inappropriate behavior between Respondent and his students. Fellow teachers would like for Respondent to return to Kissimmee.
Parents have not expressed any concern to Respondent's fellow teachers. One parent did complain to Assistant Principal Turner about Respondent.
Respondent is a very competent and very dynamic teacher who exceeds the minimum requirements as a teacher at Kissimmee. He goes to great lengths to help students learn and communicate effectively. He assists parents and fellow teachers.
Prior to Respondent's arrest, Respondent received excellent job evaluations. Principal Beall considered Respondent to be an excellent teacher who was creative, effective with students, a good manager of the classroom, and demonstrated independent initiative.
Principal Beall chose Respondent to serve as a temporary dean and encouraged Respondent to attend a program designed to qualify Respondent as an assistant principal. Principal Beall and several other witnesses for Petitioner would not hesitate to reinstate Respondent at Kissimmee if the charges against him are not proven.
Respondent has obtained an education that significantly exceeds the minimum educational qualifications prescribed in Section 231.17(1)(c) for an elementary or secondary teacher. Respondent earned a bachelor's degree and master's degree in education and geography, respectively, and also earned a PhD. degree in Christian counseling.
Respondent has over 20 years of teaching experience in Virginia and Florida. Prior to this case, Respondent has never
been disciplined by a school district in which he taught. Respondent has never been arrested prior to this case.
Respondent is certified to teach in Virginia. He has met all of the requirements for renewal of his teaching certificate in Florida. He is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding before submitting the necessary paperwork for the renewal of his Florida teaching certificate.
At the hearing, Petitioner charged for the first time that Respondent violated school regulations and policies contained in the faculty handbook. Petitioner argued that Respondent violated regulations and policies that prohibit faculty contact with students outside of the school by providing care and instruction to students after school.
Respondent objected to the admission of evidence relevant to this charge on several grounds, including the ground that such evidence was not relevant to any charges in the charging document or in the responses to discovery and the ground that allowing such a charge to be made for the first time during the hearing violated essential due process requirements. The undersigned reserved ruling on the objection and heard evidence from both parties.
Petitioner did not provide prior notice of the charge that Respondent violated regulations and policies in the faculty handbook. The failure to comply with essential requirements of due process precludes Petitioner from submitting evidence to support such charges.
Even if Petitioner had complied with due process requirements, the evidence would not affect the outcome of this proceeding. Petitioner either failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated relevant regulations and policies in the faculty handbook, or Petitioner condoned the violations committed by Respondent.
Respondent had previously been selected by his team of teachers to visit a student named Josh Harweger and Josh's mother in their home to address learning and behavioral problems experienced by Josh. Respondent conferred with Josh's mother at her home, on the telephone, and at school in conjunction with other members of the teaching team.
One evening at about 11:00 p.m., Josh's mother came to Respondent's residence without notice and asked Respondent to care for her son overnight while she took care of a family emergency. Respondent agreed to allow Josh to spend the night in his home, which Respondent shared with his son and daughter-in- law and Respondent's other son.
The next morning, Respondent informed three members of the Kissimmee staff, including Assistant Principal Turner, of the situation. Josh's mother did not return the next day as promised. In fact, she did not return until approximately five days had passed.
Each day, Respondent informed Assistant Principal Turner of the situation. Petitioner condoned each stay. No other student ever spent the night at Respondent's house.
Augustine Rivera is the other student for whom Petitioner asserts a violation of regulations and policies in the faculty handbook. Respondent's relationship with Augustine was strictly professional and conducted with the knowledge and consent of Augustine's mother.
Augustine has a learning disability and was a student in Respondent's classes for three years. Respondent tutored Augustine after class, even after Augustine's mother was informed of the arrest on November 29, 1996. Augustine's mother drove Augustine to Respondent's house after school for tutoring.
Augustine is now in high school. Respondent continues to tutor Augustine once or twice a week after school in Respondent's house with the approval of Augustine's mother.
Respondent's tutoring after school has significantly improved Augustine's academic performance and ameliorated Augustine's behavioral problems. Out of gratitude for Respondent's assistance, Augustine has performed various home maintenance tasks for Respondent, including mowing the yard.
Respondent and other members of his teaching team created a study jam-session after school for students who wanted academic assistance. The study jam-program had the prior approval of the principal. The study jam-sessions were in addition to Respondent's regular duties and did not relieve Respondent of this regular teaching responsibilities.
Approximately eight to ten students went to Respondent's home for a cookout as a reward for exceeding their
goals in the study jams. The students came with their parents or had parental permission.
Petitioner condoned the cookouts. Respondent obtained the prior approval of the principal for the cookouts.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The parties were duly noticed for the hearing.
The burden of proof is on Petitioner. Petitioner must show by a preponderance of evidence that just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment for the reasons stated in the charging document and responses to discovery. McNeill vs. Pinellas County School Board, 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1996); Allen vs. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo vs. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of proof. Petitioner failed to show that Respondent committed the acts for which he was arrested on November 29, 1996, or that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher is impaired.
The evidence submitted by Petitioner concerning the incident on November 29, 1996, was less than credible and persuasive. The evidence was supported primarily by inadmissible hearsay. Respondent's explanation of the incident on
November 29, 1996, was detailed, internally consistent, supported by medical evidence, and otherwise credible and persuasive.
Deputy Franklin observed Respondent and another male for less than two seconds. Respondent is physically incapable of having an erection. Respondent has a medical condition that requires him to shake and stroke his penis in order to make sure his urinary tract is empty after urinating. Such behavior could easily be misinterpreted as masturbation in the mind of one who observed two different people at separate urinals for less than two seconds and had no prior knowledge of Respondent's medical condition and the medical necessity for Respondent's behavior.
Petitioner attempted to supplement the testimony of Deputy Franklin with evidence of Deputy Franklin's testimony in the criminal proceeding. Deputy Franklin testified in this proceeding, and his testimony in the criminal proceeding can not be submitted by Petitioner under Section 90.801(2)(a) as prior inconsistent testimony. Even if Deputy Franklin's testimony in the criminal proceeding were admitted and considered by the undersigned, it does not transform Deputy Franklin's observation of less than two seconds into credible and persuasive evidence.
Petitioner also attempted to supplement and explain the testimony of Deputy Franklin with hearsay evidence of third parties in the police report and supporting affidavit. Such hearsay evidence is not admissible under either Sections 90.803(6), 90.803(8), or Section 120.57(1)(c).
The police report and supporting affidavit are not admissible as business records under Section 90.803(6). Petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisite for testimony of the records custodian or other qualified witness. State Department of Administration vs. Porter, 581 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Smith vs. Frisch's Big Boy, Inc., 208 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
The police report and supporting affidavit are not admissible as a public record and report within the meaning of Section 90.803(8). Petitioner failed to show that the sources of information and surrounding circumstances show the trustworthiness of the hearsay evidence.
Even if the records submitted by Petitioner were admitted, hearsay statements contained in those records are inadmissible. Frisch's Big Boy, 208 So. 2d at 312. Even if the hearsay statements were admissible, hearsay evidence can not form the basis of a finding of fact because there is no independent competent and substantial evidence of record which the hearsay statements explain or supplement within the meaning of Section 120.57(1)(c). Campbell vs. Central Florida Zoological Society, 432 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
One of the primary purposes for the hearsay evidence submitted by Petitioner was to show that the person standing next to Respondent at the urinal on November 29, 1996, was a minor. The evidentiary issues on that point are largely moot because
Petitioner failed to show that Respondent engaged in any inappropriate activity at the urinal. The age of the person next to Respondent, therefore, is irrelevant.
The person next to Respondent on November 29, 1996, did not testify. Deputy Franklin's account of the person's driving license is no more admissible than the driver's license itself. No employee has a duty to verify the age of a person applying for a driver's license. Ford vs. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Sikes vs. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 429 So. 2d 1216, 1220-1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher is not impaired. Any adverse effect on the school environment was di minimis. It was caused in large part by the actions of others who are either no longer at Kissimmee or comprise an insignificant minority of teachers, parents, or students. The di minimis adverse effects of the incident are far outweighed by Respondent's demonstrated professional abilities, commitment to teaching, and superlative credentials.
Petitioner failed to comply with due process requirements for adequate notice of the charges that Respondent violated rules and policies in the faculty handbook. MacMillan vs. Nassau County School Board, 629 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Clark vs. School Board of Lake County, Florida, 596 So. 2d 735, 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Any evidence of such violations is excluded as irrelevant and immaterial to those charges which satisfy the essential elements of due process.
Even if Petitioner had complied with due process requirements, Petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of proof. Respondent either did not violate the handbook, or, if he did, the violations were condoned by Petitioner.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the underlying factual allegations, finding that there is not just cause to terminate Respondent's employment, and reinstating Respondent with back pay from December 17, 1996.
DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL MANRY
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1998.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Michael H. Olenick General Counsel
The Capitol, Plaza 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Dr. Thomas L. McCraley, Superintendent Osceola County School Board
817 Bill Beck Boulevard Kissimmee, Florida 34744-4495
G. Russell Petersen, Esquire 3339 Cardinal Drive, Suite 200 Vero Beach, Florida 32963
Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Egan, Lev and Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 22, 1998 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 06, 1998 | BY ORDER of the COURT (Petition for review of Non-Final Administrative Order is Denied) filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1998 | Acknowledgment of Petition to Review Non-Final Agency Action (Fifth DCA) filed. |
| Mar. 09, 1998 | Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance to File Exceptions filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1998 | Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance to File Exceptions (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 20, 1998 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 09/03-04/97. |
| Dec. 23, 1997 | Order Granting Enlargement of Time sent out. |
| Dec. 18, 1997 | Proposed Findings of Fact, of the Respondent, Dewey Rowe; Brief of the Respondent, Dewey Rowe filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1997 | (Petitioner) Memorandum of Law; (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order (for judge signature) filed. |
| Dec. 10, 1997 | (Respondent) Motion to Extend Time to File Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 01, 1997 | Letter to DSM from M. Zachorewitz Re: Date of filing transcript filed. |
| Nov. 10, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Exhibit No. 12; (1) Cassette Tape/1 Video Tape (judge has tape)` filed. |
| Nov. 10, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Original Transcript of Hearing; Transcripts (September 3, 1997, volumes I, II, tagged); (September 4, 1997 volumes I, II, III, tagged); Cover Letter filed. |
| Oct. 21, 1997 | Letter to DSM from Joseph Egan Jr. (RE: notifying the Judge that they haven`t received copy of transcript) (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 30, 1997 | Letter to DSM from G. Russell Petersen (RE: delay in filing transcript) (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 03, 1997 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Aug. 29, 1997 | (Respondent) Amended Witness List (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 26, 1997 | (Respondent) Witness List; (Respondent) Exhibit List (filed via facsimile). |
| May 30, 1997 | Order Continuing and Rescheduling Formal Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Sept. 3-4, 1997; 9:30am; Kissimmee) |
| May 23, 1997 | Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Exhibit List and Witness List (filed via facsimile). |
| May 23, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| May 23, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| May 22, 1997 | (Petitioner) Motion to Allow the Use of the Deposition(s) of a Witness for Petitioner as Evidence or in the Alternative to Continue the Hearing; Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| May 08, 1997 | Order Continuing and Rescheduling Formal Hearing sent out. (hearing set for June 2-3, 1997; 9:30am; Kissimmee) |
| Apr. 30, 1997 | (Russell Peterson) Protective Order (for judge signature) (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 30, 1997 | Subpoena ad Testificandum (from G. Petersen); Return of Service filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1997 | (Russell Petersen) Subpoena ad Testificandum filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1997 | (Petitioner) Protective Order (for judge signature) (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 23, 1997 | Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Motion to Continue (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 23, 1997 | (Respondent) Emergency Motion for Protective Order; (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 23, 1997 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike Witnesses (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 22, 1997 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance of Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 21, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 07, 1997 | Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 01, 1997 | Letter to DSM from Joseph Egan (RE: request for subpoenas, tagged) (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 20, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 19, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Unavailability (Filed by Fax) filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing Answers to Interrogatories & Response to Request for Production; Answers to Interrogatories by Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 12, 1997 | (Petitioner) Protective Order and Scheduling Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 12, 1997 | Protective Order (Petitioner) with cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1997 | Letter to DSM from G. Petersen Re: Protective Order; Protective Order (Filed by Fax) filed. |
| Mar. 07, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 28, 1997 | (Petitioner) Motion for Protective Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 27, 1997 | Request to Produce, Notice of Service of Request to Produce, Interrogatories, Notice of Service of Interrogatories, Notice of Service of Interrogatories and Request to Produce (Petitioner) filed. |
| Feb. 27, 1997 | Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1997 | Order Continuing and Rescheduling Formal Hearing sent out. (hearing reset for April 8-9, 1997; 9:30am; Kissimmee) |
| Feb. 07, 1997 | (Petitioner) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 24, 1997 | (G. Russell Petersen) Notice of Appearance; Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance; Petitioner`s Response to Initial Order; Cover Letter; Letter to DOAH from G. Russell Petersen (dated 1/10/97) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 22, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/17/97; 9:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Dec. 31, 1996 | Initial Order issued. |
| Dec. 24, 1996 | Agency referral letter; Challenge of Recommendation, letter form; School Board Meeting Minutes of December 17, 1996; Agency Action letter; Charging Affidavit filed. (Filed by Fax) |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 19, 1998 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 20, 1998 | Recommended Order | Less than 2 second observation by arresting officer did not show that Respondent was masturbating at men's room urinal. Respondent's explanation was credible and persuasive. Petitioner should reinstate Respondent with back pay. |
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs JOSEPH COFIELD, 96-006062 (1996)
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs EMORY TRAWICK, 96-006062 (1996)
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs LASHON JENIECE MILLER, 96-006062 (1996)
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs SAKINA A. JONES, 96-006062 (1996)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs TRACEY NEWTON, 96-006062 (1996)
