STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CHARLIE CRIST, )

AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 01-3343PL

)

GEOFFREY T. WILLIAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

_______________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on December 12, 2001, at 10:15 a.m., in the Daytona Beach Regional Service Center, 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida, a formal hearing was held in this case. The authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted by Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire

Post Office Box 131

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-013 For Respondent: No appearance.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Should discipline be imposed by the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, against the Respondent's

Florida Educator's Teaching Certificate No. 770007, for alleged professional misconduct?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent pursuant to Case No. 989-2972-M, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission. That complaint was executed on February 7, 2001. On February 27, 2001, Respondent elected that option to dispute the allegations in the complaint through a formal hearing. On August 22, 2001, the case was received by Sharyn Smith, Chief Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing consistent with Section 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.

The case was originally scheduled to be heard on

November 6, 2001. Following a continuance, the case was heard on December 12, 2001.

Petitioner moved to amend the Administrative Complaint.

On October 10, 2001, an order was entered granting the proposed amendments to the Administrative Complaint. That same order gave official recognition to various items initially submitted by Petitioner.

Petitioner filed a second request for official recognition in relation to the following:

1. Transcript of Change of Plea, conducted on May 14, 2001, in Seventh Judicial

   Circuit, Volusia County Case #00-34359, attached hereto (Petitioner hereby amends his exhibit list to include said document).

   
   

2. Judgement and Sentence in Seventh Judicial Circuit, Volusia County Case #00- 34359, attached hereto (Petitioner hereby amends his exhibit list to include said document).

   
   

3. The newspaper article attached hereto appeared in Volusia County in a newspaper of general circulation on or about

August 17, 2001.

The second request for official recognition was considered at hearing and granted as to the items reflected as numbers 1 and 2. That decision is reflected in the hearing transcript.

The State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services through its counsel, Kathy McAllister, filed a motion to quash a subpoena ad testificandum directed to Linda Basbagill, a former employee of that Department.

Alternatively, counsel moved for the issuance of a protective order. Petitioner's counsel filed a written response in opposition to the motion to quash the subpoena. At hearing oral argument was considered on the motion to quash and its alternative. Petitioner was allowed to present Linda Basbagill as his witness as reflected in the hearing transcript.

In addition to Linda Basbagill, Petitioner presented Kimberly Zbin, Detective Donald Brock, and Duane Busse, as its

witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits numbered one through eight were admitted.

The hearing transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 28, 2001. On January 2, 2002, Petitioner's counsel filed a proposed recommended order which has been considered in preparing the recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent was issued Florida Educator's Teaching Certificate No. 77007 on September 4, 1997, and continued to hold that certificate in an active status until June 30, 2001. Respondent's initial certificate was valid beginning July 1, 1997. The certification covered the subject area of biology.

   VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINE

   
   

2. At one time Respondent was a practicing attorney in the state of Virginia.

3. In an action before the Virginia State Bar Tenth District Disciplinary Committee, IN RE: GEOFFREY T. WILLIAMS, SR., RESPONDENT, Docket No. 89-102-0281, dated November 6, 1989, Respondent received a public reprimand. The order setting forth the factual basis and provisions of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Rules violated is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, admitted.

4. Further disciplinary action was taken against Respondent before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board,

   In the Matter of Geoffrey T. Williams, Sr., VSB Docket Nos. 89-051-0857; 91-05l-0139; 92-051-0185 and 92-051-0558. In

   these cases orders were entered by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board Chair on February 26, 1993 and May 10, 1993, revoking Respondent's license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The opinion and order of revocation set forth facts forming the basis for the decision and identified the rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility violated by Respondent leading to the discipline imposed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 admitted as evidence is constituted of those orders describing the revocation.

5. The Virginia State Bar found reason to discipline Respondent based upon his treatment of legal clients and business practices with his partners. The grounds for discipline included the recognition that Respondent's conduct involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, among other grounds.

   EXPLOITATION OF AN ELDERLY PERSON/THEFT

   
   

6. In State of Florida vs. Geoffrey Thomas Williams, Sr., in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Florida, Case No. CRC00-34359CFAEF, an information was brought against Respondent. Count 1 charged

   exploitation of an elderly person, and/or a disabled adult in violation of Section 825.103(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.

   Count 2 charged grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(1) and (2) (c), Florida Statutes. Both counts pertain to Respondent's association with M.B. and her funds. The period envisioned by the counts to the information was from

   February 1, 2000 through March 27, 2001. Respondent pled nolo contendere to both counts.

7. Respondent was adjudicated guilty of both counts, felony offences in Florida. Respondent was placed upon probation and made to pay court costs and jurisdiction was reserved to determine restitution upon the motion of the State. The period of probation was for five years under supervision of the Department of Corrections.

8. M.B., Respondent's acquaintance, was at the time in question experiencing erratic thoughts, did not have good insight, and evidenced poor judgement. M.B. was being cared for by a psychiatrist. M.B. was a client of a health care company assigned to attend her interest. M.B. was not able to manage her daily affairs.

9. Respondent had expressed an interest in discussing relieving M.B. of her legal obligations. This expression was made to Kimberly Zbin, a case manager with ACT Corporation, the mental health company assisting M.B. as its client.

10. Respondent acknowledged to Linda Basbagill, an investigator who was at that time an investigator with the Department of Children and Family Services, that Respondent received checks from M.B. or M.B. issued checks on his behalf. Examples of those checks are found in Petitioner's Exhibit No.

    6 admitted. The dates on those checks correspond to the dates within the criminal information that has been described.

    EXPERT OPINION

    
    

11. Duane Busse is the Director of Professional Standards for the School District of Volusia County, Florida. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees from Florida State University in education. He is an expert in education. He has been a teacher, a principal, has worked at the state level in education, and is a school district level administrator. His present position with Volusia County School District involves the investigation of alleged employee misconduct and the imposition of discipline for that misconduct. Mr. Busse is familiar with the documents that have been described concerning the action taken by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board and the Circuit Court in Florida, Criminal Division. Mr. Busse expressed the opinion that the outcomes in the bar discipline and the criminal court case reduce Respondent's effectiveness as an educator. Mr. Busse expresses the belief that Respondent would not be eligible for

    any type of employment with the school system where the witness is employed. Mr. Busse expressed the opinion that the Respondent has precluded himself from any level of a trust from parents and students based upon the circumstances in the bar discipline and criminal court case. He premises his opinion on loss of effectiveness on the fact of having been in Volusia County for about 15 years and his familiarity with people in Volusia County as to their expectations for moral standards of teachers.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

12. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in accordance with Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 231.262(5), Florida Statutes.

13. To succeed in this case Petitioner must prove the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987) The term clear and convincing evidence is defined in Solmowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)

14. No facts were adduced consistent with the allegations in the Administrative Complaint that "Respondent was also disbarred in Colorado, on or about April 10, 1995." No facts were adduced consistent with the allegations in the Administrative Complaint that "[a]dditionally, Respondent has

    failed to pay debts owed to his former attorney, and a

    
    

    Mr. Jerry Lippke." No facts were adduced consistent with the allegations in the Administrative Complaint that "funds Respondent had collected from the Optimists Club, in Daytona Beach, Florida, were found to be short approximately

    $1,000.00" Therefore, Respondent cannot be found in violation of any statute referred to in the Administrative Complaint based upon the alleged facts described in this paragraph.

15. The remaining material allegations in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, eventuating in the facts found in the Recommended Order.

16. All allegations and proof concerning Respondent's experience with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board or Virginia State Bar Tenth District Disciplinary Committee occurred before the effective date of his teaching certificate in Florida. Given the nature of the alleged statutory violations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent cannot be held accountable for the prior misconduct in Virginia. Taylor v. Department of Professional Regulation, 534 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)

17. Respondent has violated Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes, under Count 1 in the Administrative Complaint in his conduct directed to M.B. by taking advantage

    of M.B. in her finances. His acts constituted gross morality directed to that elderly person, given her circumstances.

    Likewise, pursuant to Count 3, in the Administrative Complaint Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, now Section 231.2615(1)(e), Florida Statutes, through the adjudication of Respondent in the Circuit Count in Volusia County, Florida, for the offences of exploitation of M.B., an elderly person and/or a disabled adult, Section 825.103 and (2), Florida Statutes, and grand theft of M.B.'s property, Section 812.014(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, felonies that relate to his fitness to teach.

18. Count 2 in the Administrative Complaint alleging a violation of Section 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes, has not been proven. Petitioner has failed to show that any fact found concerning the material allegations was sufficiently notorious to bring the education profession into public disgrace or to impair Respondent's service in the community, other than the ultimate conclusion made by Mr. Busse in rendering his opinion. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

19. For the violations that have been established, discipline may be imposed consistent the range of permissible discipline announced in Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes. The facts and violations justify permanent revocation.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 231.2615(1)(c), and 231.2615(1)(e), Florida Statutes, set forth in Counts 1 and 3 respectively and dismissing the allegations of a violation of Section 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count 3, and imposing permanent revocation of his teaching certificate pursuant to Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

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 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2001.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-013

Geoffrey T. Williams 8161 West Eastman Place

Building 16, Apartment 103

Lakewood, Colorado 80227

Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

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.

Docket for Case No: 01-003343PL

Orders for Case No: 01-003343PL