vs.
Respondent.
Case No. 13-4124PL
Pursuant to notice a final hearing was held in this case on February 19 and 20, 2014, in Land O' Lakes, Florida, before Lynne Quimby-Pennock, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division).
Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110
29605 U.S. Highway 19 North
The issues to be determined are whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ or Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-
10.081(4)(c) or (e), or 6A-10.081(5)(d) or (o), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
On July 9, 2013, Tony Bennett,2/ as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner or Petitioner), filed a seven-count Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Steven Paul Van Gorden, charging him with violating section 1012.795(1)(d), (g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(4)(c), and (e), and 6A-10.081(5)(d) and (o). Respondent timely filed an Election of Rights form and letter.3/
On October 17, 2013, the matter was referred to the Division for assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the hearing. On December 20, Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Administrative Complaint and Motion to Continue was filed. Respondent did not object and the motions were granted.
Following one continuance, the hearing was noticed for hearing on February 19 and 20, 2014. The hearing concluded on February 20,
2014.
Petitioner presented the testimony of Janene Witfoth Sullivan, Aimee Kathleen Boltze, John Taylor, Andressa Williams, Scott Davey, Aimee Stryker-Marando, Kristy Koess Blazys, Courtney Sprigg, Theresa Wright, Rob Perrault, Mark Steve, Judy Williams, Derrick Tucker, and Adianna McCafferty.4/ Petitioner did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Respondent testified on his
own behalf, and presented the testimony of Kari Kadlub, Adianna McCafferty, and Larry Rizzi. Over objection, Respondent's composite Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence.5/
At the conclusion of the hearing Petitioner requested additional time to file the post hearing submissions. Respondent did not object, and the parties were directed to file their proposed recommended orders by the close of business on April 18, 2014. The Transcript of the proceeding was filed on March 24, 2014. Each party timely filed a post-hearing submission, and each has been carefully reviewed in the preparation of this
Recommended Order.
Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 776134, which covers the areas of school principal and social science, and is valid through June 30, 2017.
At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Pasco County School District (PCSD). In April 2009 Respondent became the principal at Zephyrhills High School (Zephyrhills School), and was employed in that capacity until November 2012.
At the time Respondent started his career with the PCSD, he was aware of the Florida Education Code of Ethics for Teachers. Later, when Respondent became an assistant principal he became aware of Florida Education Code of Ethics for Teachers
and Administrators (Code). Respondent knew of the Code, but had not read it "line by line." Respondent was aware that he was not to engage in conduct that could seriously reduce his effectiveness as a PCSD employee; he was not to use his institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; he was not to engage in any kind of harassment or discriminatory conduct against any of his subordinates; and he was not to create a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive or oppressive environment. Respondent was aware of the appropriate behavior in the PCSD environment.
Respondent understood that it was his job as the Zephyrhills School principal to run the school, "a full-service high school preparing kids for their futures." Respondent oversaw all the academic programs, approximately 1600 students, over 100 faculty and support staff, 25 to 30 acres of school grounds, and a multi-million dollar budget. Respondent oversaw the hiring and firing of Zephyrhills School staff. Although Respondent did not have the ultimate authority to hire or fire staff, his opinion regarding recommendations as to whom to hire or fire carried significant weight. Teachers and staff believed Respondent held power over their employment status. Respondent provided performance evaluations for Zephyrhills School teachers and staff, and provided input into the performance evaluations of
other PCSD employees who worked on the campus of Zephyrhills School.
Respondent's management style was open and relaxed.
Respondent fostered an open-door policy; however, by his own admission, he was "constantly on the fly . . . and very seldom in [his] office." Respondent encouraged interactions with teachers and staff through school activities as well as other social settings away from the school.
Janene Witfoth Sullivan was an adult education assistant principal of Moore-Mickens School assigned to split her time between Zephyrhills School and Pasco High School. Although
Ms. Sullivan's supervisor was located at Moore-Mickens School, Respondent had input into Ms. Sullivan's performance evaluation.
Respondent admitted that early in his tenure at Zephyrhills School, he approached Ms. Sullivan, who was on-duty in a common area and asked her if she was a witch. Respondent also admitted that he put his hands in the air in front of him, and said "Abracadabra" and words to the effect of "can you enlarge my penis?"
Ms. Sullivan was appalled, shocked, and offended that Respondent would address her in such a fashion in the common area of the school. Ms. Sullivan never confronted Respondent about his actions as she was concerned about the consequences she would face, as Respondent provided input to Ms. Sullivan's supervisor
for her yearly evaluation. Respondent acknowledged his error in judgment in making the comments and gesture.
Aimee Boltze was the director of staff development for the PCSD and worked as the school advisory committee liaison between the district office and Zephyrhills School. Zephyrhills School was identified as a school in need of improvement, and Ms. Boltze regularly met with the Zephyrhills School administrative team to plan school strategies and programs to help improve the achievement scores.
Respondent admitted that during an in-school meeting, with other administrators present (Andressa Williams, John Taylor, and Scott Davey), he commented that Ms. Boltze's hair looked like a scene from the movie There's Something About Mary.6/ Later in that same meeting, Respondent made another comment about Ms. Boltze and what she was doing to him "under the table" at a prior meeting.7/ These remarks were inappropriate, unwelcome and offensive to Ms. Boltze, and embarrassed other administrators who were present for the meeting. Ms. Boltze immediately addressed Respondent by telling him "you're an ass," that he was out of line, and that she, Ms. Boltze, was the director of staff development and he needed to be careful.8/
Theresa Wright was a biology teacher at Zephyrhills School when Respondent became its principal. Ms. Wright wanted
to teach the 2011-2012 school year to save money to attend medical school.
Early in the school year, Ms. Wright informed her union representative that she was uncomfortable with the way Respondent looked her "up and down" when she and Respondent were in the office. Ms. Wright and the representative discussed a possible sexual harassment complaint. When Respondent heard of this potential complaint, he became angry and immediately called
Ms. Wright and the representative to his office for a meeting. During the meeting, Respondent threatened that he would "go after" Ms. Wright for slander because Respondent had "never spoke[n] to you, never looked at you, never talked to you, [and] was never in your [Ms. Wright's] classroom." Respondent confirmed that Ms. Wright looked scared during this meeting, and when told to leave Respondent's office, Ms. Wright and the representative did so. Ms. Wright feared she would lose her job and she resigned her teaching position within the first quarter of that school year. Respondent contacted his supervisor about his statements to Ms. Wright.
Kristy Blazys (f/k/a Kristy Koess) accepted a position at Zephyrhills School as an assistant principal for the 2011-2012 school year. Prior to working at Zephyrhills School, Ms. Blazys had previously worked at an elementary school, a middle school
and a different high school to obtain the requisite experience to become an administrator.
During her one-year tenure at Zephyrhills School,
Ms. Blazys heard Respondent make frequent sexual comments about other female teachers. As teachers walked through the school's common areas during class transitions, Respondent would comment on female teachers' weight gain in "all of the right places," about female breasts and his desire to play with them.
Ms. Blazys endured crude sexist remarks by Respondent regarding her relationship with her then boyfriend. Ms. Blazys was afraid to report Respondent for fear of retaliation.
Courtney Sprigg was a math teacher at Zephyrhills School while Respondent was its principal. Ms. Sprigg considered Respondent a friend as she knew him outside the school setting. Ms. Sprigg told Respondent to stop saying degrading and vulgar things about women because Respondent was never going to "pick up anybody by acting this way towards them or saying these things towards them." Ms. Sprigg found Respondent's comments about female teachers, including herself, to be offensive.
Andressa Williams was an assistant principal at Zephyrhills School while Respondent was its principal.
Ms. Williams heard Respondent's comment about a female employee's breast, and she told Respondent the comment was inappropriate and that Respondent should be careful in what he said. Although
Ms. Williams did not feel uncomfortable when she heard these comments while alone with Respondent, she was uncomfortable when someone else was present. Ms. Williams also heard Respondent's comments about Ms. Blazys' new relationship.
In one instance, Ms. Williams commented to Respondent and other administrators before a school meeting, that Ms. Blazys was not in the mood for jokes about her relationship. Despite Ms. Williams' comment, Respondent made a comment about Ms. Blazys being late for work because she "got some" or was with her boyfriend. This comment was taken as a sexual reference.
Aimee Stryker-Marando, an ESE9/ teacher first met Respondent in 2001 when they both worked at a local middle school where Respondent was an assistant principal. Ms. Stryker-Marando started work on a master's degree while employed at another high school. While at this other high school she was having some difficulty in obtaining the requisite opportunities for her graduate course work. After accepting a "friend" request from Respondent via Facebook, the two started communicating. Respondent was able to provide Ms. Stryker-Marando with information about graduate school assignments, projects and papers, and where to locate other information.
Respondent and Ms. Stryker-Marando admitted they had a consensual sexual relationship prior to Ms. Stryker-Marando's employment at Zephyrhills School. The consensual sexual
relationship, identified as a "friends with benefits" (FWB) relationship, began in late spring 2011 and continued through that summer.
At some time during this FWB relationship, Ms. Stryker- Marando spoke with Respondent about an open ESE position at Zephyrhills School, and she applied for it. Ms. Stryker-Marando interviewed for the ESE position with Assistant Principal Williams. Respondent did not participate in the interview process for the candidates; however, when Ms. Williams told Respondent that Ms. Stryker-Marando was the best qualified candidate, Respondent gave his approval for Ms. Stryker-Marando to become a teacher at Zephyrhills School.
Despite telling Respondent the FWB relationship could not continue, Respondent threatened Ms. Stryker-Marando with various statements, such as: "you owe me," "I saved your career," or "I helped you with grad school." Ms. Stryker-Marando felt her job was in jeopardy, and as a then single mother with two children, she no longer felt it was a consensual relationship, but rather job security. Respondent was her supervisor, the "CEO" of the Zephyrhills School, and had the power (real or imaginary) to end her job and/or her teaching career.
Respondent repeatedly testified that he had a consensual sexual relationship with Ms. Stryker-Marando, which was on-going during the time when Ms. Stryker-Marando was his subordinate. However,
for Ms. Stryker-Marando the sexual relationship was not consensual.
Ms. Stryker-Marando did not want to continue the sexual relationship after she started working at Zephyrhills School, but she felt intimidated, harassed and threatened by Respondent.
Ms. Stryker-Marando felt so much pressure by Respondent that she sought and obtained an ESE position at a different school.
Mark Steve is the plant manager for Zephyrhills School.
Mr. Steve worked in this capacity during the time Kari Kadlub, Tim Urban, and Derrick Tucker were assistant principals under Respondent at Zephyrhills School.
Ms. Kadlub contacted Mr. Steve with a request for some work to be done. Mr. Steve was busy with other school projects, but at the end of the day he went to Ms. Kadlub's portable to follow-up on her request. As he walked up the ramp to the portable's door, he heard a lot of commotion coming from within the portable. When Mr. Steve knocked on the door, he heard more commotion, and looked through the view port (a window in the door approximately 8 inches by 31 inches in size). Mr. Steve saw Respondent standing by and exiting through the back door of the portable, dressed in his dress shirt and tie, but lacking pants which were draped over his arm. Mr. Steve backed away from the door window and when Ms. Kadlub answered the door, she appeared to be visibly shaken, and her hair and clothing were askew.
Mr. Steve apologized for the interruption and left without following up on Ms. Kadlub's request.
Shortly after Mr. Steve left the portable, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Urban knocked on Ms. Kadlub's portable door. Once inside the portable, the three assistant principals had a trivial conversation, and Mr. Tucker observed a pair of men's shoes on the floor beside a couch. Upon leaving the portable, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Urban went to the end of a building and watched the front door to Ms. Kadlub's portable. Less than two minutes later,
Mr. Tucker saw Respondent leave Ms. Kadlub's portable, fully clothed and wearing shoes.
Respondent contends that he used Ms. Kadlub's portable a few times to change into gym clothes because it was close to the school track. On the day these events allegedly happened
(in paragraphs 24 and 25 above), Respondent contends that he went into Ms. Kadlub's locked portable while no one was there, changed clothes, and went out to walk the track. Ms. Kadlub contends that Respondent was already in gym clothes when she entered her portable, they discussed a student based issue, and he left the portable.
This portion of the hearing implied that Respondent and Ms. Kadlub were engaged in some type of sexual relationship. There was no evidence to support that implication. Mr. Steve's testimony was credible. He expressed concern for his job over
reporting his observation. Likewise, Mr. Tucker's testimony was descriptive. However, neither Mr. Steve nor Mr. Tucker observed any actual contact, sexual or otherwise between Respondent and Ms. Kadlub. There were significant rumors spread throughout the school and community which caused Ms. Kadlub to move to another
school.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
This is a proceeding to discipline Respondent's educator certificate. Because disciplinary proceedings are considered penal in nature, Petitioner is required to prove the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern &
Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d
292 (Fla. 1987).
Clear and convincing evidence "requires more proof than a 'preponderance of the evidence' but less than 'beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.'" In re Graziano, 696 So. 2d
744, 753 (Fla. 1997). As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, the standard:
[E]ntails both a qualitative and quantitative standard. The evidence must be credible; the memories of the witnesses must be clear and without confusion; and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weight to convince the trier of fact without hesitancy.
Clear 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 testimony must be precise and lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such a weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting, with
approval, Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)); In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005).
"Although this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous." Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros., 590 So. 2d 986, 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), and (j); and rules 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (e), and 6A-10.081(5)(d) and (o). Section 1012.795 provides in relevant part:
The Education Practices Commission may suspend the educator certificate of any person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) for up to 5 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with
students for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); may revoke the educator certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for up to 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); may revoke permanently the educator certificate of any person thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students; may suspend the educator certificate, upon an order of the court or notice by the Department of Revenue relating to the payment of child support; or may impose any other penalty provided by law, if the person:
* * *
(d) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education.
* * *
(g) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
* * *
(j) Has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.
Rule 6A-10.081 provides in pertinent part:
The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional
Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
* * *
Obligation to the public requires that the individual:
* * *
(c) Shall not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage.
* * *
(e) Shall offer no gratuity, gift, or favor to obtain special advantages.
* * *
Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
* * *
(d) Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.
* * *
(o) Shall seek no reprisal against any individual who has reported any allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Section 1012.795(1), F.S.
Section 1012.796, which describes the disciplinary process, provides in pertinent part:
Complaints against . . . administrators; procedure:
* * *
A panel of the commission shall enter a final order either dismissing the complaint or imposing one or more of the following penalties:
Denial of an application for a teaching certificate or for an administrative or supervisory endorsement on a teaching certificate. The denial may provide that the applicant may not reapply for certification, and that the department may refuse to consider that applicant's application, for a specified period of time or permanently.
Revocation or suspension of a certificate.
Imposition of an administrative fine not to exceed $2,000 for each count or separate offense.
Placement of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the commission may specify, including requiring the certified teacher, administrator, or supervisor to complete additional appropriate college courses or work with another certified educator, with the administrative costs of monitoring the probation assessed to the educator placed on probation. An educator who has been placed on probation shall, at a minimum:
Immediately notify the investigative office in the Department of Education upon employment or termination of employment in
the state in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate.
Have his or her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the investigative office in the Department of Education.
Pay to the commission within the first 6 months of each probation year the administrative costs of monitoring probation assessed to the educator.
Violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board policies, school rules, and State Board of Education rules.
Satisfactorily perform his or her assigned duties in a competent, professional manner.
Bear all costs of complying with the terms of a final order entered by the commission.
Restriction of the authorized scope of practice of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor.
Reprimand of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor in writing, with a copy to be placed in the certification file of such person.
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 or an expired certificate subject to late renewal, which sanction bars that person from applying for a new certificate for a period of 10 years or less, or permanently.
Refer the teacher, administrator, or supervisor to the recovery network program
provided in s. 1012.798 under such terms and conditions as the commission may specify.
Because of the penal nature of section 1012.795, it must be strictly construed, with any ambiguity construed against the Petitioner. Elmariah v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 574 So. 2d 164
(Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Taylor v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 534 So. 2d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Disciplinary statutes must be construed in terms of their literal meaning, and words used by the Legislature may not be expanded to broaden their application. Latham v. Fla. Comm'n on Ethics, 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Beckett v. Dep't of Fin. Svcs., 982 So. 2d 94,
100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Dyer v. Dep't of Ins. & Treas., 585 So.
2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Count 1 of the Amended Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), "in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education." (emphasis added).
The Ethics in Education Act, chapter 2008-108, § 32, Law of Florida, amended section 1012.795(1)(d) to add the phrase "as defined by rule of the State Board of Education," creating the statute as it appears at present.
In Cappi Arroyo v. Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner
of Education, Case No. 11-2799, ¶ 109 (Fla. DOAH May 31, 2012;
Fla. EPC Nov. 13, 2012), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Scott Boyd analyzed the effect of the 2008 legislative amendment of section 1012.795(1)(d) and found that "[t]his portion of the statute [1012.795(1)(d)] is thus only violated if an educator is guilty of gross immorality as defined by rule of the State Board
of Education." (emphasis added). ALJ Boyd noted that "[t]he State Board of Education has not defined the term 'gross immorality' by rule." The Final Order in Arroyo v. Smith
accepted ALJ Boyd's Recommended Order. That Final Order, and the conclusions of the Recommended Order adopted thereby, will therefore be applied in this case.
Petitioner suggests that guidance for the terms "gross immorality" and "moral turpitude," which are not defined in section 1012.795, can be found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009. It is noted that rule 6B-4.009 was transferred and reworded to rule 6A-5.056 on July 8, 2012. The new rule, 6A-
5.056 does not define "gross immorality" or "moral turpitude," but instead defines "immorality" and "crimes involving moral turpitude."
The undersigned, having reviewed the relevant rules promulgated by the State Board of Education finds that the State Board of Education has not defined "gross immorality" or "an act involving moral turpitude" by rule. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was "guilty of gross
immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education."
Count 2 of the Amended Administrative Complaint alleged a violation of section 1012.795(1)(g), by being "found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board." The conduct occurred on school board property. Respondent's comments were heard by other school board employees who found the comments inappropriate and offensive. At least two employees were reluctant to report Respondent's conduct for fear of retaliation. Two others were so uncomfortable with Respondent's actions that they sought positions in other schools. Respondent's inappropriate and questionable conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school district employee. Petitioner has proven a violation of Count 2 by clear and convincing evidence.
Count 3 of the Amended Administrative Complaint alleged a violation of section 1012.795(1)(j). Count 3 does not constitute an independent violation, but rather is dependent upon corresponding violations of the rules constituting the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, (rule 6A- 10.081) which are alleged in Counts 4, 5, 6, and 7.
The evidence demonstrated that Respondent repeatedly made sexually based or suggestive comments, and in one instance, a gesture, to various employees in the school district that
threatened or invoked the fear of being fired or offended those employees. Such comments and gestures are vulgar and offensive, and have no place in the work environment. Respondent's inability or unwillingness to refrain from such inappropriate sexually charged comments created an intimidating, hostile and oppressive work environment. Respondent's effectiveness as a principal is greatly diminished. Petitioner has proven a violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Petitioner did not prove a violation of rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) or (e), or 6A-10.081(5)(o) by the requisite burden of proof.
The disciplinary guidelines for educators are found in rule 6B-11.007. The penalty range for a violation of section 1012.795 and/or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, rule 6A-10.081, is probation to revocation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-11.007(2)(i)22. The guidelines also list aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining whether to deviate from the guidelines. In cases such as this one, where the range of appropriate penalties is wide, these factors are helpful in determining where in the spectrum of available penalties the appropriate penalty falls. The aggravating factors relevant to this case are the severity of the offenses, the number of repetitions of the offenses, and any effort of rehabilitation by the educator. Fla. Admin. Code R.
6B-11.007(3)(a), (c), and (j). The undersigned has considered
that no evidence was presented to substantiate a sexual relationship (inappropriate or otherwise) between Respondent and Ms. Kadlub.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(5)(d), and not guilty of section 1012.795(1)(d), and rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (e), or rule 6A-10.081(5)(o). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission revoke Respondent's certification as an educator, with the decision concerning whether the revocation is permanent being left to the discretion of the Commission.
DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2014.
1/ All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2013), unless otherwise indicated.
2/ Pam Stewart is the current Commissioner of Education.
3/ These documents indicated that Respondent selected the Settlement Option, however on September 20, 2013, Respondent's counsel requested a "formal hearing be scheduled before the Division of Administrative Hearings, . . . disputing all allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint."
4/ Both parties listed Mr. Davey, Ms. Kadlub, Mr. Taylor, and Ms. Williams as witnesses. In order to provide an orderly hearing flow and allow each party the opportunity to elicit the direct testimony of each witness, the undersigned allowed great leeway in each cross-examination.
5/ Respondent's Exhibit 1 contained four Comprehensive Assessment Forms, three from his tenure at Hudson Middle School and one from Zephyrhills High School. Respondent's Exhibit 2 contained 41 letters of support (duplicates of several letters), none of which speak to the specific allegations and do nothing to prove or disprove the allegations.
6/ Witnesses testified about this movie using similar names: "What about Mary," and "Something about Mary." Each witness provided sufficient details of the scene to establish they were aware of the movie that Respondent was referencing.
7/ Ms. Boltze was at Zephyrhills School to discuss with the administration a meeting that had happened several days before where both Ms. Boltze and Respondent were in attendance. During that prior meeting, Respondent was getting agitated and
Ms. Boltze touched Respondent's arm and told him to calm down.
8/ Ms. Boltze contacted her supervisor and reported her verbal exchange with Respondent.
9/ Although never identified, "ESE" is exceptional student education.
Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110
29605 U.S. Highway 19 North
Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Education Practices Commission Department of Education
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.
