STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPH COFIELD,
Respondent.
/
Case No. 15-5647PL
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, an evidentiary hearing was held April 1, 2016, by video teleconference with sites in Tallahassee and Fort Myers, Florida, before Elizabeth W. McArthur, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire
Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E
300 Southeast 13th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
For Respondent: Joseph Lee Cofield, pro se
790 107th Avenue North Naples, Florida 34108-1859
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 9, 2015, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Petitioner), issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Joseph Lee Cofield (Respondent), charging him with violating section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e).2/ The factual allegations on which the charges were based included specific incidents in December 2012 and January 2013, as well as Respondent’s disciplinary history as a teacher holding a Florida educator’s certificate.
Respondent timely elected the option to attempt settlement, followed by a formal administrative hearing if settlement efforts were not successful. On October 8, 2015, the matter was referred to DOAH to conduct the requested hearing. The case was initially assigned to Administrative Law Judge J. Lawrence Johnston, who scheduled the hearing for December 15, 2015, by video teleconference with sites in Tallahassee and Fort Myers, in accordance with the parties’ joint response to the Initial Order.
Among other motion practice addressed by Orders as reflected on the docket, Respondent moved for a continuance to allow more time to conduct discovery and prepare for hearing. Petitioner did not oppose the motion, which was granted, and the hearing was rescheduled for February 23, 2016.
At the same time as the continuance, Petitioner moved to amend the Administrative Complaint, attaching its proposed Amended Administrative Complaint. The amendment elaborated on Respondent’s disciplinary history set forth in the original complaint by adding that the disciplinary matter referred to culminated in a settlement agreement adopted in a Final Order issued by the Education Practices Commission (EPC). Based on the same specific incidents alleged in the original complaint, corresponding charges were added under section 1012.795(1)(l) and rule 6A-10.081(5)(p) (violation of an EPC order).3/ The motion was granted, and the proceeding went forward on the basis of the December 3, 2015, Amended Administrative Complaint.
On February 18, 2016, the case was transferred to the undersigned. Both parties filed witness lists and proposed exhibits in accordance with the Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. However, the day before the scheduled hearing, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion to Continue, because counsel for Petitioner had just learned that a key witness had to undergo surgery and would be bedridden for two weeks. Counsel had not been able to reach Respondent for his position. Respondent was contacted by telephone by DOAH, and he stated that he did not oppose the request.4/ The emergency motion was granted, and after consulting with both parties as to availability, the hearing was rescheduled for April 1, 2016.
At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of the following witnesses: George K. (Ken) Burns, principal of the Alternative Learning Center in the Lee County School District; Andrew Brown, director of Lee County School District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity; and Willette Lewis, a former paraprofessional who worked in Respondent’s classroom during the relevant time period. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1
through 11 were admitted by agreement. In addition, at Petitioner’s unopposed request, official recognition was taken of Lee County School Board v. Joseph Cofield, Case No. 10-1654
(Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2010; Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. Nov. 2, 2010).
Respondent testified on his own behalf, and also presented the testimony of Alcadia Reyes, a former student. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 9 were admitted by agreement.
The parties were reminded that, even though their exhibits were admitted by agreement, hearsay evidence contained in their exhibits would not be relied on as the sole basis for findings of fact unless the hearsay evidence would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Florida. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015)5/; Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.213(3).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were informed of the ten-day deadline from the date of filing of the transcript for the parties to file their proposed recommended orders (PROs). The parties requested more time, and it was ultimately agreed
that the PRO filing deadline would be 30 days after the transcript was filed. The one-volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed on April 15, 2016. On May 13, 2016, Respondent filed a request to extend the PRO deadline until June 3, 2016, which was not opposed by Petitioner, and the request was granted.
Petitioner timely filed its PRO by the extended deadline.
Respondent did not file his PRO until the early hours of Saturday, June 4, 2016. As explained at the conclusion of the hearing, a DOAH filing deadline means that the filing must be made by 5:00 p.m. on the deadline day. After-hours filings, even on the deadline day, are docketed at 8:00 a.m. on the next regular business day. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.104(3).
Pursuant to this rule, Respondent’s PRO was docketed at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, June 6, 2016. On June 10, 2016, Respondent filed a lengthy explanation as to why he was unable to file his PRO by midnight on June 3, 2016 (which still would not have been timely). Petitioner has not objected to Respondent’s untimely PRO, and no prejudice would accrue by accepting Respondent’s
late-filed PRO. Accordingly, both parties’ PROs have been considered in preparing this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold a Florida
educator’s certificate and who are alleged to have violated one or more provisions in section 1012.795 and implementing rules.
Respondent holds Florida educator’s certificate 777352, covering the area of social science, which is valid through June 30, 2020.
Prior to becoming a teacher, Respondent was in the military for 21 years, serving as a soldier and non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. Respondent describes himself as a “great leader,” a skill he believes he developed in the Army.
Respondent was employed as a teacher for the Lee County School District (School District) beginning in 1998 or 1999.6/ He taught social science classes at Bonita Springs Middle School until 2009. A former student who attended that school between 2002 and 2004 spoke highly of Respondent as her teacher. That student has not been in a classroom with Respondent since 2004.
Beginning in early 2005, Respondent’s record as a teacher at Bonita Springs Middle School became spotted with disciplinary measures being regularly taken against him. The matters for which Respondent was disciplined were similar, evidencing a pattern of inappropriate physical contact with students, angry outbursts, conflicts with principals, and inappropriate classroom conduct, including ridiculing, embarrassing, and yelling at students.
In February 2005, at the request of the Bonita Springs Middle School principal, Respondent attended an in-service training on Anger Management and De-Escalation Training.
Despite that training, between 2005 and 2009, Respondent received six letters of reprimand from three different principals and two different directors of the School District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (DPSE). The letters of reprimand were for incidents described as: pushing a student (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2005); inappropriate physical contact--putting his hands in the pants of a female student (letter of reprimand, September 27, 2005); shoving two students out of the classroom (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2006); shouting at students in the hallway in a very harsh and loud tone (letter of reprimand, September 22, 2006); exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement (letter of reprimand, August 6, 2009); and kicking three students out of class, and yelling at the remaining students in the classroom, “You all are a bunch of idiots” (letter of reprimand, October 26, 2009).
On December 8, 2009, Respondent was involved in another incident with a student, E.C., who was a seventh-grade female. Respondent had sent E.C. to a neighboring classroom, connected to his classroom by a vacant office. When E.C. tried to return to Respondent’s classroom through the vacant office to retrieve her things, Respondent stopped her and told her to return to the
other classroom. E.C. was determined to get her things and disobeyed Respondent. When she tried to go around him to go back into his classroom, Respondent put his hand on her shoulder in an attempt to stop her. E.C. told him: “Don’t touch me.” She retrieved her things from Respondent’s classroom and then returned to the other classroom where Respondent had sent her.
At that point, Respondent called the office for assistance.
The District’s DPSE immediately began an investigation.
Respondent was suspended from teaching with pay and benefits as of December 9, 2009, pending completion of the investigation.
Following the investigation and a predetermination conference, the School District’s superintendent filed a Petition for Termination, alleging that Respondent was guilty of misconduct and other violations in connection with the incident on December 8, 2009. Respondent, represented by counsel, requested an administrative hearing to contest the proposed termination. Beginning March 9, 2010, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay pending resolution of the administrative proceeding.
A DOAH evidentiary hearing was held on July 14, 2010.
The resulting Recommended Order found Respondent guilty of misconduct and some of the other charged violations. The recommended penalty was suspension without pay from March 9, 2010, through January 1, 2011. The Recommended Order’s findings
of facts, conclusions of law, and recommended penalty were adopted in a Lee County School Board Final Order rendered November 2, 2010. Lee County School Board v. Joseph Cofield,
Case No. 10-1654 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2010; Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. Nov. 2, 2010) (2010 Suspension Order).
Detailed findings of fact were made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding the history of disciplinary action taken against Respondent from 2005 through 2009, which went uncontested by Respondent through the grievance process available to dispute disciplinary action. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO
at 3-7. The findings also describe the repeated warnings given to Respondent in the numerous letters of reprimand, which went unheeded; Respondent continued to engage in the same types of inappropriate behavior, despite the discipline and the warnings.
Findings were also made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding Respondent’s positive contributions as a teacher during the same time span as his patterned inappropriate behavior.
These included: being honored in 2005 as Wal-Mart Teacher of the Year; being honored by Florida Gulf Coast University as College Reachout Program Coordinator of the Year; participating in a conference in January 2009 to discuss the Troops to Teachers Program; coordinating a computer give-away program in conjunction with a community organization that presented computers to Bonita
Spring Middle School; and achieving success in Cadet and College Reachout Programs. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 11-12.
The 2010 Suspension Order concluded as follows:
The School Board did establish that
Mr. Cofield placed his hand on a student’s shoulder without the permission of the student. Mr. Cofield has been warned and disciplined in the past for placing his hands on students without the student’s permission. Mr. Cofield chose not to heed those warnings. Mr. Cofield argues that placing his hand on E.C. was reasonable force needed to control his classroom. This argument is without merit. Mr. Cofield did not need to put his hand on E.C.; he could call the office for assistance.
The School Board has established that Mr. Cofield’s conduct constitutes misconduct[.]
* * *
Mr. Cofield has performed outstanding work with the various programs designed to assist students, such as the computer give-away program, the Cadet program, and the College Reachout Program. This work mitigates against termination. However, placing a hand on a student without justification warrants a serious disciplinary action.
2010 Suspension Order, RO at 14-15.
Respondent did not appeal the 2010 Suspension Order.
Its findings, officially recognized herein, establish the backdrop of Respondent’s significant track record of discipline, and of the repeated warnings given in connection with disciplinary measures, from 2005 through 2009. No contrary evidence was offered.
In October 2010, just before the School Board rendered the 2010 Suspension Order, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent (2010 Complaint), seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s educator’s certificate.
The 2010 Complaint set forth Respondent’s “history of discipline related to conduct with students,” listing in summary fashion much of the same disciplinary history detailed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s disciplinary history set forth in the 2010 Complaint was as follows:
On or about March 2, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal related to pushing [a] student.
On or about September 27, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal resulting from allegations that Respondent put [his] hand into [a] student’s front pocket.
On or about September 25, 2006, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for yelling at Cadets in a loud and harsh manner.
On or about October 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for, among other things, Respondent’s confrontational behavior towards [the] principal.
On or about October 28, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal relating to conduct with students.
On or about December 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Suspension from [the]
principal related to allegations of [a] physical assault on a student.
2010 Complaint at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1).
The 2010 Complaint added allegations of other incidents of inappropriate conduct by Respondent during the 2008-2009 school year, including the following:
Respondent called students embarrassing names such as “knucklehead” and “fruitcake.”
Respondent looked at female students in a manner that made the students feel uncomfortable and self conscious.
Respondent threatened students telling them, “I will cut your fingers off,” or “I’ll smash your head into a wall,” or words to that effect.
2010 Complaint at 2 (Pet. Exh. 1).
Respondent, represented by counsel, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the charges in the 2010 Complaint, rather than contest them in an administrative hearing. Respondent signed the agreement on April 28, 2011.
Pertinent terms of the settlement agreement were:
Respondent neither admits nor denies, but elects not to contest the allegations set forth in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Respondent agrees to accept a letter of reprimand, a copy of which shall be placed in his certificate file with the Department of Education and a copy of which shall be placed in his personnel file with the employing school district.
Respondent agrees that he shall be placed on probation for a period of two (2) employment years. . . . As conditions of probation, Respondent:
* * *
shall, within the first year of probation, take a 3-credit hour college level course in the area of Classroom Management. . . .
shall violate no law and fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 [transferred to rule 10A-1.081 in January 2013; see endnote 2]; and
shall satisfactorily perform his duties in a competent, professional manner.
* * *
In the event Respondent fails to comply with each condition set forth herein, he agrees that the Petitioner shall be authorized to file an Administrative Complaint based
upon the violation of the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Settlement Agreement at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1).
By Final Order rendered on August 9, 2011, attaching and incorporating the 2010 Complaint and settlement agreement, the EPC accepted the settlement agreement and ordered Respondent to comply with its terms. Respondent did not appeal.
Respondent was on probation, and subject to the specific probation conditions imposed by the EPC Final Order, for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years.
Meanwhile, Respondent completed the term of his suspension from teaching without pay imposed by the School Board’s 2010 Suspension Order on January 1, 2011; he was allowed to return to work on January 3, 2011. Respondent was not asked to return to teach at his former school, Bonita Springs Middle School. Instead, he was offered a teaching position at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The ALC principal, Ken Burns, was told to make a spot for Respondent to teach there, and he did. Respondent accepted the teaching position at ALC. He taught eighth grade social studies.
ALC is an alternative school. Students are sent to ALC because they are having problems at other schools. Principal Burns describes the ALC students as kids who made bad decisions, but who are not bad kids. These students can present challenges for teachers and administrators. In classrooms, sometimes these students do not act properly. They can be disruptive. The teachers are responsible for managing their classrooms properly, in accordance with standards set by Florida law and regulations, and School District policies.
Principal Burns described some of the methods used at ALC to deal with problems in the classroom. One tool in place is called Team Time Out. Specific teachers are scheduled to be in charge of Team Time Out for a period of time. If a student is getting unruly in a classroom, the teacher can send the student
to the designated teacher in charge of Team Time Out. The student is allowed to cool down before returning to class.
Another tool used is a regular Time-Out Room. If a student is disrupting a class, the teacher might send the student to the Time-Out Room, where the student can work on assignments.
Regardless of the student problem being confronted, each teacher is expected to abide by the code of conduct established for the education profession. Rather than violate those conduct standards, if the teacher cannot otherwise handle a student problem, the teacher is expected to call administration or security for assistance.
On November 30, 2012, while on his EPC-imposed probation, Respondent received a letter of warning, which is a form of disciplinary action, from the ALC principal. As described in the warning letter, a student reported that Respondent pushed the student out the door during a fire drill, and that the push nearly caused the student to fall. The incident described in the letter of warning is similar to the long list of prior incidents for which Respondent was disciplined and about which Respondent was repeatedly warned, including the incident for which Respondent had recently served a suspension without pay for nearly ten months.
The November 30, 2012, letter of warning ended with a yet another reminder “to assist in correcting this conduct,”
providing as follows: “From this point forward, please remember at no point should a student be physically touched. If you are having an issue with a student please notify the administration or security for immediate assistance.”
Very shortly after that incident, the ALC principal received other complaints about Respondent’s behavior with students and his classroom temperament. The complaints came not just from students, but also from a paraprofessional (teacher’s aide) who was concerned about Respondent’s behavior that she had observed when she was in his classroom.
The ALC principal consulted with the School District’s DPSE, collected statements from the paraprofessional and students, and passed on the information to the DPSE.
By letter dated January 11, 2013, Respondent was informed that the DPSE was conducting an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Because the allegations involved issues of student safety, the notification letter informed Respondent that he was suspended from teaching with pay during the investigation.
Andrew Brown, then-investigator for the DPSE, conducted the investigation of alleged incidents involving Respondent in December 2012 and January 2013, and prepared an investigative report. The complaints that were investigated were summarized in the report as follows:
On or about December 20, 2012 (just before Winter Break), Mr. Cofield allegedly slammed a student’s fingers between the student’s desk and a binder the student was holding.
In a separate incident [on] December 19, 2012, Mr. Cofield allegedly threatened a student by grabbing and holding a keyboard in a threatening manner. He allegedly slammed a door behind the same student as the student was leaving the room, making contact with the student’s arm. In a third incident [on] 1/8/12 [sic: 2013], Mr. Cofield allegedly embarrassed students by asking each one to sit separately on a stool at the front of the room and answer the question, “Do you have a teacher’s license?” before sending the same students out of the class.
The investigative report noted that Respondent was “on probation” with the EPC “for similar allegations and conduct.”
A predetermination conference was held on January 30, 2013, to allow Respondent to respond to the investigation findings and add any information he would want considered. Respondent was represented by union counsel at that conference.
By letter dated February 5, 2013, Respondent was informed that the School District found probable cause for disciplinary action based on the allegations of misconduct investigated, and would be recommending termination of his employment.7/ As was done in 2009, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay, as of February 6, 2013.
Before the School District could proceed with a Petition for Termination, Respondent submitted a letter of resignation on March 12, 2013.
Respondent has disputed Petitioner’s contention that the resignation was in lieu of termination. When Respondent was deposed, he testified that he wrote his resignation letter to explain that this was a stressful situation for him. However, the letter makes no mention of a stressful situation. It simply reports that Respondent was taking the time for pursuit of higher education, to complete a master of arts degree and then seek a doctorate degree, and that Respondent had concluded: “I feel that it is time to resign in my career as a classroom teacher. I will peruse other opportunities that will be open to me as a result of obtaining my new graduate education.”
Respondent testified that he did not think he had already been suspended from teaching when he resigned, and he thought he was still being paid. Contrary to Respondent’s recollection, he had not been teaching for nearly two months, having been suspended on January 14, 2013. He resigned six weeks after being confronted with the details of the DPSE’s investigation in a predetermination conference, and five weeks after he received a letter informing him that probable cause had been found and the recommendation would be made to terminate his employment. He had not been paid for five weeks when he submitted his letter of resignation. A fair inference from the timing is that he chose to resign when he did to avoid being
terminated from employment and/or having to contest the charges in another administrative hearing.
Pursuant to section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes, even though Respondent had resigned, the School District was required to report the alleged misconduct to the Department of Education, which then conducted its own investigation.
Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on March 9, 2015, and an Amended Administrative Complaint on December 3, 2015. The specific incidents alleged in both versions of the complaint, are as follows:
On or about December 19, 2012, Respondent grabbed a keyboard from a computer being used by R.T., a fourteen year old, male student.
Respondent held the keyboard over the head while glaring at R.T. and in a manner that made the student believe Respondent was about to hit him with the keyboard.
On or about December 20, 2012, Respondent became angered when C.G., a thirteen year old, male student, tapped on his binder repeatedly. Respondent slammed C.G.’s binder with force, bringing the binder down on C.G.’s fingers causing pain to C.G. Respondent then threw C.G.’s binder in the trash.
On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent called students in his class to the front of the room and individually asked them, in front of the class, if they had a license to teach.
Respondent disputed the first allegation of a keyboard incident; Respondent admitted parts of the second allegation of a binder
incident, while denying part of the allegation; and Respondent admitted the third allegation.
No non-hearsay evidence was presented to prove the allegations regarding a computer keyboard incident on
December 19, 2012. The student, R.T., did not testify; no other students or other eyewitnesses testified; and Respondent denied the allegations.
R.T. provided a written statement about the incident, which is in evidence, but that statement is hearsay and cannot be used as the sole basis for a finding of fact. Petitioner did not argue that R.T.’s statement would be admissible over objection in a civil action, and the statement does not supplement or explain any non-hearsay evidence.
Respondent admitted parts of the allegations regarding a binder incident on December 20, 2012. Respondent acknowledged that a student in his classroom, C.G., was tapping on, flipping, or otherwise playing with a notebook or binder when the class was supposed to be taking a test. Respondent admitted that he took the binder out of the student’s hands, and threw the binder across the room into the garbage can. As he testified:
A: If there is a kid sitting in my classroom after I’ve given instructions of what to do and they still banging on a desk, yes, I have the right to go remove this noise away from these students that are trying to get ahead. If there is something wrong
with that I don’t need to be in a classroom.
Q: And throw this in the trash can?
A: Sir, when I took -- as my statement says, I took the binder away from the child and I threw it across the classroom. If it went in the garbage can, sir, it went in the garbage can. I don’t -- I didn’t pay attention to where it went at. I stopped the negative behavior going on in my classroom.
Q: So now your testimony is you took it and threw it across the classroom?
A: Sir, I took the instrument away from the student and it went in the garbage can.
Q: . . . [T]ell us what you told them at your predetermination conference. Didn’t you say you put it in the garbage?
A: No, I put the binder in the garbage, that’s what it states. But we clearly know that that’s not . . . [t]here’s nothing false about that. What it means is the binder left the student’s desk and wound up in the garbage can.
Q: It didn’t wind up there, you put it there, right?
A: Yes sir, I put it there. (Tr. 131-132).
In his deposition testimony, Respondent more clearly acknowledged that he intended to throw the student’s binder in the garbage can; he did not equivocate as he did at hearing:
Q: Then you didn’t walk over to the trash can and, in a Frisbee-type manner, throw the binder into the trash can?
A: Oh, I most definitely put it in the garbage can, sir.
Q: You did?
A: Yes sir, I did.
Q: All right. Why did you do that?
A: Because the student was disrupting – or, I mean, was interrupting a test environment.
Q: Okay.
A: and that – and that instrument was the thing that was causing all of that disturbment [sic]. (Pet. Exh. 11 at 39-40).
The facts regarding this binder incident that were admitted by Respondent were supplemented and explained by a number of written witness statements by students who were present, including C.G. These statements confirm that Respondent got angry because of C.G.’s toying with his binder, and that Respondent snatched the binder out of C.G.’s hands, and then either went across the room and then tossed it Frisbee-style into the garbage can or tossed the binder Frisbee-style across the room where it landed in the garbage can.
While Respondent may have had good reason to stop C.G. from disrupting the classroom, the manner in which he went about it was inappropriate and contrary to the repeated warnings he had been given over the prior seven years by no less than four different principals (including, most recently, the ALC
principal) to avoid any physical contact with students. See 2010
Suspension Order (detailing past disciplinary warnings and identifying principals issuing them).
Respondent did not admit to having smashed the binder down on C.G.’s hand before snatching it away from C.G., and there was no independent non-hearsay evidence to prove that aspect of the allegation. Nonetheless, Respondent’s admissions establish that he took C.G.’s binder away while C.G. was tapping on it, flipping the cover, or otherwise playing with it, as the means Respondent chose to stop C.G. from playing with his binder. The only reasonable inference is that Respondent forcibly removed the binder while at least one of C.G.’s hands was on, in, or under the binder--an inappropriate physical contact. Respondent’s explanation that he did this because the binder was the instrument being used to cause disruption is insufficient to justify the inappropriate physical contact that had to occur to remove the binder from C.G. while he was playing with it.
Respondent’s additional acts of tossing C.G.’s binder like it was a Frisbee and throwing the binder in the garbage can were inappropriate responses that went well beyond the claimed objective of stopping the disturbance. These actions can only be explained as displays of anger, presumably because C.G. did not listen to Respondent’s instructions to stop playing with the binder. If Respondent were genuinely concerned only with
stopping the disruptive behavior, he would not have reacted by causing an even greater disturbance by tossing the binder like a Frisbee into the garbage can. Instead, he would have, and should have, dealt appropriately with C.G.
Moreover, it was irresponsible for Respondent to throw the binder in the garbage can, after he had wrested the binder away from C.G. The binder could have contained important schoolwork for Respondent’s class or another class.
Despite being on probation for a string of similar incidents, despite having been suspended from teaching for nearly ten months for a similar incident, and despite having just received a letter of warning three weeks earlier, Respondent failed to heed the repeated warnings that if he had an issue with a student, he should contact security or administration for immediate assistance rather than inappropriately attempting to “control” the situation by making contact with the student.
The evidence was clear and convincing that in this binder incident, Respondent did not act with the calm, professional demeanor expected of a teacher who is able to deal appropriately with a student disrupting the classroom by playing with a binder. Instead, Respondent acted inappropriately with a temper that made an all-too-regular appearance in the classroom.
The ALC principal described Respondent as having a temper that would turn on and off like a switch. His testimony was credible and is credited.
Ms. Lewis, the paraprofessional who spent time working in Respondent’s classroom during the 2012-2013 school year, observed the same thing: Respondent had a temper that greatly affected his classroom conduct. Set off by minor incidents of students talking or not listening, Respondent would get angry, yell at the students, use profanity (not the “f” word, but somewhat milder words),8/ and act in volatile ways, such as tossing text books so that they would slide on a table and stop just before they hit students. Respondent’s unpredictable outbursts caused concern for the students’ safety; sometimes when Respondent got angry, he would clench and shake his fists, trembling as if he was about to strike out. Respondent’s classroom temperament was unlike anything the paraprofessional observed from any other teacher in the other ALC classrooms where she also worked.
While Respondent’s temper and classroom temperament, as described by the ALC principal and paraprofessional, were not set forth as the subjects of separate charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint, they tend to support the findings above that Respondent’s admitted conduct on December 20, 2012, was
inappropriate, just as they undermine Respondent’s claimed justification.
Respondent’s temper and lack of control also were on display on several occasions during the course of the hearing, adding even more credence to the findings. He raised his voice and got agitated while giving his sworn statement. He also accused the undersigned of having “belittled” him, without explanation as to why he said that. (Tr. 105).
Respondent also admitted the third allegation describing his classroom conduct on January 7, 2013:
Q: Did you do that on January -- on or about January 7, 2013, did you bring students up to the front of the class and ask them, “Do you have a license to teach?”
A: I most – yes I did, sir.
Q: All right. Good. So that, you admit? A: I clearly admit that, yes.
Q: All right, good.
A: And I –- and I will challenge anybody that -- that's in my classroom that’s trying to disrupt the class that don’t have a teaching license. (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 46).
Respondent acknowledged to having engaged in that conduct on other occasions--indeed, as a matter of course: “I can guarantee you that I have asked all of my students over many periods of time do they have a license, because I’m the only
person in that classroom with a teacher’s license.” (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 45). The paraprofessional working in Respondent’s classroom was an eyewitness to this conduct, which she described as very demeaning and embarrassing for the students.
Respondent’s admissions and the paraprofessional’s eyewitness observations are corroborated by numerous written statements by students subjected to this conduct.
Respondent sought to justify his conduct as legitimate teaching strategy. As he tried to explain it:
It’s effective classroom management. If you have a bunch of students that do not have the ability to stop stopping their behavior, you have to ask them before you take them away from the classroom do they know what they’re doing. If the answer is yes, I know what I’m doing, then you need to send them out. If the person says no, I have no idea what I’m doing you need to work with that student until that student understands what is wrong with that behavior that you want to correct. (Tr. 129-130).
Respondent’s explanation for his conduct does not square with his actual conduct. He is not being accused of asking unruly students whether they know what they are doing and then working with those students to correct their misbehavior. Instead, he is accused of demeaning these young teenaged students by isolating them one at a time at the front of the room, and requiring them to face their peers and announce that they are not licensed to teach, so that Respondent can remind them that he is
superior. This has nothing to do with addressing unruly or disruptive behavior, questioning that behavior, or attempting to correct that behavior. Instead, Respondent dealt with disruptive students by belittling them, embarrassing them, and reminding them that he is better than them. As the ALC principal confirmed, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent’s conduct as any form of legitimate teaching strategy. Instead, this is inappropriate conduct for a teacher.
Respondent offered little by way of specific evidence in his defense. Instead, at times he claimed to not recall anything about his disciplinary track record, or about the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.9/ He repeatedly challenged Petitioner to produce video evidence of the incidents, but never proved that any video evidence existed. If there had been video evidence, it would have been in the possession of the School District, but no video is identified in the investigative report as would be expected if it existed. Respondent could have taken steps to compel the production of any such evidence by the School District, but he did not.
Respondent’s other defense was to attempt to challenge the credibility of Petitioner’s witnesses. These efforts were ineffective. Respondent made general sweeping statements that he was “shocked” by the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses, which he repeatedly characterized as filled with lies, without proof of
that characterization. Other than those broad generalizations, no specifics came to light as to why the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses should not be believed.
Respondent argued in his opening statement that the ALC principal “has seemed to have an axe to grind and has been on the greatest witch hunt to railroad a great educator.” (Tr. 17). That charge was wholly unsubstantiated. Instead, the ALC principal recognized the same pattern of behavior evident since 2005 when Respondent was first required to take anger management training by a former Bonita Springs Middle School principal.
Respondent proclaimed himself a great leader while offering his view that with one exception, none of the principals he worked for in Lee County were good leaders. It is worth noting that according to the 2010 Suspension Order, the “one great principal” Respondent identified (Tr. 113) was the principal who had Respondent undergo anger management training in early 2005, and who issued Respondent’s first letter of reprimand for pushing a student.
To the extent Respondent attempted to blame his disciplinary history and the allegations he is now facing on his principals, rather than excusing or explaining the conduct for which he was disciplined and for which he is subject to discipline in this proceeding, the impression given is that Respondent has had difficulty accepting the subordinate role of
teacher vis-à-vis principal. Indeed, Respondent admitted that he “did tell the principal the one that write down these false things against me, I could do your job just as well as you can do it. And maybe that offend some people. . . .” (Tr. 115).
Respondent also attempted to discount the significance of the EPC Final Order by alluding to various medical problems he was experiencing that caused him to enter into a settlement agreement, even though he claimed the charges were not true. Respondent offered no evidence to substantiate his claims, but stated generally that he “had just got over having a kidney removed” and that he “had prostate cancer.” He also said that he had taken his wife’s money to fight the allegations, and agreed to the settlement so he could get back to work. (Tr. 111). Notwithstanding Respondent’s testimony, the EPC Final Order cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. Respondent accepted the terms of that Final Order, and knew full well that he was required to comply with the probation conditions or face more discipline for violating the terms of his probation.
Respondent also claimed that he was set up for failure by being assigned to ALC, which was more than one hour away from his home instead of the ten-minute commute he enjoyed when teaching at the school where he earned a lengthy suspension, after a string of six letters of reprimand. Respondent did not contest the assignment, but accepted the teaching position at
ALC. Respondent’s school assignment may have been a matter he could have raised in a grievance proceeding, but it is not a matter that explains his inappropriate conduct while teaching there, especially knowing he was on probation.
Finally, in a seeming admission that his temper was erratic and his behavior volatile while he was teaching at ALC, Respondent testified that he was undergoing radiation treatment for prostate cancer, and that anybody undergoing that treatment “would have such mood swings some times.” Yet in the next breath, he said: “But it never affected my effectiveness in my classroom.” (Tr. 112).
In his predetermination conference in which Respondent was informed of the investigation findings and allowed to respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent did not mention that he had been undergoing treatment that may have affected his behavior or his classroom conduct. If this was a legitimate reason that might explain or excuse, even in part, Respondent’s conduct in December 2012 and January 2013 that was the subject of the School District’s investigation, surely Respondent would have shared information about his treatment and how it might have affected him in a conference to determine if there was probable cause to proceed to terminate his employment. Without more to substantiate the relevance of any medical conditions, treatment, or other external factors alluded to by Respondent, including
specifics as to the timing of such matters, they cannot excuse or explain Respondent’s improper conduct as found above.
As in the administrative hearing that resulted in the 2010 Suspension Order, Respondent offered evidence of his positive contributions as a teacher, as mitigating evidence to consider in imposing discipline. However, most of Respondent’s evidence is old, pre-dating Respondent’s suspension, and in fact, duplicating the evidence of Respondent’s contributions, honors, and achievements considered and addressed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s contributions and achievements in 2009 and earlier years were expressly credited as mitigating against a harsher result in the 2010 Suspension Order for his misconduct committed during the same timeframe as the contributions.
Having already enjoyed the mitigating benefit of his pre-2010 achievements, honors, and contributions to lessen the consequences of his pre-2010 misconduct, Respondent’s older achievements are not considered again in this proceeding in mitigation of the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s post- suspension improper conduct.
Respondent presented evidence that after he returned to teaching when his suspension was completed, he continued his participation in the computer give-away program, working with a community computer club sponsoring free laptop computers for selected students who wrote an essay explaining how they would
benefit from a laptop. Respondent provided one such essay submitted by an ALC student. Respondent’s continued involvement in the computer give-away program while at ALC was a positive contribution for at least one ALC student who participated.
The other post-suspension evidence offered by Respondent shows that he is bettering himself by pursuing higher education, obtaining an additional degree and a certificate, as he stated he would do in his March 2013 resignation letter when he stopped teaching. These are positive contributions by Respondent, but cannot be considered contributions by Respondent as an educator to mitigate the penalty imposed for Respondent’s improper conduct as an educator.
Respondent has not worked as a teacher since he submitted his resignation letter to the School District in March 2013, but he has been pursuing the higher education described in that letter. It is unclear whether Respondent would otherwise be seeking work as a classroom teacher pursuant to his educator’s certificate. Petitioner’s witness for the School District testified that he could not imagine that the School District would consider hiring Respondent back to teach there. The ALC principal echoed that sentiment. The principal would be concerned because it is his job to make sure the school is safe for all students. He would not want Respondent back in a teaching role at his school because of his track record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat.
The EPC is authorized to impose discipline on teachers in Florida. § 1012.795, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is charged with conducting investigations and prosecuting administrative complaints against teachers for alleged violations constituting grounds for discipline by the EPC. § 1012.796, Fla. Stat.
In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent’s educator certificate. Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the allegations against Respondent in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 1987). As stated by the
Florida Supreme Court:
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 explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Slomowitz
v. Walker, 492 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Accord Westinghouse Electric Corp., Inc. v. Shuler Bros., Inc., 590
So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("Although this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, . . . it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.").
The grounds on which the EPC has authority to impose discipline against an educator certificate are set forth in section 1012.795(1). Respondent is charged with committing the offenses in paragraphs (g), (j) and (l), providing that discipline may be imposed if the person:
(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.
* * *
(l) Has violated any order of the Education Practices Commission.
The Amended Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with violating three paragraphs in rule 6A-10.081, which is the rule codifying the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession referred to in section 1012.795(1)(j). The specific rule provisions under which Respondent is charged are:
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.
* * *
(e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
* * *
(5) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
* * *
(p) Shall comply with the conditions of an order of the Education Practices Commission imposing probation, imposing a fine, or restricting the authorized scope of practice.
Based on the Findings of Fact above, Petitioner proved that Respondent is guilty of violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. In particular, by his conduct in the binder incident, Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students--both C.G. and the other students in the classroom--from conditions harmful to learning and from conditions harmful to the students’ mental and physical health and safety. And by his conduct requiring students to parade to the front of the class and announce they do not have a teaching certificate, Respondent intentionally exposed his students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Respondent’s improper conduct in this regard violated section
1012.795(1)(j), and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e), as charged in Counts 2, 4, and 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
There is no dispute that Respondent was under the probation imposed by the EPC Final Order when he committed these violations. Respondent’s violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession are also violations of specific probation condition 5.f., which required Respondent to violate no law and fully comply with the rule codification of the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession, now in rule 6A-10.081.
Petitioner also proved that Respondent violated the condition of his probation that required him to “satisfactorily perform his duties in a competent, professional manner.” Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.f., incorporated in EPC Final Order. In both incidents that were proven, Respondent’s improper conduct failed to comport with the standard of professionalism imposed as a condition of his probation.
By violating two separate conditions of the probation imposed by theEPC Final Order, Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(l) and rule 6A-10.081(5)(p), as charged in Counts 3 and 6 of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
The specific incidents that were charged and proven, in and of themselves, were not shown to be personal conduct that
seriously reduced Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher. Had
Petitioner proven all aspects of the specific incidents charged, or had the charges also included Respondent’s overall classroom temperament, outbursts, and other conduct beyond the two specific incidents alleged and proven, a violation of section 1012.795(1)(g) may have been established. But on this record, Petitioner did not prove a violation of section 1012.795(1)(g).
Petitioner argued in its PRO that a violation of section 1012.795(1)(g) should be found because of Respondent’s loss of effectiveness as a teacher, and because the 2010 Suspension Order determined that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher was impaired by a less egregious incident than those at issue here. However, in the 2010 Suspension Order, Respondent was found to have committed misconduct, defined at the time by rule to require a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct which is so serious “as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-4.009(3) (2010). In contrast, section 1012.795(1)(g) requires proof of personal conduct that “seriously reduces” the teacher’s effectiveness. While Respondent’s violations may have impaired or reduced his effectiveness as a teacher, the undersigned cannot conclude that, in and of themselves, the violations charged and proven seriously reduced Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher.
In determining the appropriate discipline for Respondent’s statutory and rule violations, the disciplinary
guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007 must be considered. For the violations found here, the range of discipline ordinarily imposed for each offense is from probation at the low end to revocation. Respondent committed two separate offenses, in violation of two statutes and three rules.
Mitigating and aggravating factors may be considered as grounds to deviate outside of the disciplinary guideline range.
The mitigating factors proven in this case are insufficient to justify deviating outside of the guideline range. Respondent proved that he has made positive contributions as an educator, but undermining those positive contributions is Respondent’s pattern of improper conduct, repeat offenses, and failure to heed warnings repeatedly given. Respondent is not working as a teacher now, and would be unable to do so if discipline is imposed at any level above the lowest end of the disciplinary guidelines. This is a mitigating consideration to some extent, but not a weighty one that should dictate allowing Respondent to escape appropriate consequences for his own actions.
The aggravating factors proven in the record outweigh the mitigating factors. Most notably, consideration of the “[a]ttempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the educator to correct or stop the violation”, and “[a]ny effort of rehabilitation by the educator” are two
aggravating factors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-11.007(3)(j),
(m). Respondent has refused to learn from his disciplinary track record, has refused to accept that his improper conduct is improper, and has refused to correct or stop doing that which he has been repeatedly disciplined for doing.
Nonetheless, it is unnecessary to find that the aggravating factors justify imposition of a penalty outside of the guidelines range, since the guidelines authorize revocation as the high end of permissible discipline.
Petitioner’s PRO suggests a penalty of revocation of Respondent’s educator certificate for at least three years. Since none of the prior disciplinary measures have seemed to have any deterrent effect on Respondent’s conduct, Petitioner’s suggestion is reasonable. Respondent has not learned from lesser consequences as disciplinary measures, including a lengthy suspension from teaching imposed by the School District. Respondent certainly did not take seriously the two-year probation previously imposed by the EPC, or he would have been scrupulous to avoid engaging in the same kind of conduct previously deemed to violate the Professional Standards of Conduct for the Education Profession. Therefore, for the two incidents proven to be violations of two statutes and three rules, imposition of a penalty closer to the high end of the range for one violation is justified.
A three-year revocation of Respondent’s educator’s certificate is not the harshest penalty that could be imposed. As made clear by rule 6B-11.007(2), authorization in the disciplinary guidelines for “revocation” means revocation for any length of time up to ten years, or permanent revocation.
Petitioner also suggests imposition of fines, a requirement for evaluation in the event Respondent seeks to apply for a new certificate after his three-year revocation, and a probationary period if Respondent qualifies for a new certificate. The undersigned declines to recommend imposing fines in addition to the three-year revocation of Respondent’s certificate. The remaining suggestions are premature, as the appropriateness of conditions, such as a fitness evaluation and/or a probationary period, are matters to be considered in the future if Respondent applies for a new certificate and seeks to demonstrate his qualifications under the laws and rules in effect at the time he applies.
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 violating section 1012.795(1)(j) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 10A-1.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(p);
Finding Respondent not guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(g); and
Revoking Respondent’s educator’s certificate no. 777352 for a period of three years.
DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 2016.
ENDNOTES
1/ The Administrative Complaint did not specify the version of the Florida Statutes under which Respondent was charged. The law in effect at the time of Respondent’s conduct at issue applies in this penal proceeding; however, it is noted that the statutory provisions under which Respondent was charged have not changed since 2012.
2/ The rule provisions under which Respondent was charged have not changed in substance or wording since Respondent’s conduct at issue. However, they have been renumbered twice. First, right around the time of the alleged incidents, the entire rule was transferred without change from rule 6B-1.006 to rule 6A-10.081. See Fla. Admin. Code history note for former rule 6B-1.006 (transferred effective January 11, 2013). Thereafter, rule 6A-
10.081 was amended on March 23, 2016, to reorganize/renumber the
provisions and to add a provision not relevant to this proceeding. As a result of the renumbering, former rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a) is now found in rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and former rule 6A-10.081(3)(e) is now rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. Citations herein will be to the rule version before the 2016 amendment.
3/ The Amended Administrative Complaint misidentifies the letter of the rule paragraph charged in Count 6 as rule 6A-10.081(5)(g), which prohibits misrepresentation of one’s own professional qualifications. Count 6 describes the charge under this rule paragraph as the “failure to comply with conditions of an order of the Education Practices Commission imposing probation.” That description matches rule paragraph (5)(p), not (5)(g). This is a harmless error, in that the substance of the rule charged is set forth in Count 6, and in any event, the essence of this charge is already captured in Count 3, charging a violation of section 1012.795(1)(l), for a violation of an order of the EPC.
4/ Respondent called back later to say that although he did not oppose the continuance, he would be filing a response because he wanted to “say his piece.” Later that day, Respondent filed a written response in which he did not oppose the continuance or request that the emergency motion be denied. However, he said that he was being prejudiced by the continuance. He noted that the case had already been continued once, without acknowledging that the continuance was at his request to allow him more time to prepare. He stated (incorrectly) that this case has been in progress since March 2013, and it was too long to wait from March 2013 until even February 23, 2016. He also repeated a complaint made in prior filings that he felt disrespected because Petitioner took his deposition by telephone, while acknowledging that he later learned telephonic depositions are permissible.
Ultimately, however, he concluded: “I do understand and appreciate the need for the Emergency Motion to Continue.”
5/ Citations herein to procedural statutes are to the 2015 codification of the Florida Statutes, as the law in effect at the time of the final hearing.
6/ The record contains scant, sometimes conflicting, evidence regarding certain facts, such as when Respondent began working for the Lee County School District. Respondent’s resignation letter states that he began work there in 1999. Respondent’s PRO gives a start date in 1998, but the record citation is to his own answers to interrogatories, which stated that he began working for the School District in September 1999. As to this fact, the discrepancies are immaterial.
7/ The letter informing Respondent of the probable cause determination and recommendation for terminating his employment was issued by the then-Director of the DPSE, Ranice Monroe. The District’s investigation was conducted by the then-investigator Andrew Brown, who is now the DPSE Director. Respondent’s PRO mischaracterized Mr. Brown’s testimony as stating that he would not have recommended that Respondent be terminated for the allegations of misconduct. Instead, Mr. Brown explained that in the capacity of his job at that time (investigator, not DPSE Director), he would not have made the recommendation for termination. That is because, as investigator, he did not make recommendations--his role was to conduct the investigation and summarize the facts.
8/ Respondent attempted to discredit the testimony of the paraprofessional, Willette Lewis, with his own testimony that he never uses profanity, in an effort to prove that she had lied.
However, during his deposition, when one would expect that he would use greater restraint than usual, he lapsed into profanity as an outburst of irritation with being asked to answer questions about the incidents alleged in the Administrative Complaint. See Pet. Exh. 11 at 31, line 8 (A: Oh, s[***]. I don’t recall, sir.). Respondent’s attempt to discredit Ms. Lewis was not effective. Ms. Lewis was a very credible witness.
9/ The record reflects that Respondent frequently complained about how long it took for this case to go to hearing, contending that it has been pending since March 2013. That is not accurate. The School District would have proceeded with a case to terminate Respondent’s employment, but for Respondent’s choice to resign in March 2013. Had he not resigned, he would have had the opportunity for an administrative hearing to contest the allegations that gave rise to the School District recommendation that Respondent’s employment be terminated, essentially the same incidents on which charges are based in this case.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Gretchen K. Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 316
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E
300 Southeast 13th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed)
Joseph Lee Cofield 790 107th Avenue North
Naples, Florida 34108-1859 (eServed)
Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 224-E
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
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 | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 03, 2016 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 01, 2016 | Recommended Order | While on EPC probation, Respondent violated three professional conduct rules in two incidents. With track record of many similar incidents and repeated warnings, recommend 3-year revocation of certificate. |
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KAREN E. MAROON, 15-005647PL (2015)
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JOSEPH COFIELD, 15-005647PL (2015)
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs TYRHON RENARD CRAWFORD, 15-005647PL (2015)
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KAYHLENE GAINER-BOSTIC, 15-005647PL (2015)
MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MATTHEW KANE, 15-005647PL (2015)
