STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1641

)

HENRY GOOCH, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came up for hearing at 9:00 a.m., October 22, 1975, at Santa Fe Community College, Gainesville, Florida, on the charges filed by the College against Henry Gooch, a faculty member. The Respondent, Gooch, was charged in an Amended Petition for disciplinary action with violations of several provisions of the school policy manual and guidelines which stemmed out of a weekend field trip taken as part of the Respondent's course, SC-230.01; Marriage and the Family.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert V. Bookman, Esquire

222 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida

For Respondent: Robert P. Cates, Esquire

635 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida

The charges are as follows:

On the days of July 12 and 13, 1975, in the course of conducting his assigned duties, to-wit, instructing the course SC-230.01, Marriage and the Family, Respondent conducted a weekend field trip on which appropriate field trip papers were not filed. This action was in violation of Rule 1-5.19 of Santa Fe Community College Policy Manual and of the guidelines on file in the Office of Academic Affairs.

The Respondent coerced students to attend this weekend field trip under threat of no credit for the course in violation of Rule 1-5.17 of the Santa Fe Community College Policy Manual and the Santa Fe Community College Field Trip Policy.

Respondent scheduled activities during the weekend field trip during which student participants were asked to, and did, remove articles of clothing.

Respondent announced the dismissal of said class two weeks early, without permission, in violation of contractual obligations as established in Rule 1-

1. of the Santa Fe Community College Policy Manual and the Teaching Responsibilities set forth at page 28 of the Faculty Handbook.

   
   

   Respondent's conduct is not in accordance with the standard of conduct required of instructional personnel as described in Rule 1-3.55 of the Santa Fe Community College Policy Manual.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. The facts which resulted in the filing of these administrative charges are not in great dispute. The Respondent, Henry Gooch, taught the class of Marriage and the Family during the summer term of 1975 at Santa Fe Community College. The college class schedule listed this course and indicated that the course included the weekend of July 12 and 13. Classes began around July 2, 1975, and Respondent informed the students that class attendance was required for this course, any student who missed over three classes would receive a "W" (for which a student does not receive a course credit), that the weekend experience would count as five class sessions, and that the course would, because of this weekend, terminate two weeks earlier than normal. Respondent Gooch stated that the weekend experience was a requirement for the course and that any student that did not attend would receive a grade of "W."

      
      

   2. At no time were any students given an indication of what was to take place during this required weekend "experience." The weekend experience took place on Little Lake Santa Fe outside Gainesville, Florida. One student advised the Respondent that because of religious reasons, she could not attend. This student did not attend the weekend experience and received a "W" for the course. Failure to get credit for this course caused this student not to graduate after the summer term and required her continuing attendance and enrollment at Santa Fe Community College. Students were permitted to bring their spouses to the weekend experience and several of them did. After the students arrived, the Respondent began a group discussion on the topic of public nudity. This discussion became very heated and apparently some of the students got the impression that nudity was part of the program for this weekend. Several of them, in fact, asked Mr. Gooch whether he intended to require nudity as part of the weekend experiences. Mr. Gooch assured them it was not.

      
      

   3. After this discussion had ended Mr. Gooch began what has been called "the machine game." Basically what happened is that one student was asked to come into the center of the room and imitate a machine. After this had begun, the other students were advised to join in by forming a circle or a line and to imitate the machine in unison. Each student was then asked to exchange pants with the student in front of then. At this time, at least one student found this activity to be extremely objectionable. Several other students did not participate in the exchange of clothing. One student, Ron Griffith, who found the activities objectionable, left the room and shortly thereafter left the weekend with his wife. The student Griffith eventually filed a formal complaint with the School Administration outlining his version of the activities of the weekend and his feelings that the Respondent's conduct was extremely unprofessional. This statement was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The Respondent stated that the factual allegations in that complaint are accurate. At least one other student left the weekend after the machine game had been completed and that student also received a "W." Shortly after student Griffith filed his formal complaint with the School Administration, the Respondent Gooch was suspended from teaching responsibilities at Santa Fe. This occurred on August 1, 1975. Another instructor took over the responsibilities for teaching Marriage and the Family

      and in that manner the course was completed. It is admitted that the school regulations regarding field trips was not complied with by the Respondent Gooch. A copy of the school regulations in the school policy manual had been assigned to Gooch as Department Coordinator. Mr. Gooch claims he was not aware of the field trip policy and would have complied with it had he known.

      
      

   4. For several students that did not attend the weekend trip or left before its completion and who received "W's" for their final grade, there was no real showing that an alternative requirement for course completion was made available to them. It is true that the Respondent Gooch testified he intended to give several of these students an opportunity to make up the missed time at this weekend, but whatever effort he put into this was certainly inadequate, particularly in light of the fact that his prior announcements would give any reasonable person the absolute impression that failure to participate and complete this weekend made the grade of "W" mandatory.

      
      

   5. There is certainly no question that the Respondent, Gooch, did violate provisions of the College Policy Manual. The pleadings filed in this case admit such did occur. The crucial issue is whether these were mere technical violations or whether the nature of the Respondent's conducts should be considered serious infractions. It is undisputed that the Respondent required the attendance of students in this course at this weekend experience. The charges filed on behalf of the college state that the students were coerced to attend this weekend. Perhaps coerced is not the most appropriate word to use, but it is certain attendance at this weekend was mandatory on a threat of receiving no credit for the course. It is also undisputed that the students were not given any indication of what to expect during this weekend. The Respondent should have known that his planned activities for this weekend would be objectionable or distasteful to at least some of the students in this class. Those students were given no choice or alternative course of study by which they could have received credit for this course as a substitute for this weekend experience. As a result, these students, as mentioned above, did not participate in the weekend experience and received a grade of "W" for the course of Marriage and the Family. The failure of these students to receive credit for this course was a direct result of the Respondent's not complying with school policy.

      
      

   6. Even though the Respondent advised the class the weekend experience was a mandatory requirement in time for the students to drop this course and add another one to receive required credit, that opportunity was not very meaningful without a better explanation of what was involved in the "weekend experience." The students could not be held responsible for having made a choice in this matter when they were uninformed as to what they were choosing. A student should not be subjected to requirements found to be personally distasteful without at least the sanction of the University and the informed consent of the student. In this case, neither occurred, as the school policy on field trips was not followed and the students were kept in total ignorance as to what the itinerary was for this weekend.

      
      

   7. The students who received a "W" grade cannot be said to have failed to meet the minimum requirements in this course when one of the announced requirements, the unapproved field trip, violated school policy. It must, therefore, be concluded the Respondent Henry Gooch did violate School Policy 1-

      5.17 by causing several students to receive the grade of "W" for not participating in the weekend.

   8. Were it only that the weekend turned out to be less than completely successful, this matter might be dismissed as nothing more than exercise of poor judgement on the part of the Respondent that caused no real harm. However, the violation of school policy combined with this poor judgement caused several students to lose credit for the course and at least one not to graduate in time. The loss to the students cannot be replaced and the harm to them is real, not speculative.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Respondent Gooch be found to have violated school policy, and suspended until the end of the Fall Quarter of 1975, thereupon to be returned to faculty Status on an annual contract status.

Furthermore, he should not be considered for reinstatement on a continuing contract basis for one year and during this probationary period, not be eligible for pay adjustment.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida.

KENNETH G. OERTEL

Director

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1975.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert P. Cates, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 635 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida

Robert V. Bookman, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner

222 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida

Docket for Case No: 75-001641

Orders for Case No: 75-001641