STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Petition of ) SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, by ) ALAN J. ROBERTSON, President, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1868

)

ROBERT E. PHILLIPS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter was brought up for hearing at 9:00 a.m. November 18, in Gainesville, Florida, on the "Petition for Personnel Action" filed by Santa Fe Community College against Robert E. Phillips, respondent. The respondent is a full-time member of the instructional staff of Santa Fe Community College under a continuing contract agreement. The charges filed against him in this petition stated:

"On September 13, 1975, respondent stated in a published interview with the Gainesville Sun Newspaper that he had been a user of marijuana in his home for two and one-half years and made other statements critical of law enforcement practices." The petition further states in pertinent part that the respondent was hired to participate in the college's law enforcement program and was awarded tenure as an instructor in that program.

The basic facts underlying this cause were not in great dispute. The respondent, Robert Phillips, was the coordinator of Santa Fe Community College's law enforcement program and was in charge of the college's police academy. Apparently, from information received in an unrelated matter, the Gainesville Police Department learned that the respondent has used marijuana. This information came into the hands of the Gainesville Sun, who interviewed the respondent and published the results of that interview in their newspaper. That news story was introduced as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and the facts contained in it were acknowledged to be true by Lee respondent. The local response to

this news article, particularly in the law enforcement community, was both immediate and adverse. Within the police academy, the law enforcement leaders generally condemned the respondent's actions as described in the press.

Many of these same law enforcement officials testified at the hearing in this cause. The general tenor of such testimony was that Mr. Phillips' credibility as a law enforcement instructor has been impeached and his effectiveness as an instructor in the field of law enforcement has been destroyed. The law enforcement officials were unanimous in their feelings regarding Mr. Phillips' unsuitability to teach in the police academy. However, this feeling was not unanimous as to Phillips presently being able to satisfactorily teach law enforcement on an academic level in general law enforcement programs at the college.

Shortly after this news story broke in the Gainesville Sun, the respondent Phillips resigned his position at the police academy, but has not resigned nor offers to resign his instructional position at the college in the law enforcement program. The local law enforcement officials that testified at this hearing stated that unless the respondent Phillips is terminated by the college from any participation in its law enforcement program, these law enforcement agencies will withdraw all personnel enrolled in the college and will no longer support that program or the police academy.

In its petition the college seeks to have the respondent terminated as an instructor in the law enforcement program.

Should this occur, the representatives of the college have acknowledged there is no other program in which Mr. Phillips is qualified to teach; therefore, his termination in the law enforcement program would be virtually tantamount to a complete dismissal.

The decision as to whether the college should take any action against the respondent, Phillips, can only be determined by whether he has violated any professional standards of conduct or rules of that college. The college has cited Rule No. 1-3.55 in its Complaint. That rule states:

In the development of knowledge, research endeavors, end creative activities, College faculty and students must be free to cultivate a spirit of inquiry and scholarly criticism.

They must a able to examine ideas in an atmosphere of freedom and confidence and to

participate as responsible citizens in community affairs. Academic freedom must be subject to the self-restraint imposed by good judgment. The faculty member must fulfill his responsibility to society and to his profession by manifesting academic competence, scholarly discretion, and good citizenship.

At no time should or will the principle of academic freedom protect an incompetent or negligent faculty member, nor will it prevent the institution from making proper efforts to evaluate the work of each and every professional staff member.

As can be seen, that rule only contains general statements of the standard of conduct expected by the faculty in relationship to the concepts of academic freedom. Much has been said about academic freedom in the hearing conducted on this matter. It is the feeling of this hearing officer that this case does not concern academic freedom, nor the statements which were made by the respondent, Phillips. Under any standard of academic freedom, he has a right no express his personal beliefs. However, this case does not strike this hearing officer as one to be determined by what statements the respondent made, but only as to the behavior the respondent acknowledged, which is the use of marijuana.

As the college has rightfully pointed out, any teaching institution has the right to expect its faculty to be law abiding and not bring discredit upon the institution.

In this instance, not only was the respondent's behavior unprofessional, but it certainly did bring discredit upon the institution. The respondent's behavior was particularly embarrassing to the college in that, as coordinator of the law enforcement program, he must be considered to have a professional responsibility in his field of instruction: law enforcement. One must assume that the respondent's effectiveness as an instructor in the area of law enforcement has been damaged by his admitted illegal course of conduct. As such, he brings discredit to the institution. It, therefore, must be decided that the respondent has breached his duties of professional responsibility.

The question then becomes the proper disposition of this matter. Witnesses for both the college and the respondent were almost in total agreement that because of the respondent's confessed behavior, it was inappropriate for him to continue at

the police academy. This issue is not presently relevant to this matter because he has resigned his position at the police academy. As mentioned above, the local law enforcement community has threatened to withdraw from any participation in the law enforcement program at Santa Fe Community College if the respondent is not severed from any connection with that program.

Undoubtedly, this threat on behalf of the local law enforcement officers has made the decision of the college that much more difficult, for although it is acknowledged that Phillips has been a respected and capable instructor, the collage must consider the damage to their program should this threat be fulfilled.

Nevertheless, it should be of the utmost concern to the college that this matter be disposed of in a fair and just manner, irrespective of the opinions of third parties that do not have the final responsibility in this cause. It is the opinion of this hearing officer that the respondent, Phillips, is guilty of unprofessional conduct and of misconduct in office and that administrative action should be taken against him by the college. However, the circumstances of Mr. Phillips' actions do not warrant the severity of a dismissal.

It is, therefore, Recommended that the respondent, Phillips, be suspended without pay from the staff of Santa Fe Community College for a total period of six months.

DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of December, 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 24th day of December, 1975.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert V. Bookman, Esquire

222 Northeast First Street Post Office Box 1070 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Attorney for Petitioner

Jeffrey Meldon, Esquire 607 Northeast First Street Gainesville Florida 32601 Attorney for Respondent

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the matter of Petition of SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, by

ALAN J. ROBERTSON, President, Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 75-1868

ROBERT E. PHILLIPS,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

COMES NOW, SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, by and through its duly appointed Board of Trustees, and after having reviewed the entire record in the above-styled cause, finds as follows:

1. The Board accepts the findings of fact as reported by the Hearing Officer in his Recommended Order of December 24, 1975, a copy of which is attached.

   
   

2. The Board accepts the conclusion of law as reported by the Hearing Officer in his Recommended Order.

   
   

3. The Board rejects the recommended penalty reported by the Hearing Officer, to-wit: "That the Respondent, Phillips, be suspended without pay from the staff of Santa Fe Community College for a total period of six (6) months," and substitutes therefor, the following penalty. Respondent, Phillips, shall be dismissed from his contractual position at Santa Fe Community College and his contract is this date hereby cancelled. Further, Respondent, Phillips, shall be paid, upon final review of this matter, all back salary from the date of his suspension to the date of this Order.

DATED this 4th day of March, A.D. 1976.

Elizabeth N. Jones, Chairman

Docket for Case No: 75-001868

Orders for Case No: 75-001868