STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES ) COUNCIL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 79-478
)
RAYMOND A. BROOKS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on June 25, 1979, in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The parties submitted briefs to the undersigned on approximately July 12, 1979, and the transcript of the proceedings was received on July 23, 1979.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire
110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire
Staff Attorney, FEA/United
228 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
At issue herein is whether or not the teaching certificate of Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, should be revoked based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail for alleged violations of Sections 231.28 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Rules of the State Board of Education, as alleged in the Petition filed herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found.
Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 150640, Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1979, covering the area of auto mechanics.
During times material, Respondent has been employed in the public schools of Brevard County at Cocoa Beach High School as a shop teacher. He is currently on temporary duty elsewhere outside a classroom setting.
This case was initiated based on a report received by the Florida Professional Practices Council on November 15, 1978, by officials of the Brevard County School Board alleging that Respondent may have committed acts providing grounds for revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.37, an investigation of the matter was undertaken and a report submitted to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council (Petitioner).
On January 9, 1979, the Executive Committee found that there existed probable cause to believe that Respondent was guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate, which finding was forwarded to the Commissioner of Education who also found such probable cause and directed the filing of the instant Petition filed herein on January 25, 1979.
Said Petition alleged that Respondent had engaged in conduct that is "inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, conduct which is not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Raymond A. Brooks and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect." It is further alleged that his alleged conduct reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee.
The material allegations of the Petition are that:
Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a teacher at Cocoa Beach High School, entered into discussions with students in his classroom regarding the growth and cultivation of marijuana, which led them to believe that he condoned the use of marijuana.
Respondent allowed students to clean stems and seeds from marijuana in his classroom.
Respondent allowed students to roll marijuana cigarettes in his classroom.
Respondent allowed students to bring marijuana to his classroom.
Respondent bought a camera from a student who told him the camera was stolen.
Respondent misrepresented to students, provisions of the school's student handbook regarding possession of marijuana on school grounds.
Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana.
On March 27, 1979, Respondent answered the allegations admitting jurisdiction, but denying the substantive allegations contained in the Petition.
The Petitioner presented the testimony of eight (8) male high school students: Perry Morton, Paulo Carlini, Mark Murphy, Thomas Miller, John Gore, Hugh Baker, John Mason and Kirk Vanomer (by deposition).
In addition, Petitioner offered the testimony of H. D. Smith, Principal of Cocoa Beach High School, who testified that, in his opinion, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Brevard County School System had been seriously reduced as a result of the alleged misconduct on Respondent's part.
All of the student witnesses who testified were enrolled in Respondent's fourth period power mechanics class and were present when Respondent discussed the growing of marijuana with them in their classroom during their fourth period class. It suffices to say that according to their testimony, Respondent explained to them how to cut marijuana stalks in order to increase the potency of marijuana in the plant leaves. Respondent also made known to his fourth period students his personal belief that marijuana should be legalized. Testimony also reveals that at least on one occasion, Respondent told his students that they could roll a joint in his class but that they could not light it up. Student Carlini also testified that other teachers at the high school talked to them about drugs. (TR. 34-35)
The testimony is clear that all of the student witnesses recalled Respondent advising them that the possession and use of marijuana was against school regulations and against the law.
In this regard, Respondent testified that when the subject of marijuana came up during a free period in class, he related what information he knew based on his personal observations and a pamphlet provided him by the Brevard Sheriff's Department to advise students and address questions posed to him by such students. And, as stated, Respondent advised students that it was his personal opinion that the use of marijuana should be legalized based on the costs of enforcement and increased revenues derived from a "use" tax on marijuana. Respondent further testified that he neither advocated nor condoned the use of marijuana.
In support of its allegations that Respondent permitted and/or allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom, Petitioner presented the testimony of student Paulo Carlini. Carlini acknowledged the fact that during each of two prior days before the date in question, he and other students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Carlini further acknowledged that Respondent told them that the possession of marijuana was against school regulations. A second witness presented by Petitioner was Perry Morton. Morton testified that he gave a bag of marijuana to Joe Schraffenberger during class on the day of the incident in questions. Like Carlini, Morton acknowledged that during the two days immediately preceding the incident the students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. The purpose of this was to trick the teachers and administration into believing that they had marijuana in their possession and then embarrassing them when it proved to be pencil shavings. Rollin Burch, one of the student witnesses who testified indicated that he also saw pencil shavings being rolled that day on which it is alleged that the Respondent permitted marijuana cigarettes to be rolled in his class. The substance claimed to be marijuana was not presented during the hearing. Additionally, Respondent denied having any knowledge of marijuana in his classroom, nor did he give permission for his students to roll marijuana in his classroom.
Respondent testified that on the two days prior to the incident involved herein, several students had been rolling pencil shavings contained in a transparent bag in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Respondent, on each of the two days in question, checked the bag and the cigarettes to make sure that
what they were rolling were in fact pencil shavings. On each instance, pencil shavings were being rolled by the students.
On the day of the incident, Respondent was busy working at his desk on student failure reports that were due. Carlini showed him a transparent bag and asked permission to roll the substance inside. Respondent glanced up, viewed what he thought to be pencil shavings, nodded his consent and resumed work on his reports. Later, seeing a rolled cigarette, Respondent smelled it, concluded that it smelled like pencil shavings, and returned it to the student.
Finally, in response to the allegations that Respondent misrepresented school regulations by permitting students to roll marijuana in his classroom, Respondent acknowledged that he made the statement that, "You can roll them, but you can't light them up." Respondent further acknowledged that he represented to the students that nothing in the school regulations prohibited the rolling of pencil shavings into the form of marijuana cigarettes, although all smoking is prohibited. During the period in which the pencil shavings were being rolled, a student asked whether he could smoke one of the pencil shaving cigarettes, whereupon Respondent replied: "You can roll them, but don't light them up."
All of the students testified during cross-examination that the above statement was made during the time when pencil shavings were being rolled.
Respondent confronted several students in a prohibited area of the school grounds and advised them that they should carefully return to the school grounds inasmuch as Dean Wright was in the area. By such statement, the students apparently assumed that Respondent knew that they were there to "smoke some pot." Marijuana was never mentioned and, although Respondent's comment was made in the form of a warning, the students assumed that Respondent knew some of them smoked marijuana and that that was their purpose for being there. The students questioned on the subject acknowledged that at the time of the incident, they were doing nothing illegal and that Respondent had no way of knowing their purpose for being in that area.
The Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the allegation that the Respondent bought a camera which he knew was stolen.
Finally, Petitioner, through the testimony of Principal H. D. Smith, urges a finding that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace and disrespect or that it has impaired his effectiveness a teacher.
Principal Smith acknowledged the fact that Respondent was employed to teach power mechanics and vocational shop during his tenure as principal for the past three years. Principal Smith, prompted by reports that he received from two parents and a student, Kirk Vanomer, contacted school security who investigated reports that Respondent was permitting students to clean seeds and roll marijuana in his power mechanics class. (TR. 119-120) Based on the findings of the investigation conducted by school security, Principal Smith voiced his opinion that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics in that he permitted students to engage in an activity that was "both criminal and in violation of school board regulations." (TR. 126) Principal Smith pointed to page 25 of the School Board Regulations, Section 44.7, which provides in pertinent part that, "It is against school board regulations for students to have possession of or be under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages." He further testified that students are given copies of the student handbook during the pre-planning period (the first week of the school year) and that the
teachers are responsible for advising students of their rights and responsibilities as related to the student handbook. (TR. 128)
Principal Smith indicated that several parents called in inquire about what disciplinary measures would be taken against Respondent and that several students had expressed anxiety to him about being assigned to Respondent's inasmuch as they had testified against him. (TR. 130-131)
George Arthur Powell, Jr., a woodworking instructor at Brevard County Public School System for approximately fifteen years, testified that the Respondent is regarded as a strict disciplinarian among fellow teachers in the school system.
Mr. Powell testified that he encountered disciplinary problems with the administration supporting him with respect to his attempts to discipline students at Cocoa Beach High School. According to Mr. Powell, during the October of 1978, he queried Respondent about students using fake marijuana cigarettes rolled from pencil dust or shavings from sawdust. Powell testified that based on his experience, it would serve no purpose to send a student to the administrators for disciplining inasmuch as the administration would probably make fund of the instructor who made such a referral. (TR. 142-144)
The Respondent testified on his own behalf indicating that he had been employed by the Brevard County School District for approximately eight years during which time he had taught auto mechanics and mathematics. Prior to the subject incident, Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings. During his initial employment as a teacher at Rockledge High School, Respondent was admonished because of his strict enforcement of the discipline code. During this same period, Respondent's performance and evaluation ratings were excellent. When Respondent was transferred to Cocoa Beach High School during the school year 1978, he was questioned extensively by Principals Hank Smith and Nelson Rutledge regarding his policy on discipline. Testimony reveals that Respondent was selected due to his reputation for being a strict disciplinarian at Rockledge High School during the prior six years.
As previously stated, Respondent voiced his opinion that marijuana should be legalized based on the fact that millions of dollars are spent of taxpayers' money each year to "corral, confiscate and apprehend the various pushers and peddlers of drugs and marijuana." Secondly, he indicated that if marijuana was a controlled substance, the taxpayer or the government would realize some revenue from the legalization. Finally, he thought that if marijuana was controlled, like tobacco, alcohol and drugs, it could be regulated and the taxpayers would realize revenues rather than expending revenues to police the borders, towns and cities for pushers and sellers. (TR. 157) Respondent conveyed this opinion to his students during discussions when the subject of marijuana, etc. was initiated or brought up in class. (TR. 158) Respondent denied telling students that he condoned the use of marijuana or advocated its use and advised them that it was illegal, both lawfully and by school rule and regulation, to possess marijuana; that the penalties were whatever the law imposed because in most cases, the student not only received a school suspension but also faced a juvenile court judge because it (possession) was definitely illegal. (TR. 160-161)
Respondent admitted advising students, in response to questions posed to him, about the cultivation of drugs.
Respondent denied any knowledge that marijuana was, in fact, being rolled in his classroom. Additionally, Respondent denied that he served as a "lookout" for a group of students. (TR. 174)
Inasmuch as the instant proceeding is one wherein the Respondent's means of livelihood is threatened, the evidence to substantiate the allegations must be both clear and convincing. See The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1970), and Walker v. Florida State Board of Optometry, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975).
The mere fact of Respondent's warning students that they should return to a permissible area of the school grounds provides no basis of concluding that the Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana. Testimony reveals that the students were not smoking marijuana in the restricted area nor did the Respondent have any way of knowing the students' purpose for being in the restricted area.
No evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent purchased a camera known to be stolen as alleged.
Based on the evidence presented, no competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent, during class discussions, advocated or condoned the use of marijuana. Likewise, Petitioner failed to satisfy is burden of proof of establishing that Respondent allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom or misrepresent to the students, school regulations regarding such matters.
Finally, in view of the above conclusions, Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect, or that his effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired, as alleged. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Petition filed herein be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The authority of the Petitioner is derived from Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Rule Sections 6A and 6B, Florida Administrative Code.
Insufficient evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent engaged in misconduct violative of Sections 231.28 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, or Rule 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Petition for Revocation filed herein.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby,
RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Revocation filed herein be DISMISSED in its entirety.
DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1979.
COPIES FURNISHED:
J. David Holder, Esquire
110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney, FEA/United
208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA
IN RE: RAYMOND A. BROOKS CASE NO. 79-478
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the State Board of Education, duly assembled, upon the Petition of Lynnl Guettler as Chairman of the Professional Practices Council for the revocation of the teacher's certificate of the Respondent, RAYMOND A. BROOKS, Department of Education Number 150648.
This Board having reviewed the findings and recommendation of the Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings and the entire record including the clarifications by the hearing officer; and
It appearing that the Respondent has been granted all procedural and other constitutional rights in the premises, and the Board having had due deliberation thereon, the Board makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
RAYMOND A. BROOKS presently holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 150648, valid until June 30, 1984. The Board adopts the Findings of Fact contained in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings as its own, which is by reference made a part hereof, but rejects the conclusion and recommendation of the Hearing Officer and concludes that the conversations between Respondent and students did indeed constitute advocacy and approval of the use of marijuana by the students in light of the context in which the conversations occurred; the same being a violation of 231.28 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, in that it is not a good example for students an has reduced Respondent's effectiveness with his employing board.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact be adopted and that the teaching certificate of RAYMOND A. BROOKS be revoked for a period of three years, as provided in 231.28, Florida Statutes.
DONE at the State Board of Education meeting in open session at Tallahassee, Florida, on the 20th day of November, 1979.
EXECUTED AND RENDERED on this 20th day of November, 1979.
Bob Graham, Governor; Chairman
George Firestone, Secretary of State
Jim Smith, Attorney General
Gerald A. Lewis, Comptroller
Bill Gunter, Treasurer
Ralph A. Turlington, Commissioner of Education: Secretary-Executive Officer
Doyle Conner,
Commissioner of Agriculture
As and constituting the State Board of Education of Florida as assembled for the purposes herein.
Duly recorded in the official records of the State Board of Education of Florida.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing Order in the matter of Raymond A. Brooks were sent by
U.S. Mail to Mr. Brooks, J. David Holder, Esquire, Gone "Hal" Johnson, Esquire, Mr. Abe Collinsworth and Mr. James Bradwell this 20th day of November, 1979.
Hugh Ingram Administrator Professional Practices Council
================================================================= SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RAYMOND A. BROOKS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 79-478
) FIRST D.C.A. CASE NO. SS-452 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
et al., )
)
Respondents. )
)
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the undersigned based on an Order entered by the District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida, dated March 5, 1980, referring the matter to the undersigned for the entry of a Supplemental Recommended Order concerning what statements Raymond A. Brooks, Appellant, 1 made to his power mechanics class during the 1978-79 school year at Cocoa Beach High School concerning the cultivation of marijuana and methods to increase its potency or, alternatively, why findings in that regard cannot be made, given the credibility of the witnesses.
In compliance with the Court's directive, the undersigned has re-examined the entire transcript in this proceeding and issues the following supplemental facts.
By way of background, Respondent was employed by Cocoa Beach High School during May of 1978 to teach auto mechanics and math following his six- year tenure of employment as a teacher at Rockledge High School. Respondent was interviewed by the Principal and Administrators Hank Smith and Nelson Rutledge of Cocoa Beach High School. He was selected for employment due to his undisputed reputation as a strict disciplinarian. During his pre-employment interview, Respondent was advised by Messrs. Smith and Rutledge that grant moneys had been awarded to the school to purchase machinery, equipment and tools in the Industrial Arts Program. Respondent accepted the challenge of developing and Industrial Arts Program and arrived at the school during August, 1978, to commence pre-planning for the coming school year. When the Respondent reported for duty, there was no equipment, textbooks or materials with which Respondent could set up an industrial arts shop. He instead lectured the first three days of each week and on Thursdays and Fridays, allowed students to bring automobiles, motorcycles or whatever devices they had in need of repair for practical instructional purposes. (TR 154).
Due to the above instructional methods, Respondent and his students often engaged in "rap sessions" wherein students discussed and revealed their personal experiences and concerns. It was during this period that students queried Respondent on his knowledge or marijuana. Respondent explained to students his personal opinion of marijuana including his belief that it (marijuana) should be legalized. He based his opinion on the fact that millions of dollars of taxpayers' money are spent each year to "corral, confiscate and apprehend" the various pushers and peddlers of drugs and marijuana whereas if marijuana were a controlled substance, the taxpayers (government) would realize revenues from its legalization much like tobacco, alcohol and drugs which are regulated. (TR 157) Respondent conveyed to students his knowledge of marijuana and its cultivation which he learned from a demonstration at the Miracle City Mall by the Brevard County Sheriff's Association and from his travels out West during the late fifties through the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. It would indeed be strange and unusual to conclude that Respondent's knowledge gained from the demonstrations by the local law enforcement authorities in a public mall transformed into improper conduct when that same information was imparted to his students. Respondent's knowledge of the cultivation of marijuana was derived from his travels out West and was gleaned from queries of western natives who explained that by cutting the top of marijuana plants and "letting it hang so that the (resin) will go into the leaves" the potency (of marijuana) would be increased. (TR 160) Respondent explained this procedure to his students.
These discussions were always initiated by the students during "rap sessions." (TR pp. 24, 49, 69, 70, 158-162) Respondent never advocated or condoned the use of marijuana or, for that matter, any other drugs during his tenure of employment at Cocoa Beach High School (TR pp. 33 and 160) Throughout these discussions, Respondent always advised students that it was illegal both by criminal statute and by school rule to possess marijuana. (TR 51, 53, 69, 71, 160-161 and 189) Respondent's activities and conduct respecting the above is further corroborated by the credited testimony of student witnesses Perry Morton at pp. 24-25; Paulo Carlini at pp. 48-53; and Mark Murphy at pp. 69-71.
Based on the foregoing findings, the undersigned concludes, for reasons set forth hereafter, that insufficient evidence was offered to establish that
the Respondent, in any manner, advocated or condoned the use of marijuana, notwithstanding the findings herein and in the prior Recommended Orders, that he discussed with students his knowledge of the cultivation of marijuana and methods by which its potency could be increased.
Respondent, throughout his professional career, has an unblemished record as a strict disciplinarian. Respondent made known to students the fact that the possession of marijuana was illegal both in terms of the school's rules and regulations and the laws of this State. Respondent's discussions in this regard (as previously stated) always stemmed from student inquiries about the matter. Respondent's professional record is devoid of any evidence which would tend to show that the had any propensity to be permissive about the use of drugs by students, let along advocating or condoning such use. Finally, Respondent, as an educator, is charged with stimulating the spirit of inquiry, the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, and the thoughtful formulation of worthy goals. In fulfilling his obligations to students, Respondent "shall not
. . . restrain the student from independent action in his pursuit of learning, and shall not without just cause deny the student access to varying points of view." Chapter 6B-1.02(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. It is submitted that based on the above obligations with which the Respondent is charged by the Code of Ethics of the Educational Profession in Florida, putting aside herein a consideration of Respondent's First Amendment rights, Respondent was obliged to respond to the student inquiries respecting his knowledge of marijuana and, therefore, his comments in light of the above obligations were proper. With these guiding factors in mind, it can hardly be said that the above findings in any manner amount to conduct on Respondent's part which can be described as advocacy or condonation of the use of marijuana. I shall again so recommend.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearing has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The authority of the Petitioner is derived from Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A and 6B, Florida Administrative Code.
Insufficient evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent, by imparting to students his knowledge concerning the cultivation of marijuana and methods to increase its potency, engaged in conduct violative of Section 231.28 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, or Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 through 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, or in any manner engaged in conduct violative of the above provisions as alleged in the Petition for Revocation filed herein.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including the Findings of Fact entered in the Recommended Order entered herein on August 22, 1979, and the clarifying Order entered November 13, 1979, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED:
That the Petition for Revocation filed herein be DISMISSED IN THIS ENTIRETY.
ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings
101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
State Board of Education
Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education
Secretary The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
J. David Holder, Esq.
Suite 224, 110 North Magnolia Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esq.
216 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Hugh Ingram, Administrator Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 06, 1979 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 22, 1979 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 20, 1979 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 22, 1979 | Recommended Order | Petitioner did not establish Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals or violative of Florida code. Therefore petition is dismissed. |
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs BRIAN RONEY, 79-000478 (1979)
KAREN SIEBELTS vs. BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 79-000478 (1979)
TOM GALLAGHER, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MOSES MWAURA, 79-000478 (1979)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs VICKIE CONRAD, 79-000478 (1979)
JOHN WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs LORI TALBOTT, 79-000478 (1979)
