STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LYNNL GUETTLER, Chairman of ) the Executive Committee of the ) Professional Practices Council, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 79-1459
) (PPC 79071-B)
MICHAEL S. PARK, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly- designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a hearing in this case on November 9, 1979, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At that hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation which was received and approved by the undersigned which inter alia, permitted the undersigned to base findings, conclusions and recommendations in this case on the record developed in a prior case involving the Respondent, styled, Broward County School Board v. Michael S. Park.
Division of Administrative Hearings' Case No. 79-902. 1/
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire
315 Third Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
For Respondent: Richard H. Frank, Esquire
Frank, Chamblee & Kelly, P.A.
341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked based upon conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, as contained in the Petition for Revocation filed by Petitioner on or about May 11, 1979.
During the course of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew allegations B, E and J, which are set forth in the Petition. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties waived the thirty-day period prescribed in Subsection 120.56(3), Florida Statutes, requiring the undersigned to file a Recommended Order within the prescribed thirty-day period.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the legal memoranda submitted by counsel for the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found.
Respondent, Michael S. Park, has been employed by the Broward County School System as an instructor in art at Plantation High School since 1970. He was continuously employed until his suspension on April 19, 1979. Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 274996, Post Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1985, covering the areas of art and junior college. Respondent currently enjoys continuing contract status. While employed by the Broward County School System, Respondent taught several courses, including design, drawing, craft, sculpture and ceramics.
Pursuant to a probable cause determination made by the Commissioner of Education on May 11, 1979, the Petitioner, pursuant to authority contained in Chapter 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, filed a Petition seeking revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate based upon the following allegations:
During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL
S. PARK locked a female student in his classroom office, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article.
During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL
PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming' with him and to meet him at the night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned
the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from Plantation was calling.
During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL
PARK stated to a female art student that he knew for a fact that the she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers.
During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student who was not under his supervision as a teacher to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked this student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex.
During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students, grabbed one female student from behind
and pushed himself up against her buttocks.
During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female
students on the buttocks on one or more occasions.
During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions.
Based thereon, it is alleged that the Respondent violated Sections
231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code. As such, the Petition concludes that the Respondent's alleged conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee.
It is alleged in paragraph 1, subparagraph A. of the Petition that: During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL S.
PARK locked a female student in his
classroom, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article.
The Respondent denied the allegation. Darlene Wilcox is the female student referred to in the allegation (TR 96-98).
The thrust of student Wilcox's testimony is that Respondent invited her to stay after class one day and when her classmates left, he handed her a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex and asked her if she had ever read a magazine like that before (TR 97). Student Wilcox, who was a ninth-grade student of Respondent, testified that Respondent sat down across from her in a chair and asked her questions about how she was that day. They were interrupted by another student, whereupon Respondent immediately got up, opened the door, and told her he would see her in class the following day (TR 98).
Respecting this allegation, the evidence reveals that it was impossible for Respondent to secure the lock on his classroom door from the inside, as alleged (TR 243-244 and 359). The evidence reveals that student Wilcox could have left the room by turning the doorknob.
Student Wilcox told her parents about her encounter with Respondent, whereupon her parents replied that she should keep clear of Respondent and not be over-friendly with him.
Paragraph C of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S.
PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming'
with him and to meet him at a night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from the Plantation was calling.
The female student referred to in the above-described allegation is Cathy Weber.
The evidence respecting the above allegation reveals that during the fall of 1977, while a twelfth-grade student, Cathy Weber, was at a local establishment called the "Crown" bar with other students one evening. Student Weber was not a student of Respondent, although Respondent joined Weber and a group of her friends and started conversing with her at the "Crown" bar. During
the conversation, Respondent took student Weber's wrists, stated that he could read her mind and proceeded to tell her birth date. On another occasion, Respondent telephoned student Weber at her home although she declined to talk to him. Additionally, during late November or early December, Respondent entered Linda Whealin's class and asked permission from instructor Whealin to excuse Cathy Weber when she finished her work in order that she could help in the office. Ms. Whealin agreed, but Cathy testified that she was afraid of Respondent and, therefore, took as much time as she could to complete her work because of the "too personal attitude" the Respondent evidenced toward her. The matter was brought to the attention of the Principal and Assistant Principal, which resulted in a counselling of Respondent by the Principal. During these counselling sessions, Respondent admitted that he told student Weber that he could read minds; that he called student Weber at her home because she wanted to talk to him and that he had asked for her to help him inventory an art order.
Respondent was warned of his conduct by school officials and advised to restrict his student contact to classroom situations. A summary of the warning is embodied in a memorandum dated December 5, 1977, which Respondent signed acknowledging that he had read the warning contained therein. Respondent also submitted a rebuttal reciting his version of circumstances involving the student (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 and the testimony of Respondent and witnesses Lawton, Weber, Whealin and Hanes).
The Respondent acknowledged talking to student Weber at the Crown bar; however, he testified that he was merely attempting to joke with the student, rather than, as contended by Petitioner, to advance a sexual topic to achieve a lustful objective.
Paragraph D of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S.
PARK stated to a female student that he knew for a fact that she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers.
The student referred to in the above paragraph is Susan Clement.
During the 1977-78 school year, student Susan Clement was a student of Respondent. Student Clement testified that during the school year, she smoked marijuana approximately three times a week and was sometimes under the influence of marijuana while attending classes. However, she testified that her ability or memory was not impaired and that she was able to concentrate in her art classes. She testified that on several occasions, Respondent grabbed her neck with his hand, pinched her buttocks, and pushed up against her buttocks with his body from behind while she was washing her hands at a sink in the classroom. Student Clement testified that Respondent told her that there were rumors going around that she was going to bars and meeting male teachers there. Following one of these incidents, student Clement complained to the school's Principal about Respondent's conduct.
The Respondent denied making such statements to student Clement and testified further that Clement confided in him without any prompting on his part with respect to her relationship with males. Additionally, the Respondent urges that student Clement generally spoke to others about her personal life in an unguarded manner (testimony of Dan Van Fleet)(TR 134 and 236).
Paragraph F of the Petition alleges that:
During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL
S. PARK asked a female student, who was not under his supervision as a teacher, to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy
took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked the student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex.
The student with whom the Respondent allegedly addressed the above remarks is Tammy DeCarlo.
In this regard, the evidence reveals that the Respondent had four conversations with student DeCarlo. Respondent acknowledged that he initiated the first conversation with DeCarlo. Evidence reveals that the above-referenced conversations occurred during February of 1979 while student DeCarlo was a senior at Plantation High School. DeCarlo was not a student of Respondent. While DeCarlo was conversing loudly with another student in a school corridor, Respondent joined the conversation based on DeCarlo's "frantic behavior" and the fact that she was shouting that "I'm going to kill him", referring to Mr. Kinder, the yearbook advisor, in a tone which was loud enough for Respondent and others to overhear the conversation (TR 76, 77 and 376).
DeCarlo was the school yearbook editor and had been having problems with its publication. The thrust of the problem appeared to be that DeCarlo was of the opinion that although she was exerting all the effort towards the publication of the yearbook, advisor Kinder was receiving or attempting to receive all credit for her work. While the Respondent initially injected himself into the conversation with DeCarlo and another student concerning differences that DeCarlo was having with the yearbook advisor, Kinder, she later conversed with Respondent about various problems that she was having with the yearbook in the following weeks. During the third of approximately four conversations with Respondent, the evidence reveals that the Respondent told another student (Chris Sarko) that he wanted to speak with DeCarlo, whereupon Sarko summoned student DeCarlo to go to his office where he later joined her, bringing a paper flower with him to give her. In Respondent's office, they discussed the yearbook deadline and Respondent mentioned that he had "ESP". Respondent gave student DeCarlo several examples in that regard. Respondent requested DeCarlo to keep their conversations between the two of them, although DeCarlo later mentioned the conversations to her parents. DeCarlo's parents later spoke with the Assistant Principal about Respondent. Within a few days, DeCarlo received a note telling her that Respondent wanted to see her and again Respondent took her into his office. During this conversation, Respondent told DeCarlo that she did not trust him because she had been hurt by her boyfriend. Respondent later told her to close her eyes and concentrate and told her that the boy just took her out so that she could make love with him and that he had tried to make her do something she did not want to. DeCarlo replied that she did not know what he was talking about, and Respondent inquired "What is it, oral sex?". According to DeCarlo, Respondent asked her to give him something personal, whereupon she took her necklace off and gave it to him. Respondent also inquired of her the type birth control pill she used and DeCarlo told him. Approximately one week later, student DeCarlo saw Respondent again. He asked
her to come to see him during her lunch hour, but she declined. DeCarlo later asked a friend (Sarko) to get her necklace from Respondent, which was returned by the student, together with Respondent's picture. DeCarlo's parents made a written complaint to school authorities concerning Respondent's conduct.
Respondent testified that he was regarded as a confidant among the students and that they frequently conversed with him about personal matters. He testified that the DeCarlo relationship, which was initiated by him, was motivated by a normal concern for a student who was visibly upset, and he felt that he could offer some assistance to student DeCarlo in resolving a crisis.
Paragraph G of the Petition alleges that:
During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students from behind and pushed himself up against their buttocks.
The primary incident in which Respondent is alleged to have gone beyond a mere touching of the shoulder is when he grabbed student Clement from behind and touched his lower torso against his buttocks. As stated earlier, Respondent denied this allegation. In this regard, several of Respondent's former students testified that they had never seen him act improperly in class or inquire into the personal lives of students. These students considered Respondent to be a warm, friendly teacher who occasionally would pat a student on the back or put his arm around a student's shoulders. In this regard, Van Fleet testified that the Respondent was a "touching, feeling type of friendly" person (TR 254). Other students testified that the Respondent often placed his arms around the shoulders of various students. During the period 1971 through 1979, Respondent's Principal warned him approximately four or five times concerning his involvement with female students (testimony of witnesses Graff, Wilcox, Landers, Cirillo, Larkin, DeCarlo, Evans, Jackson, Hanes and Van Fleet).
Paragraph H of the Petition alleges that:
During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the buttocks on one or more occasions.
The two students involved in this allegation are Susan Clement and Lori Evans.
The Respondent testified and denied that he pinched students Evans and Clement on the buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed Clement's neck when she did not "clean up her mess" in the classroom. Student Clement was not sure of the time when the Respondent allegedly pinched her or of the number of times when such acts were allegedly committed by Respondent. Instructors Dan Van Fleet and Gail Altman testified that students Clement and Evans both complained and were upset that the Respondent gave them failing grades. Noteworthy, also, was the fact that student Evans testified that there were students present at the time that the Respondent pinched her, although no corroborating student witnesses were called upon to verify said acts.
Paragraph I of the Petition alleges that:
During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions.
During the hearing, the only student who claimed to have been pinched by Respondent was Lori Evans. Again, the Respondent denied that any such conduct occurred on his part.
Although Evans testified that there were student witnesses to the incident, no witnesses were called upon to testify during the hearing.
RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
Respondent, for the most part, denied that he engaged in any conduct which could be considered grossly immoral or inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience or conduct which would not be a proper example for students. He further denied that such conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring him and the educational profession into public disgrace and respect, or that it otherwise reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee. He testified that students confided in him and that he was an instructor who was overly concerned about the plight and well-being of students. In that regard, he testified that he interjected himself into conversations in situations wherein students appeared to have needed his counsel and guidance. Respondent denied pinching Lori Evans above the breast or on the buttocks or slapping her on the buttocks with a ruler. He testified that Evans' motive for giving testimony supportive of the charges is that she was a problem student who was unreliable when assigned a task. Additionally, Respondent denied pushing against student Susan Clement at the classroom sink or pinching her buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed her neck inadvertently as stated earlier, when she failed to "clean up her mess".
Respondent's stated reason for visiting the "Crown" bar to join students with whom he taught was merely an effort to socialize with students and that respecting the Cathy Weber allegation, he was merely trying to assist her to resolve the problem that she was having with her boyfriend. He testified that the fact that he asked her to go shopping in a public shopping center indicates that he had no ulterior motive in making such request. Respondent voiced his opinion that student Weber was probably drinking due to that problem and that he wanted to inspire confidence in her to prevent her from drinking to resolve problems.
Respondent's version of the incident surrounding the Tammy DeCarlo incident is much the same as his involvement with student Weber. That is, that he was simply trying to console her, which was prompted, in part, by counselling from the Assistant Principal to the effect that students and parents complained that he was not consoling enough to students. However, Respondent's testimony and inquiries, admittedly, as they related to his giving of flowers to student DeCarlo and inquiring into her sexual activity, missed the mark of a proper teacher-student relationship.
Respondent's denial of the incidents involving student Wilcox, Evans and Clement as they related to his alleged physical contact is denied based upon the entire record, including other admissions by Respondent, including his inquiries into students' personal/social lives. In this regard, Respondent's inquiries relative to students' birth control pills, talks about oral sex, the
giving of paper flowers to students and the embracing of students are considered immoral in a student-teacher setting and certainly does not inspire or set a proper example for students, as required in Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings 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 Chapters 6A and 6B, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner seeks to revoke Respondent's teaching certificate based upon allegations that the above-described conduct which Petitioner engaged in constitutes conduct violative of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6B-1 and 6B-5, Rules of the State Board of Education, in that such conduct is grossly immoral, 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 Respondent and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. Concluding, the Petitioner alleges that said conduct by Respondent seriously reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee.
Competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that on numerous occasions since the 1975 school year, Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct which deviated from the high standards expected of instructional personnel who are certified by the Petitioner. The evidence reveals that numerous students feared being in Respondent's presence on a one-to-one basis and were often embarrassed due to the manner and treatment the Respondent utilized in his relationship with students. Several students testified that they reluctantly contacted their parents when the situation appeared to be out of hand and the parents were put in a compromising position of contacting school officials to relate the improper conduct engaged in by Respondent. When these problems surfaced among the school administration officials, the Respondent was warned about his improper contact with students; however, these warnings did little to restrain Respondent from continued improper relationships with students. The incidents included the improper physical touching of female high school students on their buttocks (students Evans and Clement), which were clearly improper and immoral in nature. Additionally, Respondent's improper conduct in showing student Wilcox a magazine article with the word "sex" in the title and his inquiry in that regard evidenced an immoral motive on his part. Further examples of Respondent's improper, unconscionable and immoral character is reflected in his inquiry to student DeCarlo. Based upon the foregoing and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances on Respondent's part, it is concluded that Respondent's misconduct reflects that his effectiveness as a School Board employee has been seriously reduced and ample basis exists to suspend his teaching certificate pursuant to the guidelines of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. I shall so recommend.
Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 274996, be suspended for a period of three (3) years.
DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
ENDNOTE
1/ During the hearing, the parties were granted leave to file supporting memoranda through November 30, 1979, in support of their respective positions. Said memoranda were received and considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Craig R. Wilson, Esq.
315 Third Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Richard H. Frank, Esq. Frank, Chamblee & Kelly, P.A.
341 Plant Avenue Tampa, FL 33606
Professional Practices Council
319 West Madison St., Room 3 Tallahassee, FL 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 18, 1980 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 18, 1980 | Recommended Order | Suspend Respondent three years for acts which seriously reduces his effectiveness as School Board employee. |
