Underwood, James C. Hampton, Debbie McCauley, Kelly Moore, Dorothy Bryant, Yolanda Jenkins, Theresa Tran, Mary Campbell, Traci Lingel, Missy Piper, Juanita Jackson, David Dominic Giordano, William Montford, Leeann Nelson, James Robert Sulliman and Charles A. Johnson. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 12 were accepted into evidence in this proceeding.
Respondent called Marilou Grimes, Harriett Griffin, Robert Clifton Corley, Raymond Curtis Lamb and Linda McKenzie as his witnesses. Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2 and 5 were received into evidence. Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4 were marked for identification purposes only, and were not received into evidence.
Respondent holds Certificate Number 227135, regular, valid through June 30, 1982, covering the areas of biology, science and social studies.
Respondent received a bachelor's degree in history, zoology and education from Parson's College in 1967, and a Master of Science degree from the Florida Institute of Technology in 1980. During the 1976-77 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent, a licensed professional photographer, also worked with the photography club at Nims Middle School during the school years from 1975 through 1978.
On or about May 30, 1977, while Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School, two students, Linda McKenzie and Linda Underwood, were excused from their regularly scheduled sixth period classes to go to Respondent's classroom to look at laboratory animals kept there. At all times material hereto, Respondent aid the two students mentioned above were the only occupants of the classroom. Respondent and the two students engaged in conversation, during which Respondent discussed taking photographs of the two students. As the two students began to leave the classroom, Respondent placed his hands on Linda Underwood's waist and "French-kissed" her. Ms. Underwood was shocked and embarrassed, and quickly left the classroom. The incident was not reported to Ms. Underwood's parents, but was reported to school officials by Ms. Underwood several days after the incident occurred.
Prior to the above-described incident, Ms. Underwood had called Respondent on the telephone at his home, and had also written him letters. None of these letters were introduced into evidence in this proceeding. Ms. Underwood apparently also made several telephone calls to Respondent after the incident occurred. Neither the content of these telephone conversations nor any
other evidence of record in this proceeding is sufficiently clear to demonstrate that Ms. Underwood was so biased against Respondent to have fabricated her testimony. Having observed the demeanor of the several witnesses testifying on this issue, and having considered their interest, if any, in the outcome of this proceeding, Ms. Underwood's version of the incident is accepted as persuasive.
While Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School, he drove to the home of Mrs. Juanita Jackson accompanied by two Nims Middle School students, Carlotta Wolfe and Lori Taylor. The two students were dressed in either bathing suits or shorts, and rode in the front seat with Respondent. had offered the two students a ride when he observed them walking, and was asked by them to drive to the Jackson home. Respondent did not know the purpose of the visit to the Jackson home. One of the students apparently requested that Mrs. Jackson's daughter be allowed to get into the car with Respondent and the other students, but Mrs. Jackson refused to allow her daughter to do so. Although Mrs. Jackson testified that she observed Respondent's arm on the back of the seat while Carlotta Wolfe was seated next to him, there is insufficient evidence of record from which to conclude that any impropriety was intended by Respondent, or in fact occurred.
Respondent was granted a leave of absence by the Leon County School Board for the 1979-80 school year, and was reassigned to Godby High School for the 1980-81 school year.
On August 4, 1980, Respondent met with William J. Montford, principal of Godby High School, and other administrative personnel. During that meeting Respondent was specifically warned about inappropriate and improper comments and behavior directed toward students.
During the 1980-81 school year Ms. Kelly Moore was one of Respondent's students. On one occasion when Ms. Moore was tardy to class and was in the process of signing a late sheet in compliance with school policy, Respondent told her to put her telephone number by her name "...in case I get horny one day." On another occasion, when Respondent inquired and was told that Ms. Moore worked in the lingerie department at Maas Brothers department store, he observed to Ms. Moore that he "...could really get into panties, especially yours." Each of these comments was made in Respondent's classroom, in the presence of other students, and for no appropriate reason. Respondent denies making these remarks, but it is specifically concluded that the testimony of Ms. Moore is more persuasive concerning these incidents. While employed as a teacher at Godby High School, Respondent engaged in a conversation with Dorothy Bryant, Yolanda Jenkins and Kendra Green, three of his students. During the course of this conversation, Respondent told these students that he would like to take them out and get something to drink and smoke with them. During the course of this conversation, Respondent either used or agreed to the use of the term "orgy" in connection with the above-described offer, and wrote a mathematical equation on the blackboard, and inquired of the students "How many times can one go into three?"
During the 1980-81 school year at Godby High School, Traci Lingel was another of Respondent's female students. On one occasion when Ms. Lingel sought a pass to leave Respondent's classroom, Respondent remarked to her "Just because I'm your teacher and because I'm older than you doesn't mean that we can't go to bed together." On another occasion, Respondent remarked to Ms. Lingel that he had met her sister, also a student at Godby High School, and that he knew that it was her sister because she had "sexy eyes" just like Ms. Lingel. Further, Respondent observed to Ms. Lingel that he would award her an "A" in his course
if she could arrange a date for him with her sister. On still another occasion, Respondent inquired of Ms. Lingel's boyfriend if Respondent could blow in Ms.
Lingel's ear.
On other occasions Respondent told two of his students, Debbie McCauley and Leeann Nelson, during class periods that he thought they had "nice legs." In addition, Respondent on one occasion told Ms. Nelson that he would like to go to bed with her.
On several occasions during his tenure at Godby High School, Respondent related to various of his students that he was "hung over," had gotten drunk the preceding weekend and/or had smoked marijuana. On at least one other occasion, upon sending a male student to Respondent's vehicle to retrieve some items left there by Respondent, Respondent told the student that a bottle of liquor was under the seat in the truck, and the student could take a drink if he wished to do so. This latter remark was made in the presence of other students.
Respondent spoke on the telephone with another of his students, Theresa Tran, about taking photographs of her. Respondent inquired of Ms. Tran concerning her favorite alcoholic beverages, and remarked to her that he could take her photographs and afterwards take her out for a drink. Respondent also on one occasion remarked to Traci Lingel, another of his students mentioned earlier in this order, that he and Ms. Lingel could get drunk or high and he could take her photographs.
Respondent received a written reprimand dated February 10, 1981, from his principal, William J. Montford, concerning his improper conduct with female students. Respondent was again reprimanded by his principal by written reprimand dated March 17, 1981.
On or about June 6, 1981, a presentation designed to inform high school students about the dangers of drug abuse was made in Respondent's classroom. A student attending a drug abuse program outside Godby High School participated in the program to share his negative experiences with drugs with other students. During a break in the program, Respondent engaged in a conversation in which the above-mentioned student and a representative of the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association participated. During the course of this conversation, Respondent related that he obtained high-quality cocaine through his girlfriend from the New York or Boston areas, and that the quality of drugs so obtained was better than could be obtained in the Tallahassee area.
Respondent's remarks to female students were often made openly in a classroom setting so that the students who were the subject of the remarks were embarrassed before their peers and Respondent's predilection for making such remarks became common knowledge among his students. As a result, many of his students were uncomfortable attending his classes. Because of the frequently open and notorious nature of his conduct as hereinbefore related, Respondent's effectiveness as an instructional employee has been seriously reduced.
Respondent generally denies that the incidents related above ever occurred. There is, accordingly, a sharp divergence in the various accounts of these activities as related by several of the witnesses. In resolving these testimonial discrepancies, the Hearing Officer observed the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and considered the interests, if any, of these witnesses in the outcome of this proceeding in determining which of the various versions of these occurrences were the more credible.
Both counsel for Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer during the course of this proceeding. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected either as not having been supported by evidence of record or as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(I) , Florida Statutes.
Section 231.28(I), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Education Practices Commission to revoke or suspend a teaching certificate, provided it can be shown that the holder of the certificate:
has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude; upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board; or has otherwise violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education; the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate.
Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, provides in part as follows:
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules and regulations of the state board and of the school board, shall perform the following functions:
(2) EXAMPLE FOR PUPILS. Labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty and patriotism and the practice of every Christian virtue.
(4) OBJECTIVE FOR PUPILS. Require the pupils to observe personal cleanliness, neatness, order, promptness, and gentility of manners, avoid vulgarity and profanity, and cultivate
in them habits of industry and economy, a regard for the rights and feelings of others, and their own responsibilities and duties as citizens.
(8) RULES AND REGULATION. Conform to all rules and regulations that may be prescribed by the state board and by the school board.
Rule 6B-1.01, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:
The educator believes in the worth and
dignity of man. He recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. He regards as essential to
these goals the protection of freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal educational opportunity for all. The educator accepts his responsibility to practice his profession according to the highest ethical standards.
The educator recognizes the magnitude of responsibility he has accepted in choosing a career in education, and engages himself, individually and collectively with other educators, to judge his colleagues, and to be judged by them, in accordance with the provisions of this code. (Emphasis added.)
Rule 6B-1.02(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, that:
In fulfilling his obligations to the student, the educator--
Shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter for which he bears
responsibility and shall not deliberately impose his own views on the student.
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety.
Shall conduct professional business in such a way that he does not expose the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
(f) Shall not use professional relationships with students for private advantages.
It is concluded as a matter of law that Respondent's conduct as hereinabove described constitutes a violation of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that said conduct seriously reduces his effectiveness as a school board employee. Further, Respondent has also violated Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, by failing to set a proper example for his students. Finally, Respondent's conduct violates Rules 6B-1.01 and 1.02, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to adhere to the high moral and ethical standards expected of the teaching profession, and by exposing his students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. See, Adams v. Professional Practices Council, Case No. YY 304 (Fla. 1st DCA, Nov. 17, 1981)
In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon Respondent for the above violations, the Hearing Officer has considered the continuing pattern of misconduct engaged in by Respondent, together with penalties imposed by Petitioner in similar cases. See, Professional Practices Council v. Henry L. Penia, Case No. 79-2179; Professional Practices Council v. Thomas J. Butler, Case No. 80002-T; Professional Practices Council v. Herman Walter Shaddix, Case No. 79218-T; Professional Practices Council v. Harold B. Walbey, Case No. 79- 850; Professional Practices Council v. Moses Green, Case No. 79-2275.
