vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1524
WILLIE L. BROWN, )
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was conducted on July 10 and 14, 1981, in Panama City, Florida, at those locations described in the Notices of Hearing.
For Petitioner: Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire
J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1521
This matter concerns the effort on the part of the School Board of Bay County, Florida, to take disciplinary action against its employee Willie L. Brown, a teacher in the Bay County School System at the Harris Sixth Grade Center. The Respondent is accused of having a minor male student sit on his lap, while in attendance at school, and further accused of taking the student's hand and rubbing it on the Respondent's penis. For these acts, the Respondent has reputedly violated Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1.02(2)(d) and BB-4.09(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 230.33 and 231.20 and .36(c), Florida Statutes.
This action is brought by the School Board of Bay County, Florida, against Willie L. Brown, calling for Brown's dismissal as an employee of the Bay County School System. This request for dismissal follows the March 17, 1981, suspension of Brown by action of Pete Holman, Superintendent of the Bay County School System. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. The
basis for this action on the part of the Petitioner is as stated in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order.
After being informed of the Petitioner's intent to dismiss him as an employee, the Respondent requested a formal hearing in this cause and the School Board, on June 4, 1981, asked the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings to assign a Hearing Officer to conduct a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. A Hearing Officer was assigned and the hearing was held on July 10 and 14, 1981.
The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 385083, valid through June 1985, and covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education and administration/supervision. At all times pertinent to this matter, the Respondent, Willie L. Brown, was employed by the Bay County School Board as a teacher at the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center.
In the school year 1980-81 a local civic club in Panama City, Florida, held an oratorical contest for the benefit of students in the Bay County School System. Among the participants in that contest were students from the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center where the Respondent taught. Brown acted in the capacity as advisor to those students and met with the students from the Harris Center on several occasions to aid the students in the preparation of their speeches, and in the presentation of those speeches.
One of the students participating in the oratorical contest was Steve William Rudd, a minor. Rudd was not a student in Brown's regular academic classes. The involvement Rudd had with Brown prior to the oratorical contest was merely to the extent of knowing that Brown was a teacher at Harris.
On the first occasion of Rudd's participation with Brown in the speech contest, Brown met with Rudd and other students in the auditorium at the school and listened to their speeches and critiqued their presentation. The next occasion in which Brown took part in the preparation of the students for the oratorical contest occurred in Brown's homeroom, at which time the general nature of the relationship between Brown and the students was as occurred at the auditorium session.
On the third occasion in which the Respondent met with Rudd, there was also in attendance a second student, William Arnold Stevenson. This session was held in the classroom of another teacher. On that occasion Stevenson was allowed to present his speech while Brown listened and Rudd waited for his turn. When Stevenson had concluded his speech, he left the room leaving Brown and Rudd alone. Rudd then commenced his speech standing at the front of the room, and he concluded that presentation while Brown moved around the room listening to the speech. Brown then made certain suggestions to Rudd about correcting Rudd's speech presentation and then asked Rudd to move to the back of the classroom. Rudd complied with that request. Rudd then began to give his speech again while standing at the back of the room in the area of a desk. At this time the Respondent was moving around the room and eventually approached Rudd.
At that point, Brown placed his folded arms on the back of Rudd at Rudd's shoulder level. At this juncture, Rudd was facing the front of the classroom and the Respondent was directly behind him. The front of Brown's body was touching the back of Rudd's person. Brown remained in this position until Rudd had concluded his speech. During this interval, Brown made no comment.
The interval for this occurrence was approximately two or three minutes.
After Rudd had presented his speech for the second time, the Respondent went and took a seat in a chair in the back of the classroom. The Respondent then instructed the student to sit on the Respondent's lap. Rudd complied and seated himself on the Respondent's leg, in the area of the Respondent's knee. The Respondent then gestured with his hand, pointing in the direction of the Respondent's groin area, meaning the genital area, and said to the student, "sit right here." The Respondent then pulled the student toward his body and at that time the student was seated on the Respondent's genital area with his back against the Respondent's chest. No comment was made during this part of the episode, which lasted a short time. Brown then moved Rudd back away from his body into the original location near his knee. He then took the student's right hand and with the student's hands stroked Brown's genital area. This maneuver with the student's hand was a momentary event.
While the student was seated on the Respondent's lap, he was concerned for his welfare and in particular worried about the door which had been locked by the Respondent. The student thought that the door was locked such that he, the student, could not exit. In fact, the door was locked barring entry from persons outside the room.
Brown released Rudd's hand and told Rudd that he could get out and that Brown was sorry for what had occurred. He told the student this several times, once when the student got up, once when the student was midway in the classroom approaching the door, and once when the student got to the door.
On the same day as the event transpired, Rudd reported the incident to the Principal at Harris Center, one James Griffin. Griffin then confronted the Respondent with the student's allegations by asking Brown if the story that Rudd had told about the incident was true. Brown responded, "Yes, it is." When Griffin asked him why he did it, Brown said, "I don't know." Griffin then commented to Brown that the matter was a very serious offense and that Brown might be suspended or dismissed from the school system, to which Brown replied, "I know this." Griffin then asked Brown if he was prepared to face the consequences, and Brown replied, "Yes, I guess I am."
Since the time of the event, some of the other students in the sixth grade center have referred to Rudd as a "gay boy," meaning that Rudd was a homosexual, due to his circumstance with Brown and that Rudd "felt Mr. Brown off," meaning that Rudd had manipulated the Respondent's penis. Rudd had been teased about the event by other students, and the students did not talk to him. Rudd has felt insecure in his home and has desired to sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag with the lights on because of this event with the Respondent. Rudd has felt as if someone were watching him even in his home, in particular that the person was the Respondent. The student has also felt that he did not wish to sleep by a window and has chosen to sleep in the middle of the room, and at times has slept on a couch in the living room of his home.
The aforementioned treatment of the student by other children in the sixth grade center led Rudd's parents to change his bus transportation to avoid a confrontation with the children. Nonetheless, it has not been necessary for the student to seek psychiatric assistance and he is recovering from the trauma of the subject occurrence.
In spite of attempts by the school authorities to deter publication of this incident, students, teachers, parents, staff and other persons within the community have learned of the incident and principal Griffin is of the persuasion that there would be dissension with teachers, parents and students
should Brown be allowed back as an instructor in the school. Griffin feels that there would be a lack of trust in that Brown has lost his effectiveness as an instructor. Likewise, Bay County Superintendent Holman who is familiar with the case facts, is of the persuasion that Brown's effectiveness as a teacher in Bay County has been seriously reduced. Nothing offered in defense rebuts the opinion of these educators.
Following the incident, a meeting was held on March 6, 1981, between the Respondent and Pete Holman, Superintendent of Schools in Bay County, Florida, with the Principal Griffin being in attendance. At that time Brown again admitted that the incident had occurred and subsequent to this meeting Brown was suspended from his teaching duties in the Bay County system. There ensued an administrative complaint brought by Ralph B. Turlington as Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida, and the Bay County School Board took action to discharge the Respondent as an employee.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action.
At the point of the hearing, testimony was proffered through the witness Bebe Cofer, a parent of children who had attended the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center in the school year 1980-81, but whose children would not attend that school in the next school year. The proffered testimony pertained to the subject of the unwillingness of this parent to have her children instructed by the Respondent in the future. From consideration of that proffered testimony, the same is denied admission as evidence.
By various charging documents and notices, the Respondent has been told of the School Board of Bay County, Florida's intention to discharge the Respondent from his employment with that school system. The facts established that the Respondent Brown was involved with the student Steve William Rudd to the extend of having that student sit on the Respondent's lap and taking the student's hand and rubbing it on the Respondent's genital area. In view of these facts, the Respondent has reputedly violated Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1.02(2)(d) and 6B-4.09(2), (3), Florida Administrative Code; and Sections 230.33, 231.20 and 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Provision Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, pertains to the requirement for local school officials to make known any violation to the Commissioner of Education any act on the part of a teacher believed to be an offense which promotes the revocation or suspension of that teacher. The provision goes on to detail the procedural steps involved in the consideration of the investigation of the allegations the prosecution of those allegations, hearing and disposition of the case. This provision does not directly pertain to discharge of the Respondent as an employee of the local school system.
Rule 6B-1.02(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, is part of the Code of Ethics related to teachers certified in the State of Florida and requires an educator so certified to conduct his professional business in a way that does not expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On this occasion, Brown's activities with Rudd, as alluded to before, brought about embarrassment and disparagement of Rudd by his contemporaries, who were students in the A. D. Harris school. For that reason, Brown has indeed breached the Code of Ethics.
The allegations by the School Board refer to Rule 6B-4.09(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Those provisions set forth criteria for suspension or dismissal of instructional personnel under the auspices of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. The first of those provisions, Rule 6B-4.09(2), Florida Administrative Code, deals with immorality and defines it to be "conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned and the education profession to public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community." Brown's acts with the student Rudd were inconsistent with public conscience and good morals and were sufficiently notorious to bring Brown and his profession into public disgrace and disrespect and caused impairment of his service to the community. Moreover, Brown has violated Rule 6B-4.09(3), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to breaches of the Code of Ethics of the education profession as described before in his violation of Rule 6B-1.02(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and the quality of this breach of the Code of Ethics was serious enough to impair his effectiveness in the school system.
Reference is made by the Bay County School Board to the provision Section 230.33, Florida Statutes. A reading of that provision leads to the conclusion that the purpose of that reference was to comply with Subsection 230.33(20), Florida Statutes, which requires a superintendent of a school system to recommend the revocation of a certificate for good cause shown. That reference appears to have no other purpose in this hearing.
Reference is made throughout the proceedings by the Bay County School Board to the provision Section 231.20, Florida Statutes. This provision pertains to the right of the Department of Education to suspend or revoke the certificate of a person such as Brown who has violated the provisions of that Section. In an order entered contemporaneously with this matter, following a consolidated hearing, a recommendation has been made to the Department of Education calling for disciplinary action against the Respondent under this provision. See Education Practices Commission, Department of Education v. Willie Lynn Brown, DOAH Case No. 81-1378. This provision, in the terms of its requirements related to the local School Board, would only pertain to the superintendent's obligation to report to the Department of Education the name of persons dismissed or severed from employment because of conduct which would involve a moral, unnatural or lascivious act. The record of this hearing reflects that such notification was made.
Finally, claims are made against the Respondent by this Petitioner in keeping with the provision Subsection 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. That provision provides that an instructional staff member may be suspended or dismissed from his employment for acts based upon ". . .immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." The acts of Mr. Brown in his conduct described herein, related to his encounter with the student Rudd, constituted immorality and misconduct in office.
The charges having been sustained and in consideration of the facts and matters in aggravation and mitigation of the circumstances, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Willie L. Brown, be discharged as a member of the instructional staff of the School Board of Bay County, Florida, without the benefit of back salary not already paid or to which the Respondent would be entitled prior to action of the School Board which suspended the Respondent without pay. 2/
DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1981.
1/ By agreement of counsel for the parties, attorney Holder was allowed to act as lead counsel in the prosecution of this action, in view of the fact that this case was heard as a consolidated matter with that hearing, Education Practices Commission, Department of Education, vs. Willie Lynn Brown, Respondent.
Therefore, the record in the consolidated hearings serves for both actions as stated herein and Holder's inquiry serves to advance the prosecution for both prosecutional entities.
2/ The Respondent in this action, in the person of counsel, has submitted a proposed recommended order. This proposal has been reviewed prior to the entry of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposal is consistent with this Recommended Order, it has been utilized. To the extent that the proposal is inconsistent with this Recommended Order, it is hereby rejected.
Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire Post Office Box 1479
J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1521 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
