Judges: P. MICHAEL RUFF
Agency: County School Boards
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 1983
Summary: Respondent should have his certificate permanently revoked and forfeit all back pay. Respondent was found guilty of theft of student and school property.
81-2115.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2115
)
RONALD MILLER, )
)
Respondent. )
) EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, ) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RALPH )
TURLINGTON, COMMISSIONER OF ) EDUCATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-1234
)
RONALD MILLER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This cause came on for administrative hearing
before P. Michael Ruff, duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 2, 1982, in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire
Attorney for School Board
3050 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 300
Miami, Florida 33137
Craig Wilson, Esquire Attorney for Education
Practices Commission
315 Third Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
For Respondent: Sarah Lea Tobocman, Esquire
1782 One Biscayne Tower
Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
Pursuant to the Notice of Charges filed by the School Board and the Administrative Complaint filed by the Education Practices Commission of the Department of Education in these consolidated cases, the Respondent is charged, in connection with various fund raising drives or sales, to have received funds and failed to account for and deliver over to the proper authorities at his school a substantial portion of the funds raised, allegedly converting them to his own use. It is charged that the Respondent was ultimately Prosecuted for grand theft in the Circuit Court for Dade County for wrongfully converting the funds, to his own use. The ultimate disposition of his criminal case was that adjudication was withheld and he was placed in a "pre-trial intervention program" and on probation by the circuit judge with the understanding that the Dade County School Board would be reimbursed approximately the sum of $1,750.
The Petitioners thus charge that the various wrongful acts alleged constitute violations of, respectively, Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, and Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent allegedly committed acts of gross immorality, acts involving moral turpitude and acts which seriously reduce his effectiveness as a teacher. Additionally, it is charged that the conduct alleged, pursuant to Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, constitutes a failure to set a proper example for students and is contrary to Rule 6B-1.01, Florida Administrative Code, in that he failed to practice his profession according to highest ethical standards.
On May 2, 1982, the Respondent moved to consolidate the above-styled cases.
An Order granting consolidation was entered May 19, 1982.
The two Petitioners presented a consolidated case with the same evidence running to all similar charges of the School Board complaint or Notice of Charges, and the Administrative Complaint by the Commission. Additionally, the Commission presented evidence with regard to the allegations in Counts 5,9,1 and 11, which are not contained in the School Board's Notice of Charges.
The Petitioners called as their witnesses Doug Wycoff, Jesuapheters Nario, Anthony Socarras, Edward Beverly Joyner, Edward S. Wilson, JoAnn Oropesa, Raphael Lopez, Valentine Lopez, Manuel Martinez, Alfonso Gustavo, Barbara Wade, Cynthia Castillo, Marlen Munne, and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr.
The Petitioner presented Exhibits 1 and 2, Exhibit 1 being a certified copy of an Information filed in the State of Florida vs. Ronald Miller, Case No. 81- 1363A, as well as a "Pre-trial Intervention" agreement. Exhibit 2 was a statement of Witness Alfonso Gustavo marked for identification, but not admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and called as his additional witnesses Ralph Suarez, George Groene, Yamili Ali, Ali Ali, and Dwayne Ingram. The Respondent presented Exhibit A, being the green (or blue) bag, which allegedly contained the subject money and Exhibit A was received into evidence. Respondent's Exhibit B constituted the Respondent's personnel records which were received into evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties waived the thirty day requirement for rendition of the Recommended Order pursuant to Rule 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code, requested a transcript of the proceedings and elected to exercise their right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The issue presented in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the School Board's Notice of Charges and in the Education Practices Commission's Administrative Complaint and if he did commit such acts, whether the sanction requested by the School Board constituting dismissal from employment and the revocation of his teaching certificate by the Commissioner are appropriate for the acts complained of.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent, Ronald Miller, holds a Florida teaching certificate numbered 464113, covering the area of physical education. During the 1980-81 school year he was employed as a teacher of physical education at Miami Coral Park Senior High School in Miami, Florida. He was also hired that year by Miami Coral Park Senior High School to be an assistant basketball coach for the junior varsity basketball team and an assistant coach for the varsity football team.
At the beginning of that school year, the head coach for the varsity basketball team, Mr. Edward Joyner, was delayed in his arrival at school. For this reason during the first three or four weeks of school, Mr. Miller was appointed to take Mr. Joyner's place in coaching the varsity basketball team as well. This was the first year of Mr. Miller's assignment as a full-time teacher.
The Petitioners are, respectively, the School Board of Dade County, a public agency charged with the hiring, employment and regulation of the operations, activities and practices of teachers it employs to instruct students in the Dade County Public School System. The Education Practices Commission is an agency of the State of Florida within the Department of Education and is charged with the duty of licensing and regulating the licensure status, practice and practice standards of teachers in the State of Florida.
During the 1980-81 school year, as in the recent past, Coral Park Senior High School had a club called the Cagerettes which assisted the school's junior varsity basketball and varsity basketball teams by helping to raise funds for different functions as well as to work with the coaching staff performing such services as taking statistics during games. Members of that group were selected from the student body after "tryouts" where the individual applicants were judged on their personality and participation. Cindy Castillo was the captain or president of club for the 1980-81 school year. This was her third consecutive year as a member of the club and her second year as its president. Cindy Castillo approached Mr. Miller shortly after he became employed and after the school year began and asked him to be the faculty sponsor for the club. He had had no previous experience as a club sponsor for any school, but based upon Miss Castillo's representations concerning his insignificant duties as club sponsor, he agreed to become the sponsor of the club.
One of the initial witnesses called by the Petitioner was Mr. Doug Wycoff. Mr. Wycoff was an instructor in the English Department at times pertinent here to and also acted in the capacity of athletic business manager for Coral Park Senior High School. As athletic business manger, Mr. Wycoff was required to oversee the financial business and accounting for monies received by the athletic department. These duties included overseeing ticket sales, crowd control, personnel at athletic events, overseeing fund raising efforts and managing the money received therefrom and in general assisting the athletic director.
Mr. Wycoff testified that the high school maintained its banking accounts with the Sun Bank. Any monies derived from fund raising activities should go to him as a member of the athletic office in charge of finance and
then they would be deposited with the school treasurer. The treasurer typically makes deposits on a daily basis via the Wells Fargo Armored Express Company. At all times material to these proceedings the practice was to segregate all accounts with the bank so that each different sports activity and the personnel involved therein would have their own account and otherwise maintain constant accessibility to the account.
Prior to the commencement of the 1980-81 school year, Mr. Wycoff gave general instructions to all faculty members involved with the athletic program regarding who to contact should they have any questions regarding their involvement with a fund raising activity and how to account for the money. Although it was the witnesses' opinion that the Respondent had been present at that meeting, the Respondent denied it and the record does not establish whether or not the Respondent was present at that particular meeting.
A condition precedent to the establishment of any fund raising activity of the high school, or a club or a group operating under the auspices of the school, required that the sponsor of the group obtain approval from Mr. Wycoff. The school records reveal, through Mr. Wycoff's testimony, that there were only two functions which had previously been approved for the basketball team. One was a car wash held at the beginning of the year in question and the the second was an M & M candy sale which took place later during the spring of the 80-81 school year. The approval for the car wash was obtained from Mr. Wycoff by the Cagerette captain, Miss Castillo. Near the close of the 80-81 school year the school principal ultimately learned that other fund raising activities had been conducted for which substantial sums of money had been received, which had been unapproved fund raising activities. The generated proceeds were received and unaccounted for by the Respondent. The car wash took place on or about September 27, 1980. Mr. Wycoff issued to Miss Castillo one hundred tickets with a prestamped price of $1.50 on each ticket for sale of car washes. The car wash was a success and generated approximately $900 in gross proceeds Two hundred dollars of that (apparently checks) was turned over to Mr. Wycoff, the balance in cash was retained by the Respondent. The Respondent admitted receiving perhaps $200 to $300 within a few days after this event. The Respondent explained ;to Miss Castillo and the other students involved in the car wash activity, that the monies were going to be held by him for the benefit of the Cagerettes and the basketball team in a special account at a bank near his home.
On October 4, 1980, a car wash was held by the Cagerettes with the help of the Respondent. Mr. Wycoff was not requested to approve this endeavor, nor were the funds raised therefrom ever accounted for to Mr. Wycoff or any other employee or official of the school. Approximately $256 was generated and the proceeds were placed in the Respondent's custody at his request. The Respondent admitted that with regard to this fund raising effort he received approximately
$247.
On approximately October 11, 1980, at the instance of the Respondent and without prior knowledge or approval from Mr. Wycoff, the Cagerettes and basketball players held a donut sale. The total proceeds of that sale approximated the sum of $900. Cynthia Castillo took $594 of that sum to pay the vendor of the donuts and the balance, in the approximate sum of $311, was turned over to the Respondent. The Respondent admitted that he received approximately
$300 from that fund raising activity.
A second donut sale was held a short time later, also not approved by Mr. Wycoff or any personnel in his office. Approximately $368 were generated from that venture which was initially given to Coach Joyner. The record in this proceeding does not reflect what became of that $368, but it was not included in the sum ultimately the subject of criminal proceedings against the Respondent.
In the fall of 1980, the Respondent suggested and initiated a procedure whereby members of the Cagerettes would pay monthly dues. This was a practice that was followed with the dues set in their approximate amount of $2 per member per month. These dues were collected for approximately one month and the monies were turned over to the Respondent in the amount of between $30 and
$40. The Respondent never accounted for this money. The Respondent also initiated a procedure whereby the members of the Cagerettes would take up donations from individual girls for "penny week." These donations were taken up in the form of pennies on Monday; nickels on Tuesday; dimes on Wednesday; quarters on Thursday; and dollars on Friday. This activity grossed approximately $43 which was turned over to the Respondent and never accounted for. The initiation of this program on his own by the Respondent without approval of any one in authority was in direct conflict with rules promulgated by the school. Prescribed receipt books were to have been obtained from Mr.
Wycoff and used so as to avoid any accounting for the money. This was not done.
The Respondent also conducted another fund raising project whereby he solicited donations from students of $1 each for the purchase of athletic socks. At least one student made such a donation, but no socks were purchased. Mr. Wycoff established that no such collection project came to his knowledge and that the athletic department purchases and provides socks for its junior varsity teams at no cost to its members, thus the alleged need for donations to purchase athletic socks was false.
During the course of the the 1980-81 school year, both the Respondent and his fellow coach and colleague, Mr. Joyner, made several attempts to have a banquet in honor of the basketball team and Cagerettes. Because of the lack of financing, the banquet never came to fruition. This was because certain funds raised by the above-mentioned fund raising projects during the year were unaccounted for by the Respondent, thus the banquet was severely under-financed. Additionally, several students paid to Mr. Miller at least $10 per banquet ticket for anticipated attendance of themselves and their respective guests. When the banquet was finally cancelled, the Respondent did not return their ticket purchase money. Mr. Lopez established that he was a student at that time and a member of the varsity basketball team. He purchased three tickets at $10 each, payable in cash, and was never refunded when the banquet was cancelled. JoAnn Oropesa paid the Respondent cash for banquet tickets, but was never refunded her money. She made demand on the Respondent for her money and the Respondent informed her that he would make a refund by check in the mail at the end of the school year. He failed to do so.
During the school year the Cagerettes and the basketball team agreed with Coach Joyner to have a skating party at a neighboring commercial skating rink. In order to fund this event, the students involved agreed to sell tickets at the price of $3 per ticket. Mr. Wycoff was not advised of this money raising effort either and never received any money for an accounting, therefor, from either Respondent or Coach Joyner. JoAnn Oropesa sold all ten tickets assigned to her at $3 per ticket. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the monies from that fund raising activity, representing that the money would be used for the banquet in lieu of the skating event which was cancelled, Ultimately, these monies were never returned to JoAnn Oropesa or other students purchasing
tickets. Manuel Martinez purchased tickets for the skating party and never had a refund, being merely told by the Respondent to "wait." The same student, Manuel Martinez, established that the Respondent solicited members of his class on more than one occasion to make contributions to a touring gospel singing group of which he was a member and that in consideration for this donation a student could receive an "A" for a test or make-up work. The Respondent also offered that "detentions" or "make-up requirements" could be taken off a student's record, for any of the classes in which the student was enrolled with the Respondent, in return for such donations. The testimony of Manuel Martinez was corroborated by Raphael Lopez, another student of the Respondent's, who established that the Respondent solicited students for contributions to his gospel group in return for enhancement of their grades. Marilyn Munne observed the Respondent soliciting students for contributions to his gospel group in consideration for which he would have a detention "dropped off" which would automatically result in a better grade.
The Respondent ultimately proved unable to account for the proceeds of the money generated by the various fund raising projects outlined above and caused resulting concern to the various witnesses testifying on behalf of the Petitioners. Miss Castillo estimated that at least $1,700 had been placed in the Respondent's custody, exclusive of the $368 which she had given to Coach Joyner and which was apparently not accounted for either. Even by the Respondent's own admission he received at least between $900 and $1,100 from these fund raising projects that school year. The testimony of Miss Castillo and other witnesses establishes that the Respondent represented that those monies were to held in a special account for the benefit of the Cagerettes and the basketball team. The Respondent by his own admission acknowledged that he told Miss Castillo that he would "possibly" place the monies in such an account.
The Respondent did not have a bank account and did not customarily maintain one. He testified that he maintained a "strong box" used as a depository within his own home. The Respondent testified that he placed the subject money in a green plastic zippered bag (Respondent's Exhibit A) up until the time it was supposedly removed by persons unknown who, according to the Respondent, stole his car on or about February 8, 1981. The Respondent testified that he was about to go spend the night with a friend and put the subject zippered plastic bag or case into his car, went back into the house to get some more belongings and the car was stolen while he was inside. The car was not recovered until some days later and the money was gone, although the plastic bag remained in or returned to the Respondent's possession and was made Exhibit A in this proceeding. The Respondent did not demonstrate that any efforts were made to replace the money prior to his being prosecuted for its disappearance. He did not, for instance, establish that he made any effort to file a claim against his automobile insurance carrier in order to see that the students were recompensed.
Ultimately, the State Attorney's Office for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, filed a one count felony Information charging the Respondent with grand theft. The victim in that case was alleged to be the Petitioner's chief witness, Miss Cynthia Castillo. The Respondent, in that criminal proceeding, never went to trial, offering instead to enter into an agreement with the State Attorney to go into the "pre-trial intervention program" which is apparently a sort of probationary status coupled with a court enforced reimbursement of at least $1,700 to the Dade County School Board. The entire scenario described above concerning the fund raising efforts, diversion of the funds generated by them and the Respondent's ultimate refusal or at least inability to account for the whereabouts of those funds and his ultimate
criminal prosecution for diversions of the funds became a matter of knowledge of a number of students and parents at the school as well as Mr. Wycoff, Desmond Patrick Gray and other members of the Dade County School Board's administrative staff.
It should be noted that although no conviction has been entered against the Respondent in the criminal proceedings referred to above, it has been established without question that he took the cash portions of the funds generated by the various above-described fund raising efforts into his possession, failed to properly account for them, failed to place them in a bank account and failed to deliver them over to Mr. Wycoff or other responsible authorities. He exhibited adequate knowledge of whom he should have delivered the funds to because he only retained the cash portions of the monies generated by each fund raising effort, turning over the non-fungible checks to those entitled to them.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Pursuant to Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, the Education Practices Commission has the authority to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any person provided:
[it can be shown that such person . . . has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude; . . . has been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation; 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.
The statutory standard which must be applied to the above findings of fact in order to determine whether the School Board has met its burden of proof in justification of dismissal of Ronald Miller from his employment is contained in Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, which provides:
[t]he charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incom- petency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkeness or conviction of any crimes involving moral turpitude.
There is no question that the evidence in this record clearly and convincingly establishes, for purposes of Section 231.36(6) above, that the Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty. The evidence conclusively shows that the Respondent engaged in a pattern or course of conduct involving conducting money-raising schemes or drives during a substantial portion of the 1980-81 school year, raising substantial amounts of money which he failed to properly account for and properly turn into his
superiors in the school's administration; to wit, Mr. Wycoff. There is no question that although two of these fund raising efforts were approved, the remainder of them were not even properly authorized to begin with, even had he properly accounted for the funds generated by them. He clearly engaged in a number of different schemes to defraud the students of the Cagerette Club and basketball team as well as the school and its athletic department of the monies raised by these fund raising events when he, as a professional teacher, was certainly aware that he could not simply retain these funds for a substantial portion of the school year in his own custody and possession.
It is totally immaterial whether he attended the meeting described in Mr. Wycoff's testimony at the outset of the school year wherein some instruction was apparently given to various school personnel regarding proper accounting procedures. The Respondent clearly knew that the funds raised by the various fund raising efforts he promoted were not his own and were not his to retain.
He was obviously sufficiently educated, intelligent, and aware of appropriate professional practices to know that he should inquire of someone in authority about what to do with the funds rather than simply retaining them and saying nothing. The fact that he was engaging in such a course of conduct to convert these funds to his own use is particularly borne out by the fact that on at least one of the occasions when funds came into his hands from fund raising efforts, he was careful to return the non-fungible personal checks to those who had bought tickets with checks, but retaining the cash in his own possession.
The Hearing Officer finds, based upon the candor, demeanor and testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses, vis a vis the Respondent's version of events involving the supposed placement of the cash in the subject zippered plastic bag in his car on the night of February 8, when the car and cash supposedly was stolen is not credible or worthy of belief. Even, however, had that story been demonstrated to be thoroughly true, the fact remains that the Respondent, by his own admission, had retained those funds for a substantial period of time in his own possession without putting them in a special bank account and certainly without properly accounting for and remitting them to Mr. Wycoff or other appropriate authorities. There is no evidence in this record that the establishment of a special bank account (had the Respondent done so) was ever specifically authorized nor is it authorized by any accepted rules or procedures of the School Board. His only duty, which was absolutely required of him, was to properly account for all monies received from only approved fund raising efforts and to remit them to Mr. Wycoff. If he was unable to attend the meeting wherein proper fund accounting procedures were explained, he was, as a licensed professional teacher, clothed with a duty to inquire of one of his superiors, particularly Mr. Wycoff, regarding what he should do with any funds coming into his hands. There is, thus, no doubt left based on the evidence in this record that he is guilty of misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty.
His active and affirmative efforts to defraud students and the school administration is amply demonstrated by the fact that he attempted to solicit unneeded funds for the purchase of athletic socks for the basketball team members and, even if it were a proper expense of the team members, he clearly engaged in misconduct in office and outright fraud by converting the funds donated to him to his own use. He was a coach, if he did not know the school paid for athletic socks, he was certainly under a duty to inquire as to who should properly bear that expense. The same consideration is true of his efforts to raise funds for his gospel singing group in return for promising his students favored treatment in grading. In this instance he was defrauding the students and the school administration by soliciting such funds on the school
premises and on school time, and by, in effect, selling better grades in return for donations. Although the amounts of funds solicited and obtained were small compared to the other sums coming into his possession, this conduct is perhaps one of the most flagrant example of misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty, as well as an act of moral turpitude. His subverting the educational process and his honor as a teacher and the honor of his students by, in effect, improving their grades in return for money, ironically enough in the name of promoting the tour of his gospel singing group. There is no question that the School Board has established that he is guilty of misconduct in office and willful neglect of his duties as an instructional employee of the School Board and he should be dismissed from his employment.
There is similarly no question, given the evidence in this record, that the Respondent has been shown, for purposes of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, to be guilty of gross immorality and acts involving moral turpitude. The above considerations discussed, with regard to the conclusions concerning the School Board's charges, apply equally here and the Respondent has been demonstrated clearly to have converted substantial sums of money from these fund raising efforts to his own use for a substantial part of the school year, even if he did ultimately form an intent to return them and was unable to. There is simply no doubt, given the evidence in this record, that the Respondent, an educated, licensed teacher, who should have known better, kept the cash funds in his possession without ever informing or inquiring of Mr. Wycoff or other appropriate authority regarding their existence nor the proper disposition to make of them (even assuming that he did not already know) and that when questioned about them by the students who had contributed a substantial portion funds, he misrepresented to them the whereabouts of the funds, as well as his intentions about how to account for them. Moral turpitude has been defined in Winestock vs. Immigration and Natrualization Services, 576 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1978), to have as its essential element an act or crime involving the intent to defraud or deceive another. Clearly the Respondent's conduct comes within that standard and constitutes a course of conduct involving repetitive efforts to defraud and deceive the students and the school administration regarding the purpose for various fund raising schemes, and the whereabouts of, the use for and the accounting for the funds in question. He is clearly guilty of acts of gross immorality and moral turpitude for purposes of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Education Practices Commission and, because it was a clear pattern or course of such conduct over a substantial period of time rather than one isolated instance of a transitory nature, his penalty should be a substantial one.
There is, however, no establishment in this record that he has actually been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude since the law extant provides that the term "conviction" means in Florida an adjudication of guilt by a court. See Fla. Jur. 2d, Vol. 14, Criminal Law, Section 3; Delta Truck Brokers, Inc. vs. King, 142 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1962). Similarly, the First District Court of Appeals stated in Accredited Surety and Casualty Co. vs. State, 318 So.2d 554, 555 (1st DCA Fla. 1975):
There has been considerable evolvement of
the criminal law since the Supreme Court's 1888 decision in Barnes, supra. In more recent years, the Supreme Court and appellate courts have consistently held that a verdict or a plea of guilty is not a conviction; that conviction requires a judgment of
conviction . . . an adjudication of guilt.
See, also, Holland vs. Florida Real Estate Commission, 352 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). In the case at hand, the Respondent neither pled guilty nor had any adjudication of guilt entered against him regarding the criminal charge emanating from the conduct discussed above. Thus, he has never actually been convicted of any crime of moral turpitude and to that extent the Administrative Complaint as well as the School Board's Notice of Charges should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore
RECOMMENDED:
That with regard to case No. 81-2115, the petition of the School Board of Dade County against Ronald Miller, the Respondent, Ronald Miller, be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County and forfeit all back pay. It is, further
RECOMMENDED:
With regard to case No. 82-1234, the petition of the Education Practices Commission, Department of Education, Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner against Ronald Miller, that Ronald Miller have his Florida teaching certificate No.
464113 permanently revoked.
DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida.
P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1982.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Attorney for School Board
3050 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 300
Miami, Florida 33137
Craig Wilson, Esquire
Attorney for Education Practices Commission
315 West Third Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Sarah Lea Tobocman, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower
Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
Dr. Leonard M. Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools
1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Donald L. Griesheimer, Executive Director Department of Education
Education Practices Commission The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (SCHOOL BOARD)
=================================================================
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 81-2115
RONALD MILLER,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY
THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before The School Board of Dade County, Florida, at its regular meeting on February 2, 1983, upon the Hearing Officer's recommended Order, recommending that RONALD MILLER be dismissed from his position with the Dade County school system and forfeit all back pay.
IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by The School Board of Dade County, Florida that:
The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order attached hereto, be and the same hereby is adopted as the final order of The School Board; and
Ronald Miller be and is hereby dismissed from his employment with The School Board of Dade County, Florida, and Ronald Miller shall receive no compensation from The School Board, of Dade County, Florida from August 19, 1981.
DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 1983.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
G. H. Braddock Chairman
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER (EPC)
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
RALPH D. TURLINGTON as
Commissioner of Education, Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 82-1234
Lowest Case No. 81-2115
RONALD MILLER,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, Ronald Miller, holds Florida teaching certificate #464113. On April 14, 1982 an Administrative Complaint was filed seeking the suspension or revocation of his certificate. A formal hearing was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings, which forwarded to this Commission a Recommended Order. That Order is attached to and made a part of this Final Order.
A teacher panel of the Education Practices Commission met on January 27, 1983 to take final agency action.
The panel adopts the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order. Each of the members has reviewed the entire record. It is, therefore
ORDERED that Florida teaching certificate #464113 of Respondent Ronald Miller is hereby PERMANENTLY REVOKED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of February 1983.
Marjorie Hankins, Presiding Officer
Filed in the records of the Education Practices Commission this 7th day of February 1983.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Arthur Walberg
Attorney General's Office
Marlene Greenfield
Professional Practices Services
Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education
Docket for Case No: 81-002115
Orders for Case No: 81-002115
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Feb. 02, 1983 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
Dec. 22, 1982 |
Recommended Order
|
Respondent should have his certificate permanently revoked and forfeit all back pay. Respondent was found guilty of theft of student and school property.
|
