STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NOS. 91-5101

) 91-7307

JOHN J. BEILETTI, )

)

Respondent. )

) BETTY CASTOR, as Commissioner of ) Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-8271

)

JOHN J. BEILETTI, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a consolidated formal hearing in the above-styled cases on February 18-19, 1992, at Clearwater, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Post Office Box 2942

Largo, Florida 34649-2942

For Petitioner: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of 352 Florida Education Center Education 325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

For Respondent: Robert J. McCormack, Esquire

Kelly & McKee

Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent violated provisions of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in Superintendent, Pinellas County Schools, letters to John Beiletti dated July 26, 1991 and October 29, 1991; and provisions of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 27, 1991.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By charging letters dated July 26, 1991 and October 29, 1991, the Superintendent of Schools, Pinellas County, advised John J. Beiletti that he would recommend to the Pinellas County School Board that Beiletti be dismissed as a tenured teacher in the Pinellas County School system. As grounds therefor, it is alleged in DOAH Case No. 91-5101 that Beiletti is guilty of gross insubordination and misconduct in office based upon the facts that he: Used profanity and vulgarity in the classroom after being repeatedly warned against such behavior; yelled at, embarrassed, belittled and intimidated students after having been repeatedly warned against such behavior; deviated from curriculum and classroom presentations to an excessive extent by speaking of his personal life and relating stories unrelated to the class subject matter; failed to maintain neutrality in religious matters in the classroom; during a professional telephone conference with the mother of a student in his class asked the student's mother to meet him in a social setting, knowing the lady was married; and has indicated to students that he lies to them. In DOAH Case No. 91-7307, it is alleged as grounds for the recommendation of dismissal that Beiletti, while already facing dismissal proceedings, left a vulgar, profane and abusive recorded message on the school's voice mail telephone service.

These cases were consolidated for hearing with DOAH Case No. 91-8271 brought by Betty Castor as Commissioner of Education against Beiletti in which that Petitioner seeks to revoke or suspend the teaching certificate of Beiletti on the same allegations made in DOAH Case No. 91-5101. The evidence presented during these proceedings is applicable to all charges, and a consolidated recommended order is submitted for the School Board and Commission of Education.

At the hearing, Petitioners called 36 witnesses, Respondent called 8 witnesses, including himself, and 42 exhibits were admitted into evidence. Respondent's objection to the admission of several of these exhibits on grounds they relate to events not contained in the charging document is sustained to the extent that these documents are admitted only to show that Respondent was formally warned and cautioned about the type of behavior forming the gravamen of the charges for which he was suspended and for which the School Board now seeks to dismiss him as a classroom teacher in Pinellas County, and the Commissioner of Education seeks to discipline his certificate.

Proposed findings have been submitted by the parties. Treatment accorded those proposed findings is contained in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Having fully considered the evidence presented, I submit the following.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant hereto, John J. Beiletti was employed as a social studies classroom teacher by the Pinellas County School Board and held Professional Teaching Certificate No. 121187 issued by the State of Florida, Board of Education.

   
   

2. At the time the charges here involved arose, Petitioner was teaching World History at Northeast High School in St. Petersburg, Florida.

   
   

3. Respondent taught for six years in Hillsborough County prior to being employed at Dunedin Senior High School in 1965 (Exhibit 14). Respondent's

   testimony that he holds three master's degrees and has been a teacher for 33 years was not rebutted.

   
   

4. Respondent's evaluations were generally satisfactory, and he was considered to be a good to excellent teacher prior to 1981 when various complaints and requests for transfers from his classes were received from students and parents.

   
   

5. These complaints led to meetings, investigations and letters cautioning Respondent about his conduct in class.

   
   

6. By letter dated October 25, 1982 (Exhibit 3), Francis M. Freeman, Principal at Dunedin High School, notified Respondent that numerous complaints about him had been received, namely:

   
   

   1. That you yell at, embarrass, frighten, and intimidate young people.

   2. That many illustrations you use in teaching are somewhat crude or earthy in nature.

   3. That the amount of work you require in certain areas is too technical for students at the

      9th grade level.

   4. That when parental conferences are held that you requested that students write you letters

      or come to see the principal to indicate to him what a fine teacher you are.

      
      

7. On November 5, 1982, Hugh B. Kriever, Director of Student Discipline, Pinellas County School System, conferred with Respondent to discuss the problems he was having in his classroom. This meeting was memorialized in Exhibit 4.

   
   

8. On December 1, 1982, James Shipley, Area Superintendent, Pinellas County School System, reprimanded Respondent for unprofessional conduct in leaving an obscenity written by a student on the blackboard in his classroom for two days after becoming aware it was there. (Exhibit 5).

   
   

9. Despite these efforts on the part of the school system, the complaints continued. Robert Wright succeeded Freeman as Principal, Dunedin High School, and on November 14, 1983, a conference was held with Wright, Ficarrota, Assistant Principal, and Respondent to discuss the complaints. By letter dated November 16, 1983 (Exhibit 10), Wright notified Respondent the following acts for which complaints were made must cease at once:

   
   

   1. Profanity.

   2. Intimidation; yelling and embarrassing students.

   3. Playing music, (tape, radio or guitar)

   4. Controversial material being taught.

   5. Inappropriate procedures for handling student detentions.

      
      

10. By letter dated March 10, 1984 (Exhibit 11), Wright advised Respondent that he had noticed Respondent's student aide recording grades in Respondent's grade book and informed the student this was not permissible. The letter reminded Respondent that the practice is absolutely forbidden and enclosed a copy of Rule 6Gx52-8.06, Pinellas County Schools Policy Manual.

11. These problems led to attempts to involuntarily transfer Respondent to another school in 1982 (or 1983), which was successfully rebuffed by Respondent. (Exhibit 13).

    
    

12. On March 28, 1983, a Joint Stipulation was entered into between Respondent and Scott N. Rose, Superintendent, Pinellas County Schools (Exhibit 15), in which Respondent agreed:

    
    

    1. To take a 10 day personal leave without pay;

    2. In his remarks to students and in his behavior in the classroom Respondent would adhere to material appropriate to the district's accepted curriculum;

    3. To promptly exchange matters of concern or complaint; and

    4. Respondent will be reassigned to another school in the 1984-85 school year.

       
       

13. On November 28, 1983, a conference was held with Nancy Zambito, Director of Personnel Services for Pinellas County Schools; Bob Husbands, Classroom Teachers Association representative; and Respondent. (Exhibit 13) At this conference, Zambito advised Respondent that profanity, yelling at and/or embarrassing students, and inappropriate detention practices are not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Respondent said he would "try" to refrain from profanity and "hoped" he wouldn't slip.

    
    

14. For the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was transferred to Northeast High School where he remained until suspended in 1991.

    
    

15. On March 12, 1985, Tom Zachary, Principal at Northeast High School, conferred with Respondent regarding the latter's teaching procedures. At this conference, memorialized in Exhibit 21, they discussed Respondent's classes and weekly routine, and Respondent was told these procedures needed to be improved; considered his teaching procedures which also needed to be improved; his textbook approach which also needed improvement; and his casual dress deemed to be inappropriate in the classroom.

    
    

16. During the period mid-March to mid-April, 1991, Sheila Keller, Curriculum Supervisor, Pinellas County Schools, observed five classes taught by Respondent during that period. Her report to the Assistant Principal, Northeast High School, is contained in Exhibit 25. That report confirms the allegations that Respondent strays from the subject of his lecture, discusses his personal health, marital status and specific religious beliefs, subjects he had been repeatedly told to omit from his classroom lectures.

    
    

17. During the 1990-91 school year, Principal Charlie Williams at Northeast High School received a letter from the mother of a pupil in Respondent's class complaining of Respondent's conduct in the classroom. This complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent's office and investigated by Steven Crosby, Director of Personnel Services, Pinellas County Schools.

    
    

18. As a result of that investigation, Respondent was suspended without pay based upon the allegations contained in the charging letter as noted in the preliminary statement portion of this Recommended Order and advised of his right to an administrative hearing.

19. At the hearing, 11 students who had Respondent as a teacher at Northeast High School in the 1990-91 school year testified and I so find, that during the times they were in his classes, Respondent: Frequently yelled at them, used words like damn, hell and shit during his lectures; made racially disparaging comments; intimidated and embarrassed students by demeaning them in a manner the whole class could observe; told the class that sometimes he would lie to them; made remarks about religion that some students found to be disparaging to their religious beliefs; and rambled from his lecture nearly every time he lectured with inappropriate stories about his personal life. Further, many of these students felt they were not receiving a proper education in Respondent's class, and a petition was circulated requesting Respondent be replaced as a teacher at Northeast High School.

    
    

20. When the student who received a grade lower than she thought she deserved went to a counselor to complain, Respondent later called her up to his desk and called her little miss honor student. This embarrassed her, and she called her mother who subsequently telephoned Respondent to complain of this incident, and wrote the letter that initiated the investigation leading to these charges.

    
    

21. During a lengthy conversation with Respondent, this parent testified that Respondent suggested she have coffee with him and further suggested she have dinner with him. Respondent denies that he invited her to dinner or coffee and testified she invited him to her home for dinner, and her husband invited him to go out on the husband's boat--both of which Respondent declined. The testimony of the parent is deemed to be the more credible.

    
    

22. Respondent called two witnesses who were in Respondent's class at Dunedin High School in 1969 and 1972-73. These witnesses found Respondent to be an excellent teacher while they were in his class.

    
    

23. Two witnesses called by Respondent in his classes during the 1990-91 school year testified that Respondent used curse words and intimidated students when he yelled at them.

    
    

24. In his testimony, Respondent denied intimidating students, but acknowledged that he frequently yelled at them to get their attention and improve discipline in the class, that he sometimes used words like damn and hell and could have used the word shit. Respondent denies he favors any religion, but prefers meditation and considers many religions too ceremonial.

    
    

25. Respondent acknowledged that he told his pupils that history is not exact, but is slanted by the opinions of the writer and therefore is frequently untrue. In this context, he intimated to, if not directly told, the class that some of the history taught by him was lies.

    
    

26. Respondent further acknowledged that he had one student enter grades in his grade book and presented other evidence that this practice was not uncommon at Northeast High School, although prohibited by the school system policy manual.

    
    

27. With respect to the allegation in DOAH Case No. 91-7307, the evidence is unrebutted that on October 2, 1991, Respondent, from his home in Tampa, made a long distance call to the school administration building to inquire about the status of his health insurance. A new telephone system had recently been installed and considerable difficulty arose in routing Respondent's call to the correct person, as Respondent did not have the extension number of the person he

    needed to talk with. After several frustrating attempts, Respondent was accidently transferred to voice mail with a recorded message to leave his message and someone would get back to him. Respondent's temper flared, and he shouted obscenities into the voice mail recorded and threw the telephone upon the bed adjacent to where he was calling. A tape of these obscenities was admitted as Exhibit 32.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

28. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

29. Respondent is here charged by the School Board with violating Sections 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education charges Respondent with violating Section 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, which proscribes personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board and misconduct in office, respectively.

30. Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: Any member . . . of the instructional staff . . .

    who is under continuing contract may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year; however, the charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

    
    

31. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Educational Practices Commission to revoke or suspend a teaching certificate of any person if it can be shown that such person

    
    

    (f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board.

    (h) 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 provision of law or rule allegedly violated by Respondent is misconduct in office.

    
    

32. Here the School Board alleges Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office and gross insubordination. Rule 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code, defines gross insubordination as:

    
    

    A constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.

    
    

33. Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, defines misconduct in office as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the education profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, and Principles of

    Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.

    
    

34. Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, establishes general ethical precepts to which the educator should aspire, whereas Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and shall apply to any individual holding a valid Florida teacher's certificate.

    2. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual teacher's certificate or other penalties as provided by law.

    3. Obligation to the student requires that the individual:

       1. Shall make reasonable efforts to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or safety.

          * * *

          e. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparage- ment.

          1. Shall not exploit a professional relation- ship with a student for personal gain or advantage.

          2. Shall keep in confidence personally identifiable information obtained in the course of professional services . . . .

          
          

35. In these proceedings, the School Board has the burden of proving the allegations of gross insubordination and misconduct in office by a preponderance of the evidence. Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); accord Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); while the Department of Education must prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

    
    

36. By yelling at students in his class, belittling them in front of their classmates, by using vulgar language in class, making disparaging remarks about religion which offends some student's religious beliefs, and making inappropriate racial comments to some students, Respondent violated provisions of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, above cited. Also by having a student aide enter grades in Respondent's grade book, Respondent violated provisions of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h) and (i), Florida Administrative Code. Since these student's grades are confidential, allowing other students access to those grades violates School Board policy.

    
    

37. The acts of Respondent constituting the gravamen of the offenses here alleged involve the same conduct for which he has been warned, cautioned and disciplined over the last 10 years. This constitutes gross insubordination as defined in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code.

38. The misconduct in office offenses were sufficiently serious in the eyes of the students, and their parents, to cause many of these students and/or their parents to request the student be removed from Respondent's class. This, plus the petition signed by numerous students in Respondent's classes at Northeast High School in the 1990-91 school year requesting the school authorities to remove Respondent from further teaching duties, clearly shows Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was seriously impaired.

    
    

39. Finally, the act of Respondent in venting his frustration by shouting obscenities into a telephone on which he perceived the party on the other end to be an inanimate object, while an exercise of extremely bad judgment and wholly inappropriate conduct, does not rise to the level to constitute misconduct in office as defined in Rule 6B-1.004(3), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

40. From the foregoing, it is concluded that Petitioners have proved by clear and convincing evidence that John J. Beiletti is guilty of gross insubordination and misconduct in office, that he is not guilty of misconduct in office as alleged in charging letter dated October 29, 1991 as alleged by the School Board, and that he is guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board as alleged by the Department of Education.

    
    

41. With regard to the punishment, the long period of time Respondent was a successful teacher has been considered. It is evident that from the commencement of his appearance in Pinellas County school classrooms until approximately 10 years ago, Respondent was a competent teacher and, perhaps, an exceptional teacher. On the other hand, for the past 10 years, Respondent has consistently used vulgar language in his classes, has intimidated students by yelling at them, has made disparaging comments to these students regarding race and religion and has created an atmosphere in his classroom harmful to their learning the subject he purported to teach. This has seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Pinellas County School Board.

    
    

42. The fact that he persisted in this type of conduct despite numerous warnings and lawful orders to desist from such conduct clearly demonstrates a willful disregard of the orders to desist from such conduct.

RECOMMENDATION

Considering all of these factors, it is recommended that John J. Beiletti be dismissed from his position as a continuing contract teacher with the Pinellas County school system and that Teaching Certificate No. 121187 issued to John J. Beiletti be revoked.

ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

Proposed findings submitted by the School Board are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included in H.O. recommended order were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

1. Rejected as hearsay unsupported by admissible evidence.

   
   

2. Rejected as irrelevant since Beiletti was not charged with a violation involving lesson plans.

Proposed findings submitted by Commissioner of Education are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included in the H.O. findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

1. The papers graded by the student aide involved only true or false or selection from several options as correct and did not affect the teacher's assessment of the student's work.

   
   

   Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included below were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

   
   

   1. Rejected as irrelevant.

      
      

   2. Rejected. While the language of the discipline imposed does not say suspension without pay, the result is the same.

11. Accepted. However, Ms. Zambito changed jobs in the school system after 1984.

12,13,14. Rejected.

17,18. Rejected as irrelevant.

37. Accepted. However, the tenor of Zambito's testimony was that she wasn't learning because Respondent was absent so much, and when he returned he criticized the class for not learning the subject matter that should have been covered during the period Respondent was absent.

41. Accepted as testimony of one student.

43-54. Rejected as self serving testimony of Beiletti. 57-58. Rejected.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 2942

Largo, FL 34649-2942

Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street

352 Florida Education Center Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Robert J. McCormack, Esquire Post Office Box 75638

Tampa, FL 33675-0638

Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Dr. Raymond O. Shelton, Superintendent Hillsborough County School Board

Post Office Box 3408 Tampa, FL 33601-3408

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

BETTY CASTOR, as

Commissioner of Education,

Petitioner,

EPC CASE NO. 91-272-RT

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 91-8271

EPC INDEX NO. 92-027-FOF

JOHN J. BEILETTI,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

Respondent, JOHN J. BEILETTI, holds Florida educator's certificate no.

121187. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking suspension, revocation, permanent revocation or other disciplinary action against the certificate.

Respondent requested a formal hearing and such was held before a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order was forwarded to the Commission pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., which is attached to and made a part of this Order.

A panel of the Education Practices Commission (EPC) met on May 28, in Tampa, Florida, to take final agency action. Petitioner was represented by Margaret O'Sullivan, Attorney at Law. Respondent was represented by J. Robert McCormack, Attorney at Law. The panel reviewed the entire record in the case.

Counsel for Respondent withdrew, on the record, all Respondent's exceptions except those referenced below relating to paragraphs 11, 12, 19, and 23 of the Recommended Findings of Fact, the Recommended Conclusions of Law and, the Recommended Penalty.

The panel accepted that portion of Respondent's exception to Recommended Finding of Fact number 19 relating to yelling, in that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record that Respondent frequently yelled at students.

The panel rejected that portion of Respondent's exception to Recommended Finding of Fact number 19, relating to vulgar statements in that there is competent substantial evidence in the record that the Respondent made the referenced vulgar and inappropriate statements to students.

The panel rejected that portion of Respondent's exception to the Recommended Finding of Fact number 19, relating to racial statements in that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record that the Respondent made racially disparaging comments to students.

The panel accepted that portion of Respondent's exception to Recommended Finding of Fact number 19 relating to the number of victims, in that there was not competent substantial evidence in the record that a total of eleven students were intimidated victims of each of the types of Respondent's statements described in that Finding of Fact. The panel therefore voted to modify this Finding of Fact on adoption, to delete the specific number "eleven."

The panel rejected that portion of Respondent's exception to Recommended Finding of Fact number 19 relating to Respondent's statement that he would lie to students, in that there was competent substantial evidence in the record that Respondent told students he would lie to them.

Respondent's exception to Finding of Fact 19 regarding Respondent's alleged comments on religion was accepted because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record that the Respondent made improper remarks about religion to students.

Respondent's exception to Finding of Fact 19 regarding Respondent's making rambling statements of his personal experiences to students was rejected in that there was competent substantial evidence in the record that Respondent did make such statements.

The panel accepted that portion of Respondent's exception to Recommended Findings of Fact number 19 regarding the number of students who felt they were not receiving a proper education from Respondent. The panel determined that the competent substantial evidence in the record on this point established only that "several" students felt they were not receiving a proper education, not "many" students. Therefore, this modification shall be made upon adoption of the Findings of Fact.

In relation to the above ordered deletions and modifications, the panel determined that said Finding of Fact should be modified to correctly state that "a curriculum supervisor observed Respondent's teaching and found Respondent's classroom comments inappropriate" (see formal hearing transcript p. 115).

The panel rejected Respondent's exception to paragraph number 23 of the Recommended Findings of Fact in that there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Findings of that paragraph.

The panel accepted Respondent's exception to paragraph number 11 of the Recommended Findings of Fact in that it is not relevant to the charges of the administrative complaint of the Petitioner. Therefore, said paragraph will be deleted from the Findings of Fact to be adopted.

The panel accepted Respondent's exception to paragraph 12 of the Recommended Findings of Fact in that the evidence only supports March 28, 1984 as being the correct date, not March 28, 1985.

The panel denied Respondent's exception to the Recommended Conclusion of Law relating to a breach of confidentiality of grades by Respondent in that there was competent substantial evidence of such breach and a resulting Recommended Finding of Fact.

The panel denied Respondent's general exception on the evidentiary basis of the Conclusions of Law, finding that they are based on clear and convincing evidence as determined by the Hearing Officer, except as amended by prior rulings on exceptions.

The panel adopted the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of law of the Recommended Order as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of this Final Order except as necessarily amended by the above rulings on exceptions. These amendments are: Paragraph 11 of the adopted Findings of Fact is deleted; Paragraph 12 of the adopted Findings of Fact is amended to reference March 28,

1984 in place of March 28, 1985; Paragraph 19 of the adopted Findings of Fact is amended to read:

At the hearing, students who had Respondent as a

teacher a Northeast High School in the 1990-91 school year testified and I so find, that during the times they were in his classes, Respondent: used words like damn, hell and shit during his lectures; made racially disparaging comments; intimidated and embarrassed students by demeaning them in a manner the whole class could observe; told the class that sometimes he would lie to them; and rambled from his lecture nearly every time he lectured with inappropriate stories about his personal life. A curriculum supervisor observed Respondent's teaching and also found Respondent's classroom comments inappropriate. Further, several of these students felt they were not receiving a proper education in Respondent's class, and a petition was circulated requesting Respondent be replaced as a teacher at Northeast High School.

The panel adopts the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact as amended, and Conclusions of Law as set forth in the Recommended Order. Wherefore, it is ordered that the Respondent's Florida educator's certificate be suspended for three years running from August 14, 1991, the date of Respondent's last employment as a Florida educator. Respondent shall serve a three year period of probation during his employment as a Florida educator directly following said period of suspension. The terms of probation shall be that upon employment in a position requiring a Florida educator's certificate, Respondent shall notify EPC immediately upon employment as an educator in any public or private school in the State of Florida; arrange for his immediate supervisor to submit performance reports to the EPC at least every three months; submit true copies of all formal observation/evaluation forms within ten days of issuance; complete three semester hours of college level course work in the teaching of social studies.

All costs incurred in fulfilling terms of probation shall be borne by the Respondent. This Order takes effect upon filing.

This Order may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), F.S., and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within 30 days of the date of filing.

DONE AND ORDERED, this 2nd day of September, 1992.

LORETTA VACANTI, Presiding Officer

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services

Daniel Bosanko, Esquire I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the Attorney General's Office foregoing Order in the matter of

BC vs. John J. Beiletti was mailed Sydney McKenzie, III to J. Robert McCormack, Esquire, 323 General Counsel Main Street, Safety Harbor, Florida

34695, this 11th day of September, Florida Admin. Law Reports 1992, by U. S. Mail.

Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Supt.

Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 2942 KAREN B. WILDE, Clerk

Largo, Florida 34649-2942

Steve Crosby, Director Personnel Services Pinellas County Schools

K. N. Ayers, Hearing Officer Division of Admin. Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

Margaret O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 1701, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Docket for Case No: 91-005101

Orders for Case No: 91-005101