vs. ) CASE NO. 94-2010
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on November 16, 1994, in St. Petersburg, Florida.
For Petitioner: Keith B. Martin, Esquire
Whether just cause exists for the proposed disciplinary action against the Respondent.
Keven Renken is employed as a teacher by the School Board of Pinellas County. By letter dated March 17, 1994, Mr. Renken was notified that the superintendent would recommend to the school board that Mr. Renken be suspended for ten days without pay for activities occurring within the Respondent's classroom.
The letter notified Mr. Renken of his right to a hearing. He requested a formal hearing and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.
At hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of eight witnesses and had exhibits numbered 1-6 and 8-12 admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and testified on his own behalf. The prehearing stipulation was admitted as a Hearing Officer's exhibit.
A transcript of the hearing was filed On December 13, 1994. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders. Proposed findings of fact are ruled upon either directly or indirectly as reflected in this Recommended Order, and in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.
At all times material to this case, Respondent Keven Renken (Respondent) was employed under a professional services contract as a teacher at the Pinellas County Center for the Arts Program (PCCA) at Gibbs High School.
On February 11, 1994, the Respondent arrived at about 7:30 a.m. to teach a first period acting class.
Prior to the start of classes, another PCCA teacher approached the Respondent and requested permission to bring his class to the Respondent's to view a videotape made by one of the Respondent's students. Although the Respondent apparently was unaware of thee videotape or its content, he consented to permit the other class to view the film in his classroom.
After the last bell and before the class began, a student, Marshall Bross, approached the Respondent and requested permission to play a videotape to the class. The student told the Respondent it was an anti-drinking tape. The Respondent granted the student's request.
The Respondent did not preview the tape.
On February 11, 1994, the Respondent's first period acting class contained not more than five students, each about 15- 16 years old. Many students were absent, apparently because they had participated in a performance on the previous evening.
The Respondent asserts that he had intended for students to rehearse script lines during class but was not able to do so because of the low number of students present.
During the time that Bross was cueing the tape in the machine, the television set was turned away from the Respondent's view. When the tape was ready for viewing, Bross turned the machine towards the classroom seats.
At the time the tape began to be played to the class, the Respondent was present in the room. The television was visible from the Respondent's desk, where he sat doing paperwork. The volume on the television was audible in the classroom. The Respondent asserts that he did not hear the tape because he was concentrating on paperwork.
The videotape shows an intoxicated male PCCA student (victim) being physically and verbally abused by other male students. The tape, about 23 minutes long, was produced by Bross on February 10, 1994.
About five minutes into the tape, the other teacher and his students joined the Respondent's class to view the tape. The tape was rewound to the beginning of the relevant segments and the viewing began again.
The tape shows the victim, intoxicated to the point of being unresponsive, lying in a puddle of (what appears to be presumably his own)
vomit. He is dragged across a floor and out a door, where he is rolled off an elevated porch onto the ground. As the victim regains consciousness, he is repeatedly doused with buckets of water, with flour and with what is identified as urine from a cup. At one point, he stands barefooted on the wet concrete porch next to the electrical connection to the house. He is sprayed with water from a garden hose. During much of the victim's conscious moments, he shouts and screams at his tormentors to stop the abuse.
Later on the tape, the victim, again unconscious, is shown lying in a filled bathtub as the other students put what appears to be shaving cream and cosmetics on him. Finally, the boys perch on the edge of the bathtub, the camera shot showing the victim lying between the legs of each boy, as each attempts, and some succeed, to urinate into the tub and on the unconscious victim.
During the tape, the scenes are loudly narrated by Bross. The verbal abuse of the victim is clearly audible. The dialogue is often harsh and profane.
It was possible for the Respondent to see and hear the television from his location.
At some point during the showing of the tape, the Respondent left the room to copy some documents. The students remained in the supervision of the other teacher who was watching the tape.
The Respondent was in the room for approximately ten minutes of the 23 minute video.
The Respondent viewed portions of the tape. Although he claims he was unaware of what he was seeing, the Respondent saw the trail of green vomit across the floor where the student had been dragged. The Respondent saw the victim being hosed off. The Respondent saw the scenes where the boys stood on the edge of the bathtub. The Respondent saw the view of the victim lying between the legs of the boys as each attempted to urinate on the victim. Although he did not know the student's name, the Respondent saw enough of the tape to recognize the victim as a student at PCCA. The Respondent was sufficiently aware of the video's content to comment towards the end of the tape that it was "sad" and to inquire of Bross as to the victim's condition.
The entire videotape was shown to the first period students present in the classroom. The Respondent heard students commenting about the film while it was being played.
Subsequent to the showing in first period, the tape remained in the possession of the student who made and showed the video.
At the break between first and second periods, the victim became aware that the tape had been shown and went to the Respondent's classroom. As he entered the classroom, no teachers were present and the tape was being played again. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent entered the classroom and asked the victim how he was feeling. Humiliated and embarrassed, the victim left the classroom.
There is no credible evidence that the victim of the abuse consented to the abuse or to the taping of the activity. There is no credible evidence that the victim consented to the playing of the tape for other students inside or outside of the classroom. There is no evidence that the victim was aware of the images continued on the tape.
Shortly after the victim left the room, a guidance counselor became aware of the situation and went to the classroom, where the tape was still being played. No teachers were present. The counselor saw enough of the tape to become aware of its contents and instructed the students to stop the tape and take it to his office.
Just before the start of second period, the Respondent reentered the classroom and saw the tape still playing, at which point he instructed the student responsible to turn the tape off.
Prior to the start of second period, the Respondent made no effort to stop the playing of the tape or to confiscate it from the students.
By letter of March 17, 1994, the Respondent was notified that the superintendent would recommend to the school board that he be suspended without pay from a period of ten days. The grounds for the suspension are identified as follows;
...on February 11, 1994, during your first period class you allowed a student to show a tape unpreviewed by you to your class and another teacher and his class. The video contained denigrating and humiliating scenes of several students physically abusing the inebriated student. While viewing the tape
yourself, you allowed your students to continue viewing it and failed to confiscate the tape.
Your actions constitute just cause for this suspension pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
This matter was made aware to the public through an article in the April 8, 1994 issue of the St. Petersburg Times.
At the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the Respondent received a copy of Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. At a meeting with Gibbs/PCCA faculty, the principal of the school reviewed the document. The Respondent was present at the meeting.
According to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, a teacher "shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety" and "shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement."
According to both the principal of Gibbs/PCCA and the superintendent of the Pinellas County School System, the Respondent's failure to monitor or stop the playing of the videotape, or to confiscate the tape from the students, is sufficiently serious so as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that a member of an instructional staff employed under a professional services contract may be dismissed during the term of the contract only for just cause. Just cause includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."
Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, and the 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. Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code.
In order to prevail, the Petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent's behavior constitutes misconduct in office sufficient to warrant discipline. Allen v. Dade County School Board, 571 So.2d
568 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). The evidence establishes that the Respondent's actions constitute misconduct in office so serious as to impair his effectiveness in the school system and to warrant termination of his employment.
The evidence clearly establishes that the video was shown in the Respondent's classroom with his permission, that he was present in the room for about half of the time the tape was played, that the television could be seen and heard from where he sat, that he saw portions of the tape which would lead a reasonable person to inquire as to the nature of the video, that he recognized the victim and that he was sufficiently aware of the video's content to inquire as to the victim's condition.
The superintendent recommended to the school board that the Respondent be suspended for ten days without pay. The portions of the videotape which the Respondent admitted viewing are shocking and outrageous. Inexplicably, the Respondent took no action. Given these facts, the Respondent could not possibly regain effectiveness in the school system.
RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Keven Renken.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1995.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2010
The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties.
The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
26. Rejected, unnecessary.
The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are set forth in unnumbered paragraphs. The paragraphs in section II, "Proposed Statement of the Facts" have been consecutively numbered for purposes of these ruling. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
DOAH CASE NO. 94-2010
Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent
P. O. Box 2942
Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board
P.O. Box 2942
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten 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.
