STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL ) BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 96-1722
)
FRANK SVET, )
)
Respondent. )
)
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on November 14, 1996, at Vero Beach, Florida, before Judge Michael M. Parrish, an Administrative law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: Kathryn Hill, Esquire
Post Office Box 6190
Vero Beach, Florida 32961
For Respondent: Richard Tannenbaum, Esquire
Post Office Box 2436
Palm Beach, Florida 33480-2436
This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against an employee on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The employee is charged with violations of School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 and Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative
Code, on the basis of several specific events alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
At the final hearing on November 14, 1996, the Petitioner presented the testimony of seven witnesses. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and also presented the testimony of two additional witnesses. The Respondent also offered two exhibits, both of which were received in evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were allowed 15 days from the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The transcript was filed on December 9, 1996. Upon motion of the Respondent, the deadline for filing proposed recommended orders was extended until December 31, 1996. Both parties filed timely proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties’ proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this Recommended Order.
By way of introduction to the findings of fact which follow it is first noted that, following some background findings of fact, the findings are arranged in the same order as the events alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. And in order to facilitate an understanding of the findings of fact which follow, as well as an understanding of why certain facts were not made, attention is directed to the fact there is conflicting evidence
regarding most of the relevant details in this case. Where possible, the apparent conflicts in the testimony have been reconciled, gleaning parts of the truth from each of the competing versions. Where it has not been possible to reconcile the conflicts, findings of fact have been based on the testimony which was found to be most persuasive. In determining which versions of the testimony are most persuasive, consideration has, of course, been given to such matters as the demeanor of the witnesses, any motive or bias of each witness, the ability of each witness to accurately observe, recall, and recount the events testified about, the extent to which the testimony was consistent or inconsistent with other evidence, and the extent to which the testimony was consistent with logic and common sense.
All of the charges in this case involve matters alleged to have taken place during the 1995-96 school year. During that school year the Respondent was a teacher at Oslo Middle School. Oslo Middle School was a new school. Team teaching was in effect at that school. A few weeks after the school year began, one of the team leaders, Mr. Nat Powell, was appointed to a position as a dean at that school. Mr. Powell’s appointment to dean left a vacancy in a team leader position. The Respondent and several other people applied for the team leader position. The Respondent was the successful applicant and was appointed to be a
team leader shortly after Mr. Powell was appointed to the position of dean.
The Respondent was appointed to be a team leader largely because he had more teaching experience than most of the other teachers in that pod. Also, Respondent’s appointment to that position was recommended by Mr. Powell.
The team the Respondent was appointed to lead was a team of sixth grade teachers known as the “Magic Team.” The full time members of that team in addition to the Respondent were Ms. Lois Cramer, Ms. Martha DeVries, Ms. Connie Novak, and Ms. Jacqueline (“Jackie”) Parker. These four team members all liked each other, all got along well with each other, and all worked well together.
None of the four team members mentioned immediately above worked well with the Respondent. Each of these four team members often found it unpleasant to deal with the Respondent and tended to minimize the amount of contact they had with him. This attitude on the part of the four team members appears to be due primarily to a combination of two things. The first was a large difference in their perception of the appropriate role of a team leader. The four team members were of the view that the team leader was primarily a facilitator or coordinator; a team member who had extra responsibilities on behalf of the team. Stated otherwise, the four team members viewed the team as being somewhat of a democratic institution in which everyone, including the team leader, had a voice, and in which the team leader also
had additional responsibilities with respect to the implementation of the team consensus. The four team members did not view the team leader as being their boss or as having any supervisory authority over them.
The Respondent had a very different view of his role as team leader. He was of the view that he was, in essence, the “boss” of the team, that he was in a supervisory role over the other members of the team, and that he had a greater voice or role than the others in determining the direction of the team’s efforts. This difference in perception regarding the appropriate role of the team leader resulted in a great deal of conflict between the Respondent and the other team members.
The other major source of conflict between the Respondent and the other team members is that in his interactions with other people the Respondent frequently engages in conduct which is uncomfortable to others and is often interpreted by them as intimidating or threatening. This conduct includes standing too close to people, unnecessary touching of people, and yelling.
In his role as team leader, the Respondent was very interested in being successful and effective. To those ends he would frequently attempt to act like a boss and issue orders to the other team members. On occasions when the Respondent was dissatisfied with the response to his demands he would often get too close and too intense as he communicated his dissatisfaction and cause the other team members to feel intimidated or
threatened. As their feelings of being intimidated or threatened increased, the Respondent’s effectiveness as team leader decreased. Before long, the Respondent was a very ineffective leader of a team that was not working very well. With these background facts in mind, attention is now directed to the facts regarding the specific allegations in the Notice of Specific charges.
December 20, 1995, was Ms. Parker’s last day of teaching at Oslo Middle School. She had previously submitted her resignation because she and her husband were moving to another state. During fourth period that day the students in Ms. Parker’s class were having a party. After the bell rang at the end of fourth period, one of the students asked Ms. Parker for a pass to go to the school clinic. Ms. Parker told the student that she couldn’t write her a pass right then because she had to monitor activity in the hall during the change from fourth to fifth periods, but that the student should ask the Respondent for a pass as soon as fifth period started. (During that semester, students went from Ms. Parker’s class to the Respondent’s class.)
Shortly after fifth period began, the Respondent and the student who had asked to go to the clinic appeared at the door to Ms. Parker’s classroom. Ms. Parker opened the door and the Respondent spoke to her in a confrontational manner demanding to know why Ms. Parker was always sending him students who needed to
go to the clinic and demanding to know why Ms. Parker could not send them to the clinic while they were in her class. The Respondent was using an accusatory tone of voice; accusing Ms. Parker of not responding appropriately to student requests for passes. Ms. Parker explained to the Respondent that the student had not asked for a pass until after the bell rang. The Respondent then began to brow beat the student as to why the student had not asked for the pass sooner if she was truly in pain. The student was unable to formulate a satisfactory answer and eventually the Respondent allowed the student, who had been standing there all along, to go to the clinic. As the student departed, the Respondent turned to Ms. Parker with his hands on his hips and accused Ms. Parker of intimidating the student. Ms. Parker was very upset by this confrontational and accusational conduct of the Respondent. She obviously felt intimidated and threatened, as reflected by her subsequent actions. She told the Respondent that she would never intimidate anyone and then shook a finger in the Respondent’s face and told him he had no right to try to intimidate her and that she was going straight to the Principal to report the matter. Ms. Parker turned to return to her classroom and the Respondent, in an apparent effort to prolong the confrontation, told Ms. Parker he needed to talk to her. Ms. Parker was so upset by the way she had been treated by the Respondent that she told him if he came into her classroom she would call the office and have him escorted out. The
Respondent left. As soon as she could arrange for someone else to watch her class, Ms. Parker went to the Principal’s office where she broke down and cried as she described the manner in which the Respondent had treated her. Ms. Parker’s reaction to this incident must be considered in the context of prior unpleasant experiences she had had with the Respondent and that she had seen others have with the Respondent, some of which are addressed in the paragraphs which follow.1
During the fall semester of 1995, near the beginning of the second nine-week grading period, there was an occasion when most of the students taught by the Respondent’s team were in the gym having a celebration and playing games. The students were being supervised by the Respondent and three of the other team members.2 During those activities the Respondent had to leave the gym to attend to various matters and was absent from the gym longer than he had expected to be.
While the Respondent was absent from the gym, the three team members who were supervising the several hundred students in the gym became concerned about their ability to continue to maintain control of the students and wanted to have the Respondent there to assist them. They decided someone should page the Respondent. Ms. Cramer went to the office and paged the Respondent at about the same time he had started to return to the gym. As Ms. Cramer was returning to the gym she encountered the
Respondent just outside the gym. She asked him where he had been and told him they needed him in the gym. The Respondent, who was obviously very angry, approached Ms. Cramer, got very close to her,3 and began to yell at her, telling her that she was not his boss and that it was not part of her job to worry about where he was. Ms. Cramer said something to the effect that both of them needed to be back in the gym to assist the other two team members and started into the gym. Once inside the gym, Ms. Cramer went and stood on the gym floor with a group of students.
The Respondent entered the gym through a different entrance and then walked over to where Ms. Cramer was standing with a group of students. Again using a loud angry voice, and again standing very close, the Respondent repeated to Ms. Cramer that she should not have paged him. Ms. Cramer, seeking to avoid a confrontation in front of the students, answered the Respondent by saying that this was not the time discuss the matter and that she did not want to discuss it in front of the students; whereupon she turned and began to walk away from the Respondent. The Respondent followed her as closely as he could and continued to yell the same message at her. Again Ms. Cramer told the Respondent that this was not the time to discuss the matter and again she walked away from him. The Respondent continued to follow her and continued to yell until Ms. Cramer stopped near where Ms. Parker was standing.
During the fall semester of 1995, at approximately the middle of the first nine-week grading period, all of the teachers sent out progress reports. The Respondent was annoyed with Ms. Novak because she had filled out some of her progress reports in a manner that was inconsistent with a memorandum describing how the reports should be filled out.
A week or two after the middle of the first nine-week grading period, the Respondent confronted Ms. Novak one afternoon shortly after school was finished for the day. Although school was over for the day and the students were free to leave, there were still a number of students on the school premises. At the time the Respondent approached Ms. Novak, the latter was in the process of watching some students who had been arguing in the halls to make sure they did not get together and start arguing again.
As the Respondent approached Ms. Novak he held a paper towards her with his hand and told her he had the information that showed how she should have marked the progress reports. Once Ms. Novak figured out what the Respondent wanted to talk to her about she said something to the effect of, “Fine, I’ve got a confrontation going on right now; we’ll take care of that in a minute.” The Respondent insisted on talking about it right then and there. Ms. Novak reiterated that she would talk about it after she finished dealing with the potential student problem. The Respondent continued to insist on talking about it right
then. The Respondent began to move closer and closer to Ms. Novak and his voice began to escalate as he began challenging Ms. Novak to admit she was wrong. Ms. Novak became nervous and increased her volume and shouted at the Respondent that he should get out of her face. Ms. Novak began to try to make her way back to her classroom and the Respondent stayed right with her walking close to her and yelling at her that she should admit she was wrong and accusing her of being unable to admit she was wrong. Ms. Novak replied by yelling at the Respondent that he should get out of her face and should leave her alone. Despite Ms. Novak’s yelling for him to leave her alone, the Respondent continued to hound her and continued to demand that she admit she was wrong and to accuse her of being unable to admit she was wrong.
This unfortunate situation continued until Ms. Novak and the Respondent were near the door to Ms. Novak’s classroom. Ms. Novak told the Respondent he should just drop the matter and she then quickly entered her classroom and locked the door to prevent the Respondent from coming in. Several students witnessed this unfortunate incident.
As a result of the confrontation described above, Ms. Novak was no longer able to work effectively with the Respondent, because she could not work with someone who was so confrontational. From that point on, Ms. Novak avoided the Respondent as much as possible.
Early in the fall semester of 1995, the Respondent had occasion to meet Ms. Susan Tolliver, who was one of the other team leaders at Oslo Middle School. On that day Ms. Tolliver was wearing a white shirt with appliquéd watermelons all over it. During the course of a brief conversation, the Respondent said to Ms. Tolliver, “How’s your melons today?” The Respondent’s comment did not make Ms. Tolliver feel uncomfortable, but she did think it was a strange remark from someone she had never met before. Ms. Tolliver was not offended by the Respondent’s remark; she simply thought it was a peculiar thing for someone to say under the circumstances.4
During the early part of the fall semester of 1995 on one occasion the Respondent had a conversation with Ms. Jacqueline Parker in the cafeteria during which he mentioned having seen a man who had said he knew Ms. Parker and had asked the Respondent to say “hi” to Ms. Parker on his behalf the next time the Respondent saw Ms. Parker. In the context of telling her about that matter, the Respondent included some joking remarks to the effect that the man had said something to the effect that Ms. Parker would never forget him. Some other teachers overheard the Respondent’s remarks and began to tease Ms. Parker, suggesting that the man the Respondent was talking about must have a crush on her. A few minutes later the Respondent said to Ms. Parker, “You know I was only kidding, don’t you?” Although Ms. Parker was initially inclined to dismiss the Respondent’s comments as an unintentional awkwardness, she apparently came to believe that he was intentionally trying to embarrass her and she took pains to explain to some of the other teachers that she did not have any type of relationship with the man the Respondent had been talking about.
During the fall semester of 1995, the Respondent had three conversations with Ms. DeVries that included comments by
the Respondent that caused Ms. DeVries to feel sort of uncomfortable. The comments attributed to the Respondent on these occasions are arguably lacking in sensitivity, but in the context in which they were made they appear to be nothing more than poor manners or poor taste.5 While the comments may well be regarded as unnecessary or inappropriate, they do not rise to the level of harassment, sexual or otherwise.
During the fall semester of 1995, on two occasions the Respondent touched Ms. DeVries in a manner which bothered her. On both occasions Ms. DeVries was standing; once in a classroom and once in a hall. On both occasions the Respondent approached Ms. DeVries from behind and placed both of his hands on her shoulders. On both occasions he then bent over, placed his face very close to Ms. DeVries’ ear and spoke to her with his face so close to hers that she could feel his breath on her skin. Ms. DeVries felt intimidated and offended by being touched in such a manner. On both occasions she promptly jerked away from the Respondent’s touch and turned around to face him.
On one occasion during the fall semester of 1995, during the course of a break between parent/teacher conferences, some of the members of the team were eating pizza in a classroom. Ms. Novak dropped a piece of pizza and it fell to the floor. Upon observing this, the Respondent said, “I’m surprised you
didn’t catch that on your shelf.” There is no evidence as to what effect that comment had on Ms. Novak.6
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
In a case of this nature the Petitioner School Board bears the burden of proving its charges by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The extent to which the School Board has met that burden with regard to each of the seven specific charges is discussed below.
Rule 6GX31-2.40 of the School Board of Indian River County reads as follows, in pertinent part:
The School Board will not tolerate sexual harassment of any type by any of its employees.
***
Sexual harassment in the school district is unwanted sexual attention from teachers, other adults, or anyone else the victim may deal with in school or at school-related activities.
Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when such conduct substantially interferes with an employee’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to: Staring or leering with sexual overtones; Spreading
sexual gossip; Verbal harassment or abuse; Pressure for sexual activity; Repeated remarks to person with sexual or demeaning implications; Unwelcome or inappropriate touching; Suggesting or demanding sexual involvement accompanied by implied or explicit threats.
Sexual harassment is further evident when: Submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of employment or of an individual’s education. Submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual as the basis for any employment affecting that individual; or Such conduct substantially interferes with an employee’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or school environment.
Specifically speaking, it is sexual harassment for an Administrator or Supervisor to use his/her authority to solicit sexual favors or attention from subordinates, including but not limited to incidents when the subordinate’s acquiescence will result in preferential treatment.
***
It is sexual harassment for a non- administrative (teacher) and non-supervisory (support staff) employee to subject another such employee or student to any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. . . .
Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows:
(5) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
***
(d) Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual’s performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.
The Respondent’s conduct during the incident in the hall when he confronted Ms. Parker about not letting a student go to the clinic is a clear violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Such conduct constitutes harassment which unreasonably interfered with Ms. Parker’s performance of her professional responsibilities. It also unreasonably interfered with the processes of education. Last, but by no means least, such conduct created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. Such conduct is not a violation of School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 because there was nothing of a sexual nature about such conduct.
The Respondent’s conduct during the incident in the gym when he yelled at Ms. Cramer for having him paged, is a clear violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Such conduct constitutes harassment which unreasonably interfered with Ms. Cramer’s performance of her professional responsibilities. It also unreasonably interfered with the processes of education. Last, but by no means least, such conduct created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. Such conduct is not a violation of School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 because there was nothing of a sexual nature about such conduct.
The Respondent’s conduct during the incident in the hall when he yelled at Ms. Novak about the progress reports is a clear violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Such conduct constitutes harassment which unreasonably interfered with Ms. Novak’s performance of her professional responsibilities. It also unreasonably interfered with the processes of education. Last, but by no means least, such conduct created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment.7 Such conduct is not a violation of School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 because there was nothing of a sexual nature about such conduct.
The findings of fact regarding this incident are to the effect that the Respondent’s comment to Ms. Tolliver was, at most, odd or peculiar under the circumstances. The comment was not, however, offensive to Ms. Tolliver, nor did it upset her in any way. This type of conduct does not constitute a violation of either School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 or Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, it is not an appropriate basis upon which to take disciplinary action against the Respondent.
The most that can be said about the conversation in the cafeteria is that the Respondent made an unappreciated effort at being humorous that was misinterpreted as an intentional effort to embarrass Ms. Parker. The Respondent’s comments on that occasion cannot fairly be characterized as harassment, sexual or otherwise. This type of conduct does not constitute a violation of either School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 or Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, it is not an appropriate basis upon which to take disciplinary action against the Respondent.
With regard to the three conversations that caused Ms. DeVries to feel sort of uncomfortable, the Respondent’s comments on those occasions cannot fairly be characterized as harassment, sexual or otherwise. This type of conduct does not constitute a violation of either School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 or Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, it is not an appropriate basis upon which to take disciplinary action against the Respondent.
With regard to the two occasions on which the Respondent placed both of his hands on Ms. DeVries’ shoulders, such conduct is intimidating and offensive. Accordingly, it is a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code.
Such conduct is not a violation of School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 because there was nothing of a sexual nature about such conduct.
The findings of fact regarding this incident are to the effect that the Respondent’s comment to Ms. Novak (like the “melons” comment discussed above) was, at most, odd or peculiar under the circumstances. There is no evidence that the comment was offensive to Ms. Novak or that it upset her in any way. This type of conduct does not constitute a violation of either School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40 or Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, it is not an appropriate basis upon which to take disciplinary action against the Respondent.
On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River School Board enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect:
Dismissing the charges against the Respondent that are described in Paragraphs 3A, 3B, and 3D of the Notice of Specific Charges;
Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, as charged in Paragraphs 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3C of the Notice of Specific Charges;
Concluding that the Respondent is not guilty of having violated School Board Rule 6GX31-2.40; and
Imposing a penalty consisting of a ten-day suspension without pay. It is also recommended that the Respondent be required to obtain further education, training, or counseling on the subject of interpersonal relationships.
DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
MICHAEL M. PARRISH
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1997.
1 Ms. Parker and the Respondent testified to somewhat different versions of this incident. Ms. Parker’s version has been found to be more persuasive and is the version relied upon for fact finding.
2 The team members in the gym were Ms. Cramer, Ms. DeVries, and Ms. Parker. Ms. Novak was in a classroom supervising a group of students who had been excluded from the activities in the gym because of misbehavior.
3 In Ms. Cramer’s words, “When he walked up to me originally, he was inches from my face. *** He came right up in my face and started to yell at me again about [not] being his boss and how dare I page him.” Transcript, page 96.
4 As with most of the relevant details in this case, the evidence contains two conflicting versions of the conversation between the Respondent and Ms. Tolliver. In this instance it appears that the version put forth by Ms. Tolliver is the more credible of the two conflicting versions and the findings of fact regarding that conversation are based primarily on Ms. Tolliver’s testimony. (The Respondent denied making the comments attributed to him by Ms. Tolliver.)
5 Details of these three conversations have not been included in the findings of fact because it would serve no useful purpose to do so. In the final analysis, these comments are somewhat of a triviality when viewed in the context in which they occurred, as well as when viewed in the context of the Respondent’s other conduct.
6 Neither Ms. Novak nor Mr. Svet testified about this incident. The only testimony regarding this incident was from Ms. DeVries. She offered little more than a brief description of the comment, followed by her observation that it was embarrassing. Ms. DeVries did not say who was embarrassed, nor did she say why they were embarrassed.
7 In reaching this conclusion, it has not been overlooked that Ms. Novak repeatedly yelled back at the Respondent and no disciplinary action was taken against her. One big difference between the conduct of Ms. Novak and the conduct of the Respondent on this occasion is that the Respondent initiated the yelling episode with Ms. Novak and Ms. Novak’s yelling was a defensive response to the offensive conduct initiated by and persisted in by the Respondent. This is not to say that Ms. Novak’s conduct was exemplary, but it was understandable and excusable under the circumstances.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kathryn Hill, Esquire Post Office Box 6190
Vero Beach, Florida 32961
Richard Tannenbaum, Esquire Post Office Box 2436
Palm Beach, Florida 33480-2436
Dr. Roger Dearing, Superintendent School District of Indian River County 1990 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 09, 1998 | Appeal Dismissed (by Fourth DCA) received. |
| Oct. 09, 1997 | Directions to Clerk (from Richard Tannenbaum) received. |
| Oct. 09, 1997 | Directions to Clerk received. |
| Sep. 29, 1997 | Notice of Appeal received. (filed by: ) |
| Sep. 05, 1997 | Notice of Appeal received. (acknowledgment from the fourth DCA #4-97-3075 ) |
| Aug. 15, 1997 | Final Order of the School Board received. |
| Jul. 22, 1997 | Letter to G. Petersen from R. Tannenbaum Re: "Superintendent`s Response to Respondent`s Exceptions of Recommended Order" received. |
| Jul. 14, 1997 | (Petitioner) Second Amended Notice of Hearing (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jul. 11, 1997 | (Petitioner) Amended Notice of Hearing (8/12/97; 12:30pm; Vero Beach) received. |
| Jul. 08, 1997 | (Petitioner) Amended Notice of Hearing (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jun. 13, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 11/14/96. |
| Feb. 20, 1997 | Notice of Change of Address (Richard Tannnennbaum) received. |
| Feb. 05, 1997 | Order sent out. (Motion to extend time is granted; PRO`s due by 12/31/96) |
| Jan. 06, 1997 | Letter to MMP from Richard Tannenbaum (RE: request for telephone hearing) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jan. 06, 1997 | Petitioner`s Motion for Contempt and to Strike Respondent`s Proposed Findings Argument and Recommended Order (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jan. 06, 1997 | CC: Memo to R. Tannerbaum from Kate Hill (RE: Objections to Motion for extension of time) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jan. 02, 1997 | CC: Letter to Richard Tannebaum from Kathryn Hill (RE: request for copy of Motion filed with DOAH on 12/24/96) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Dec. 31, 1996 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Argument and Recommended Order (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Dec. 24, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion for and Extension of Time to File Proposed Order (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Dec. 24, 1996 | (Petitioner) Final Order (for Judge signature); Petitioner`s Hearing Brief; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Dec. 10, 1996 | Memorandum to Parties of Record from MMP (re: PRO's due 12/24/96) sent out. |
| Dec. 09, 1996 | Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I, II, III, tagged) received. |
| Nov. 14, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Nov. 08, 1996 | (3) Subpoena Ad Testificandum (Kathryn Hill) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Nov. 07, 1996 | (Petitioner) Amended Witness List (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Oct. 28, 1996 | (8) Subpoena Ad Testificandum (from K. Hill); (8) Return of Service received. |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Nov. 14-15, 1996; 9:00am; Vero Beach) |
| Oct. 01, 1996 | Letter to MMP from G. Russell Petersen (RE: available dates for hearing) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Sep. 25, 1996 | Letter to MMP from Kathryn Hill (RE: response to Initial Order) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Sep. 18, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Compliance (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Sep. 09, 1996 | Petitioner`s Memorandum of Law (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Order sent out. (re: rulings on discovery issues) |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Respondent`s Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Compel and/or Dismiss (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Aug. 16, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion to Compel Discovery and/or Dismiss Complaint; Respondent`s Motion to Compel Discovery and/or Strike Response to Admissions (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Aug. 13, 1996 | Order on Several Matters sent out. |
| Aug. 06, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Discovery; (Petitioner) Motion to AmendNotice of Specific Charges; (Petitioner) Request for Hearing; (Petitioner) Notice of Possible Conflict) (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jul. 25, 1996 | Response to Respondent`s Motion to Compel Discovery (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jul. 25, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion to Compel Discovery (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jul. 05, 1996 | (Petitioner) Witness List received. |
| Jul. 02, 1996 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondent`s First Request for Admissions received. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | Second Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Sept. 5-6, 1996; 10:00am; Vero Beach) |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Specific Charges received. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | Respondent`s First Request for Admissions received. |
| May 31, 1996 | Order on Several Matters sent out. (hearing continued) |
| May 29, 1996 | Respondent`s Request for Prior Disciplinary Dispositions received. |
| May 29, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion for a Continuance; Cover Letter; Letter to MMP from Richard Tannebaum (RE: Request for Subpoenas) received. |
| May 22, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion to Strike or Dismiss; Cover letter from R. Tannenbaum; Letter to Hearing Officer from R. Tannenbaum Re: Prehearing conference received. |
| May 21, 1996 | Letter to R. Tannenbaum & Parties of Record from MMP (Re: Motion to Disqualify Petitioner's Counsel) sent out. |
| May 20, 1996 | (From K. Hill) Notice of Appearance received. |
| May 17, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion to Disqualify Petitioner`s Counsel received. |
| May 17, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion to Disqualify Petitioner`s Counsel received. |
| May 16, 1996 | (From K. Hill) Notice of Appearance received. |
| May 15, 1996 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondent`s Motion to Disqualify received. |
| May 03, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for June 6-7, 1996; 10:00am; Vero Beach) |
| Apr. 22, 1996 | Joint Response received. |
| Apr. 12, 1996 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 08, 1996 | Agency Action Letter (2); Agency referral letter; Request for Hearing, letter form received. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 12, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 13, 1997 | Recommended Order | Ten-day suspension is appropriate penalty for teacher guilty of several violations of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code. |
