STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRANK T. BROGAN, as )

Commissioner of Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-0705

)

KEVIN R. SANDERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 3, 1998, in Pensacola, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire

Post Office Box 489

DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435

For Respondent: Ron Meyer, Esquire

Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education with the Education Practices Commission on June 10, 1997.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Frank T. Brogan, as the Commissioner of Education, filed an Administrative Complaint with the Education Practices Commission against Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, on June 10, 1997. On or about June 25, 1997, Mr. Sanders executed an Election of Rights disputing the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a formal administrative hearing.

After efforts to settle the dispute between the parties failed, Petitioner filed a copy of the Administrative Complaint and Mr. Sanders' request for hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings by letter dated February 5, 1998. The matter was designated Case No. 98-0705. The case was transferred to the undersigned on June 2, 1998.

At the commencement of the formal hearing, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts. While the parties stipulated to the accuracy of the facts contained therein, they reserved the right to argue the relevancy of those facts. The parties have presented arguments concerning the relevancy of the stipulated facts in their proposed orders. Their arguments have been fully considered. To the extent relevant, the stipulated findings of fact have been included in this Recommended Order.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Horace Jones, William Carvalis, Sarah Armstrong, Richard F. Souza, and Sharina Latasha Dotson. Petitioner also offered four exhibits. They were accepted into evidence.

Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Carolyn Spooner and Jim May. Respondent offered three exhibits. Respondent’s Exhibits 2 and 3 were objected to on relevancy grounds. Subject to a determination of relevancy of those exhibits, Respondent’s exhibits were accepted into evidence.

A transcript of the hearing was filed on July 15, 1998. The parties agreed at the conclusion of the hearing to file proposed orders on or before July 7, 1998. Because of a delay in preparing the transcript, the time for filing proposed orders was extended to July 20, 1998. Both parties filed proposed orders.

Petitioner also filed a separate pleading titled Petitioner’s Argument as to Relevancy of Stipulated Facts. The proposed orders and Petitioner’s argument have been fully considered in entering this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as the Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, is authorized to enter complaints against persons holding teaching certificates in the State of Florida.

2. Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, has held at all times relevant to this proceeding Florida Teaching Certificate

   No. 660581. The certificate was issued by the Department of Education and is valid through June 30, 2002. Mr. Sanders is

   authorized to teach in the areas of physical education and general science. (Stipulated Facts).

3. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Sanders was employed by the Escambia County School District (Stipulated Fact).

4. During the 1995-1996 school year1, Mr. Sanders served as a teacher and coach at Pensacola High School (hereinafter referred to as the “Pensacola High”) (Stipulated Fact).

5. Mr. Sanders was assigned responsibility for the supervision of an in-school suspension class (hereinafter referred to as the “ISS Class”) (Stipulated Fact).

6. Mr. Sanders was assigned to serve as the ISS Class teacher for each class period except for one period, which was his planning period. ISS Class students went to a physical education class taught by Jack Jackson during Mr. Sanders’ planning period.

7. Pensacola High’s ISS Class was a disciplinary program established for students who have exhibited behavior warranting suspension from school. Rather that suspending the student from school, the student is assigned to the ISS Class so that he or she will continue to attend school and receive academic instruction.

8. Deans at Pensacola High responsible for disciplinary actions determine whether a student’s conduct warranted referral to the ISS Class and the length of the referral.

9. Students assigned to the ISS Class would continue to receive academic assignments from their teachers. They were required to work on those assignments while in the ISS Class.

10. While students were in the ISS Class, they were not allowed to talk or to sleep.

11. Mr. Sanders wrote the in-school suspension program for Pensacola High, so he was familiar with the purpose of the program.

12. Class periods at Pensacola High were one and one-half hours in duration. There were seven class periods, numbered 1 through 7. On even days, i.e., October 4, class periods 2, 4, 6, and 8 were held. On odd days, i.e., October 5, class periods

    1, 3, 5, and 7 were held. Class period 7 was the last class period held on odd days and class period 8 was the last class period held on even days.

13. A “varsity sports” class was scheduled for the last school period, period 7 or 8, of the school day. The varsity sports class consisted of two combined physical education classes. The teachers responsible for these classes were

    Mr. Jackson and Toby Peer.

    
    

14. During the fall of 1995, students in the varsity sports class engaged in weightlifting. Mr. Sanders wanted to act as the instructor. Mr. Sanders was not, however, scheduled to participate in the varsity sports class. His responsibility was to supervise the ISS Class.

15. Early during the fall of 1995, Mr. Sanders, Horace Jones, the Principal of Pensacola High, and David Wilson, the head football coach at Pensacola High, met to discuss allowing Mr. Sanders to supervise the weight training program for the varsity sports class. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Wilson explained to Mr. Jones that weightlifting would only be taught every other day, on odd days. They asked Mr. Jones for permission for

    Mr. Sanders to go the football stadium where the varsity sports class was held to supervise the weightlifting.

16. Mr. Jones agreed to allow Mr. Sanders to go to the football stadium during class period 7 to supervise weightlifting. Mr. Jones did, however, indicate that

    Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class should be supervised.

    
    

17. The testimony in this proceeding concerning the conditions, if any, that Mr. Jones imposed on Mr. Sanders and/or Mr. Wilson, was contradictory. Mr. Jones indicated that he did not give Mr. Sanders permission to take his ISS Class to the stadium or otherwise remove them from their normally assigned classroom. Mr. Sanders testified that Mr. Jones was aware that Mr. Sanders was taking the students to the stadium on the days that he supervised weightlifting.

18. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Jones either gave express permission for the ISS Class to be taken to the stadium when Mr. Sanders was supervising weightlifting or was aware that the ISS Class was being taken to the stadium.

19. Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class was assigned to room 30-A, which was located on the second floor of the main classroom building of Pensacola High. Room 30-A is located on the west end of the main classroom building.

20. Subsequent to obtaining permission to supervise weightlifting for the varsity sports class, Mr. Sanders took his ISS Class to the football stadium during class period 7.

    Mr. Sanders left the students in the bleachers of the stadium above the weightlifting room. The weightlifting room was located in a room just below the bleachers where he left the students.

21. While the students were in the bleachers, they were not directly supervised by any teacher or adult. There were assistant football coaches on the football field in the stadium supervising athletes engaged in football drills some of the time that the ISS Class was left in the bleachers, but they were not assigned the responsibility to supervise the ISS Class.

22. Mr. Sanders would usually, but not always, inform Mr. Wilson that he had arrived to supervise the weightlifting

    training. Mr. Sanders did not, however, insure that the students in his ISS class were actually being directly supervised by another teacher or adult. Nor did Mr. Wilson tell Mr. Sanders that any arrangement had been made to provide supervision for the ISS Class on October 17, 1995, or on any other occasion.

23. On October 17, 1995, Mr. Sanders had eight students assigned to the ISS. For class period 7, Mr. Sanders escorted his class from classroom 30A to the stadium (Stipulated Fact).

24. When the ISS class arrived at the stadium, Mr. Sanders directed the eight students to sit in the bleachers and told them to remain seated there.

25. Mr. Sanders then left the eight students, went around the side of the stadium and went into the weight room located just below where he had left his students. Mr. Sanders could not see or hear the eight students that he left in the bleachers from the weight room.

26. When Mr. Sanders left the eight students, there were no other teachers or adults left to supervise the eight students. Mr. Sanders left them unsupervised despite the fact that the eight students had evidenced disciplinary problems and, therefore, had evidenced a need for close supervision. Some of the students were in the ISS Class due to truancy, but were left unsupervised by Mr. Sanders.

27. Although there were other assistant coaches present to supervise students in the stadium area, the evidence failed to prove that any of those coaches, including Mr. Core, who was on the stadium football field part of the time that the ISS Class was sitting in the bleachers, were in charge of supervising the ISS Class. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Core or any other teacher present that day had been given such an assignment.

    Because Mr. Core was engaged in supervising passing drills with the football team, even if it had been proved that he was in charge of the ISS Class, he could not be expected to provide reasonable supervision of the ISS Class and supervise passing drills.

28. Despite Mr. Sanders' testimony that supervision of the ISS Class was the responsibility of Mr. Wilson, he also testified that he left the weightlifting room on several occasions to check on the students. The evidence failed to support either explanation.

29. At some time after Mr. Sanders left the ISS Class students in the stadium, a 15 year-old female student (hereinafter referred to as “Student X”) that had been assigned to the class that day left the other students to go to the ladies’ restroom under the stadium (Stipulated Fact). She was gone approximately 45 minutes.

30. Student X had been determined to have a Specific Learning Disability and was in the exceptional student education program.

31. While Student X was under the stadium stands, she performed oral sex on several male students in the ladies’ bathroom (Stipulated Fact).

32. Eight male students were subsequently arrested, charged and prosecuted for committing an unnatural and lascivious act with Student X. Seven students pled no contest to the charge,

    and one was tried and acquitted (Stipulated Fact). Five of the male students were supposed to be in the varsity sports class.

33. At or close to the end of class period 7, an assistant coach came into the weightlifting room and told Mr. Sanders that he had heard that there was a girl underneath the stadium and suggested that Mr. Sanders “might want to go check.”

34. Mr. Sanders left the weight room and began searching under the stadium from the north end where the weight room was located, to the south end.

35. Mr. Sanders eventually found Student X and a male student in a small room in the back of the boys’ junior varsity locker room under the south end of the stadium.

36. Mr. Sanders found Student X and the other student talking. He instructed the male student to return to his drivers' education class. Mr. Sanders took Student X back to the bleachers and the ISS Class.

37. Mr. Sanders did not report the incident nor take any action against Student X or the male student he found her with.

38. The next day, Student X reported that students in ISS Class were teasing her about having done something bad. Although not known by teachers at the time, Student X was being teased about what had happened to her on October 17, 1995. She reported the teasing to the Dean's office. Richard Souza, the head of the exceptional student education program, talked to Student X and

concluded that Student X should not be sent back to the ISS Class.

38. Student X was teased further on the bus and in other parts of the school about the incident.

1. What had happened to Student X on October 17, 1995, was not discovered until several days after the event took place. Student X was ultimately transferred to another school.

2. Mr. Sanders' was issued a written reprimand for his involvement in the October 17, 1995, incident by the Superintendent of Schools, School District of Escambia County.

3. Mr. Sanders was subsequently transferred to Workman Middle School as a physical education teacher. Mr. Sanders contested the suggestion in the reprimand that he was required to "provide direct supervision" of the ISS Class.

4. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Sanders breached his responsibility to the ISS Class when he failed to make reasonable effort to protect the students of the ISS Class from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental and/or physical health and/or safety. He breached his responsibility when he left the students unattended and unsupervised. Until he knew that another teacher or adult had taken over the supervision of the ISS Class, it was unreasonable for him to abandon them.

5. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sanders "intentionally" exposed any student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.

6. The evidence in this case proved the following facts concerning the aggravating and mitigating circumstances required to be considered in disciplinary cases by Rule 6B-11.007(3), Florida Administrative Code:

   1. The offense is this case was severe. Mr. Sanders breached one of the most important duties of a teacher: to insure that the students under his charge were properly supervised.

   2. The offense did not constitute a danger to the "public."

      
      

   3. The evidence only proved one repetition of Mr. Sanders' offense.

   4. It has been almost four years since the incident.

      
      

   5. Mr. Sanders has not been disciplined by the Education Practices Commission.

   6. Mr. Sanders has been an educator for approximately ten years and was, and still is, well thought of by some in the Escambia County School Board. He has been an educator in Florida since the 1989-1990 school year and was an educator in Alabama for one year prior to that.

   7. The actual damage as a result of the lack of supervision of the ISS students was severe. One student was severely harmed

      and the other students, who had evidenced a great need for supervision, were left unattended.

   8. The penalty will not be as effective a deterrent as the publicity concerning the incident.

   9. If Mr. Sanders is suspended, as recommended by Petitioner, it would have a serious impact on his livelihood.

   10. The evidence failed to prove any effort at rehabilitation by Mr. Sanders, nor is there any rehabilitation reasonably necessary in this matter.

   11. Mr. Sanders was not forthright concerning his responsibility in this matter. Mr. Sanders did not admit his responsibility to stay with the students at a minimum until he knew they were supervised. Instead, he attempted to lay the blame elsewhere.

   12. Mr. Sanders is currently employed as a teacher for the Escambia County School District. He is employed at Tate School.

   13. There was only one violation. Therefore, there was no need for any "[a]ttempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation."

   14. There have been no related violations against

       
       

       Mr. Sanders in another state, including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served.

   15. Mr. Sanders was negligent in his actions, but he did not commit any violation independent of his neglect.

   16. There were no penalties imposed for related offenses.

       
       

   17. No pecuniary benefit or self-gain enured to Mr. Sanders.

       
       

   18. The degree of physical and mental harm to Student X was great.

   19. No physical and/or mental condition contributed to Mr. Sanders' violation, including recovery from addiction.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1997).

8. The Administrative Complaint includes the following "Material Allegations":

   1. During the 1995-1996 school year the Respondent was assigned to serve as the In-school Suspension teacher at Pensacola High School.

      
      

   2. On or about October 17, 1995, the Respondent took his students from the in-school suspension classroom during the seventh period and relocated them in the stands of the Pensacola High School football stadium.

      
      

   3. After shifting the students to the stand in the football stadium, the Respondent left them unattended and unsupervised in order to supervise a weightlifting class in the football team's weight room.

      
      

   4. While Respondent's students were left unsupervised and unattended by the Respondent one of the female students in the class left the stands and entered a women's bathroom, where she was sexually assaulted by a number of male students.

      
      

9. The weight of the evidence in this matter supported findings of fact consistent with the Material Allegations.

10. Based upon the Material Allegations, the Administrative Complaints charged Mr. Sanders with three counts. Count One, a statutory violation, alleges that Mr. Sanders violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that he "violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida prescribed by the State Board of Education."

11. Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, the following:

    1. The Education Practices Commission shall have the authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in s. 228.041(9) or (10) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); to revoke the teaching certificate of any person thereby denying that person the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person; or to impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that such person:

       . . . .

       
       

       1. has violated the Principles for Professional Conduct for the Education Practices in Florida prescribed by the State Board of Education.

    
    

12. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession have been adopted as Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.

13. Counts Two and Three are alleged rule violations and specify the specific Principles of Professional Conduct for the

    Education Profession that Mr. Sanders is alleged to have violated.

14. Count Two alleges that Mr. Sanders violated Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that he "failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety."

15. Count Three alleges that Mr. Sanders violate Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that he "intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary [sic] embarrassment or disparagement."

16. Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, provide the following Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida:

    1. Obligation to the student requires that the individual:

       
       

       1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety.

    
    

    . . . .

    
    

    e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.

    
    

17. The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue in this proceeding. Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); and Department

    of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

18. In this proceeding, it is Petitioner that is asserting the affirmative: that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered by Petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, had the burden of proof in this proceeding.

19. Petitioner was required to meet his burden by clear and convincing evidence. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Carter v. Brogan, 671 So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); and Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).

20. To be "clear and convincing," the evidence must be "so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable [the fact finder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

21. At the center of the controversy in this case is the question of who had the duty to supervise the students of the ISS. No one disputes the fact that the ISS students were at least inadequately supervised on October 17, 1995. The evidence was clear and convincing that the ISS was not adequately supervised on that day during class period 7.

22. Petitioner has argued that it was Mr. Sanders' responsibility to provide reasonable supervision of the ISS

    students. Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, has suggested that it was either the responsibility of Mr. Wilson to "ensure that the ISS students were supervised by someone other than Sanders" or "that there was ambiguity in the directives given to Sanders vis- a-vis the expectation that he supervise two groups of students in different locations at the same time." See paragraphs 53 and 54 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order.

23. Section 232.25(1), Florida Statutes, establishes the responsibility of schools to provide control and direction of all students. In particular, it is provided that students are to be under the "immediate control and direction of the teacher or other member of the instructional staff or of the bus driver to whom such responsibility may be assigned by the principal."

24. The responsibility to provide control includes the duty to supervise the activities of students under a teacher's care and control. Such a duty is a common law and statutory duty. Doe v. Escambia County School Board, 599 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

25. It is clear and convincing from the evidence in this case that the duty to provide care and control for the students of the ISS class was placed on Mr. Sanders. It is also clear that Mr. Sanders was given authority to teach weightlifting. At best, that authority included a limitation that the ISS students be supervised.

26. Finally, the evidence clearly and convincingly proved that, whether Mr. Wilson was required to provide supervision of the ISS students or not, on October 17, 1995, Mr. Sanders left the ISS class in the bleachers of the football stadium without insuring that some other teacher or other responsible adult was there to supervise the ISS students. Not only did Mr. Sanders leave the students without adult supervision, he also did not make an effort to see if some other teacher was in fact supervising the students during class period 7.

27. Even giving Mr. Sanders, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Jones the benefit of doubt that they ever intended that someone attend to the ISS students while Mr. Sanders supervised the varsity sports class, Mr. Sanders had the responsibility to ensure that the students he had been charged with responsibility for were protected from harmful conditions before leaving them in the stands. Ensuring that some adult was there to take over was the "reasonable effort" to protect his students that he failed to make. His failure to make that reasonable effort obviously resulted in a significant injury to Student X.

28. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that

    
    

    Mr. Sanders violated Rule 6B-1.006(a), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint.

29. The evidence also proved that, while Mr. Sanders may have deliberately left the ISS students without supervision, he did not intentionally "expose a student to unnecessary

    embarrassment or disparagement." Such an action would include a teacher intentionally ridiculing or insulting a student during a class. It does not include Mr. Sanders' actions in this matter. The embarrassment or disparagement suffered by Student X, while caused by Mr. Sanders' negligence, was not intentionally caused by Mr. Sanders.

30. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that Mr. Sanders did not violate Rule 6B-1.006(e), Florida

    Administrative Code, as alleged in Count 3 of the Administrative Complaint.

31. Rule 6B-11.007, Florida Administrative Code, provides guidelines for the imposition of penalties for violating Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. No guideline is provided for a violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

32. Rule 6B-11.007(3), Florida Administrative Code, does provide for a consideration of certain mitigating and aggravating circumstances when determining an appropriate penalty:

    (3) Based upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors present in an individual case, the Commission may deviate from the penalties recommended in subsection (2). The Commission may consider the following as aggravating or mitigating factors:

    
    

    1. The severity of the offense;

    2. The danger to the public;

    3. The number of repetitions of offenses;

    4. The length of time since the violation;

    5. The number of times the educator has been previously disciplined by the Commission;

    6. The length of time the educator has practiced and the contribution as an educator;

    7. The actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by the violation;

    8. The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed;

    9. The effect of the penalty upon the educator's livelihood;

    10. Any effort of rehabilitation by the educator;

    11. The actual knowledge of the educator pertaining to the violation;

    12. Employment status;

    13. Attempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation;

    14. Related violations against the educator in another state including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served;

    15. Actual negligence of the educator pertaining to any violation;

    16. Penalties imposed for related offenses under subsection (2) above;

    17. Pecuniary benefit or self-gain enuring to the educator;

    18. Degree of physical and mental harm to a student or a child;

    19. Present status of physical and/or mental condition contributing to the violation including recovery from addiction; and

    20. Any other relevant mitigating or aggravating factors under the circumstances.

33. Taking into account the mitigating and aggravating circumstances found in Finding of Fact 45, it is concluded that Mr. Sanders' teaching certificate should be suspended for a period of six months, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension.

34. Finally, the evidence concerning the treatment of other individuals involved in this matter has been concluded to not be relevant. All that should be considered in this matter is whether Mr. Sanders violated the provisions of law which govern his Florida teaching certificate. Whether others were disciplined more or less severely, or not at all, does not support a finding that Mr. Sanders did or did not commit the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Kevin R. Sanders has violated the provisions of Section 231.29(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that he violated Rule 6B-

1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Count One and Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. It is further

RECOMMENDED that Count Three of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Mr. Sanders violated Rule 6b-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. It is further

RECOMMENDED that Mr. Sanders' teaching certificate be suspended for a period of six months, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension.

DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

LARRY J. SARTIN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1998.

ENDNOTE

1/ The relevant period of time in this case is the 1995-1996 school year. All events described in this Recommended Order, therefore, took place during the 1995-1996 school year unless otherwise noted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

J. David Holder, Esquire

14 South Ninth Street

DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433

Ron Meyer, Esquire Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A.

2544 Blairstone Pine Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education

224-E Florida Education Center

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Dept. of Education

325 W. Gaines St., Ste. 224-E Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education

The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

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.

Docket for Case No: 98-000705

Orders for Case No: 98-000705