STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER | ) | |||
OF EDUCATION, | ) ) | |||
Petitioner, | ) | |||
) | ||||
vs. | ) | Case | No. | 09-0548PL |
) | ||||
DEBRA SATCHEL, | ) | |||
) | ||||
Respondent. | ) | |||
| ) |
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on September 23, 2009, and October 7, 2009, by video teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida, before Carolyn S. Holifield, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire
Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012
For Respondent: Debra Satchel, pro se
Post Office Box 2204 Brandon, Florida 33509
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsections
1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida
Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(5)(d), and 6B-1.006(5)(e); and, if so,
what discipline should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On February 7, 2007, Petitioner, John L. Winn, as then Commissioner of Education, filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Debra Satchel. Respondent disputed the allegations and timely filed an Election of Rights requesting a formal hearing. On February 2, 2009, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint ("Amended Complaint") against Respondent on February 10, 2009. This matter proceeded to hearing on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint.2
The Amended Complaint sets forth the following material allegations:
Respondent has a history of unpredictable, erratic behavior in the presence of students, parents and administrators. Respondent has displayed irrational loss of temper and self control, insubordination and an uncooperative attitude towards administrators and colleagues. Respondent's conduct is evidence[d] by the following:
On or about September 20, 2001, Respondent became angered by the fact that tables in her classroom had been rearranged. Respondent yelled at students, calling them liars and directing them to get out of the
way, while she forcibly shoved tables and chairs around the room, hitting at least two students. Respondent left the classroom and continued to yell and be confrontational toward administrators who tried to calm her down. After this incident Respondent was referred to the Employee Assistance Program for mandatory evaluation.
During the Fall 2001 semester, Respondent became extremely agitated, yelled and behaved irrationally after a student picked his teeth in her class.
C. During the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 school years, Respondent was often confrontational with colleagues and filed unfounded grievances against two of them.
On one occasion, when an administrator tried to have a discussion with Respondent, she pulled her sweat shirt over her head, covered her ears and chanted, "I'm not listening to you."
During November 2003, Respondent continually sent students to the Media Center without supervision despite being told not to by the administration. Respondent was issued a letter of concern by her principal for this behavior.
On or about January 6, 2004, Respondent refused to allow a student into her classroom who had been transferred to her class. Respondent displayed a defiant attitude towards an administrator who tried to explain the situation to her. Respondent refused to meet with the administrator to discuss the matter and as a result was removed from the classroom until she complied.
The Amended Complaint charges that the foregoing material allegations constitute three statutory violations and four rule violations as set forth above under the Statement of the Issues.
The final hearing was scheduled for March 26 and 27, 2009. However, on March 16, 2009, prior to the scheduled hearing date, Respondent filed an unopposed Motion for Continuance. The unopposed motion was granted and the final hearing was rescheduled for July 21 and 22, 2009. On July 9, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance, which was granted by Order dated July 15, 2009. The final hearing was then rescheduled for September 23, 2009.
The final hearing convened on September 23, 2009, but was not concluded. By agreement of the parties and the undersigned, the final hearing reconvened and was completed on October 7, 2009.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of 12 witnesses: (1) Linda A. Kipley; (2) Mildred Godwin; (3) Teresa Cannon; (4) Curtis Bowden; (5) Gwendolyn Henderson; (6) Clara O'Dell; (7) Virginia McGinn; (8) Elizabeth Stelter;
Jeffrey J. Peltzer; (10) Fadia Richardson; (11) Bill Frank; and (12) David Johnson. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence.
Respondent testified on her own behalf. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 18 were admitted into evidence.
The Transcript for first day of the hearing, September 23, 2009, was filed on October 20, 2009. The Transcript for the second day of the hearing, October 7, 2009, was filed on
December 15, 2009.3 The parties requested and were given 15 days from the date of the Transcript to file proposed recommended orders. Petitioner timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order.
No post hearing submittal was filed by Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made:
Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate
No. 544113 that covers the areas of educational leadership, business education, teacher coordinator of cooperative education, and vocational office education.
At all times relevant to this proceeding, and since about 1983, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School Board. During most of her tenure with the Hillsborough County School Board, Respondent has worked as a classroom teacher. Respondent's employment with the School Board was terminated on October 13, 2004.
2001 Fall Semester
In the 2001 fall semester, Respondent was a teacher in the business department at Jefferson High School ("Jefferson").
At all times relevant hereto, Virginia McGinn, was also a teacher in the business department at Jefferson. As a
professional colleague, Ms. McGinn communicated and had contact with Respondent during the workday.
During the 2001 fall semester, Respondent was teaching her second-period class in the classroom that was right across from the teaching planning area. Ms. McGinn had a planning period during that time and was walking toward the teacher planning area, when she heard a lot of yelling coming from Respondent's classroom. Observing that the door to Respondent's classroom was open, Ms. McGinn stood in the doorway for a minute and looked in the classroom to see what was going on and to make sure everything was okay. While standing in the doorway,
Ms. McGinn observed and heard Respondent yelling and noticed that Respondent seemed and sounded very agitated. After
Ms. McGinn determined that everything was all right, she left the doorway of Respondent's classroom and went to the teaching planning area.
When Ms. McGinn arrived at the teaching planning area, one other teacher was there, Ms. Zale. A few minutes later and after her class was over, Respondent came to the teacher planning area "in a huff" and immediately took off her blouse. Respondent was wearing a camisole underneath the blouse. According to Respondent she took off her blouse that day because she was extremely hot.
Respondent then began "ranting and raving" about what had just occurred in her classroom and seemed to be very agitated and angry. Ms. McGinn and Ms. Zale asked Respondent what had happened in her classroom. Respondent explained that she had been correcting a student, and when she told him something, the student started sucking his teeth. Respondent then stated that when the student started sucking his teeth, she "just went off."
As Respondent was recounting what had happened in her classroom (the student sucking his teeth), she still appeared to be very agitated. Ms. McGinn and Ms. Zale tried talking to Respondent in order to get her to calm down. Eventually, Respondent "did calm down some." However, Ms. McGinn described Respondent's behavior during the episode and prior to her calming down, as "abnormal" and "overly agitated."
The camisole that was revealed when Respondent took off her blouse was a sleeveless undergarment with thin straps. However, the camisole was not lacy or made of transparent fabric and did not reveal any inappropriate parts of Respondent's body. In fact, the camisole looked similar to some shirts that are worn as outer garments. Nonetheless, that type of undergarment was not typically the kind of top that would be worn as a blouse or other outer garment by a teacher in a school.
The teaching planning area is an area used primarily by teachers. According to Respondent, she took off her blouse that day because she was extremely hot. At that time, there were only two female teachers in the teaching planning area. However, there are times when male teachers are in the teaching planning area and times when students and visitors are in the area. Accordingly, the teaching planning area was not an appropriate area for Respondent to remove her blouse even though she was wearing a camisole underneath the blouse.
September 20, 2001 Incident
In September 2001, in addition to her responsibilities as a business education teacher at Jefferson, Respondent was assigned a senior homeroom class. The classroom in which Respondent's homeroom class met was used by Respondent only for the homeroom period.
The homeroom period was immediately after the first period and, generally, was about five or ten minutes. However, on certain days, the school's rotating schedule allowed for a 30-minute homeroom period during which students attended "club" meetings or remained in homeroom for study hall or a silent reading period.
On September 19, 2001, Respondent rearranged the student desks in the classroom where her homeroom class met to address disciplinary issues with some of her homeroom students.
Prior to making this change, Respondent conferred with Gwendolyn Henderson, then chairperson of the business department, who thought the change would be fine.
On September 20, 2001, Respondent arrived for the homeroom period in the assigned classroom. Most of Respondent's homeroom students were already in the classroom and in their seats when Respondent arrived. Upon entering the classroom, Respondent discovered that the student desks/tables were not arranged as she had placed them the previous day.
After looking around the classroom for about a minute, Respondent yelled out, "Which one of [you] changed my tables around? This is my class. Everyone move to the back of the room now." Respondent then began pushing one of the tables around and, while doing so, the table hit a student's hand as that student was trying to move out of the way. After the table hit the student's hand, Respondent yelled out, "[You] better move out of my way." Respondent then quickly pushed another table, and as she was doing so, that table hit another student's knee. As Respondent was moving the tables, she kept repeating, "This is my room. This is my room. No one [should] touch anything in my room." Respondent again asked the students, "Who moved my tables around?" She stated, "This is not the way I put them [tables/student desks]." Finally, Respondent asked if someone in the first-period class, the class immediately before
the homeroom period, moved the tables. A student in Respondent's homeroom, who was also in the first-period class, told Respondent that the tables "were like this in the first period class." By this time, all the students had moved to the back of the room as they had been instructed to do. Respondent then ran out of the classroom. After Respondent left the classroom, her homeroom students worked together and placed the tables in the "formation" Respondent had them the previous day.
At some point during the incident, two students in Respondent's homeroom left the classroom, went to Gwendolyn Henderson's office and told her what had happened in their homeroom. Based on Ms. Henderson's observation, the two students were upset when they came to her office to report the incident.
While the two students were in her office,
Ms. Henderson heard Respondent come into the area and go to the teacher planning area. Ms. Henderson left her office and went to the teaching planning area to talk to Respondent. When
Ms. Henderson entered the teaching planning area, Respondent asked her who had moved the furniture in the classroom.
Ms. Henderson did not know who had moved the furniture and could not answer Respondent's question. However, it was apparent to her that Respondent was very upset about the furniture being
moved. Henderson attempted to calm Respondent by repeatedly telling her to "calm down, [and] breathe."
At some point, Respondent picked up the telephone, called the school office, and demanded that the school principal immediately come to the teacher planning area.
In response to Respondent's call, Mr. Cugno, assistant principal at Jefferson, came to the teacher planning area. By the time Mr. Cugno arrived, Respondent, though still upset, was beginning to calm down.
When Mr. Cugno entered the teacher planning area,
Ms. Henderson was standing near Respondent, holding Respondent's arm and telling her to breathe. Mr. Cugno then approached Respondent and told her to calm down. It is unclear how close Mr. Cugno was to her, but according to Respondent, he was "right up in [her] face" and telling her to calm down.4 Respondent's perception was that Mr. Cugno had yelled at her and, as a result, she became upset and told him, "I will not calm down." At that point, Mr. Cugno used his radio to call for the school's resource officer for assistance. After he completed that call, Respondent asked, "Mr. Cugno, how dare you?"
Ms. Henderson was "shocked" that Mr. Cugno had called the "police" (school resource officer) in this situation. For her part, Ms. Henderson had no concerns that anyone's safety was
in jeopardy, and she was not "in fear," notwithstanding Respondent's behavior that day.
Prior to the school resource officer's arriving, Respondent told Ms. Henderson and Mr. Cugno that she was going for a walk and left the teacher planning area.
At some point after Respondent left the teacher planning area, Daniel Rivero, principal at Jefferson, found Respondent sitting on a bench outside the main office.
Mr. Rivero, who was aware of the situation that had transpired that day, asked Respondent if she would come into his office, but she refused to do so. He then asked Respondent for the second time if she would come into his office. Respondent again refused to go into Mr. Rivera's office; instead, she just sat on the bench outside the office. Unsure of what to do in this situation, Mr. Rivera contacted Linda Kipley, the general manager for Professional Standards of the Hillsborough County School District ("School District"), for guidance.
Referral to Employee Assistance Program
On October 2, 2001, Respondent was directed by the School District to participate in the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"). The School District officials required this mandatory referral due to concerns about whether Respondent should be in the classroom with children.
After being referred to the School District's EPA, Respondent participated willingly in the program.
Once the School District makes a mandatory referral, Ms. Kipley's office receives information from the provider pertaining to the employee's progress and compliance with the referral, as well as the employee's readiness to return to work.
On or about October 12, 2001, after meeting with Respondent, Judy Kuntz, Petitioner's EAP provider, telephoned Ms. Kipley and provided the following general information:
(a) Respondent was very cooperative; (b) Respondent wanted to make changes; and (c) the provider and Respondent had discussed some things that had gone on in Respondent's past. The provider also advised Ms. Kipley that Respondent would need to continue with counseling on a regular basis and needed to be out of the classroom "a week or more." Finally, the provider indicated that she would contact Ms. Kipley later in October to "officially" release Respondent from mandatory referral.
On October 29, 2001, Ms. Kuntz, called to update
Ms. Kipley on Respondent's progress. According to Mr. Kipley's notes, Ms. Kuntz reported that she had diagnosed Respondent with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and that Respondent "understands where her anger is coming from and realizes that she needs to redirect it in another way [and] cannot take it out on others." Ms. Kipley's notes also reflect that the provider
recommended six to 12 months of additional counseling, reported that Respondent is very agreeable to counseling, and advised that Respondent was not ready to return to the classroom.
Finally, according to Ms. Kipley's notes, the provider reported that she "perceives [Respondent] as extremely intelligent and willing to improve."
As a result of the October 29, 2001, report from the EAP, Respondent remained on paid leave status from about November 2001 through early-May 2002.
2002-2003 and 2003-2004 School Years
From May 10, 2002, through the end of her contract year (end of May or June 2002), Respondent was assigned to Erwin Technical Center, a vocational school for adults. During the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years, Respondent was assigned to Bloomingdale High School ("Bloomingdale").
Respondent was a business education teacher at Bloomingdale in the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years.
During the 2002-2003 school year, there is no indication that Respondent was involved in incidents or behaviors that are at issue in this case.
Incident With Colleague (2003-2004)
In 2003-2004 school years, Jeffrey Peltzer was a teacher at Bloomingdale who taught computer support and web design. One morning Respondent came into Mr. Peltzer's
classroom demanding an installation CD for Microsoft Office. Even though Mr. Peltzer sometimes helped the business education classes, he did not have access to software and was not responsible for providing software to those classes. As
Mr. Peltzer was attempting to explain this to Respondent, she put her hand near his face and said, "Oh, no you don't." Respondent then ran over to Jack Pallin, a teacher who was in the classroom and said, "You saw what he did to me." Mr. Pallin responded, "I didn't see him [Mr. Peltzer] do anything."
Respondent filed a grievance against Mr. Peltzer, presumably related to the installation CD. The grievance was resolved through e-mail communication between Ms. Kipley and Respondent.
Mr. Peltzer had no first-hand knowledge about the grievance. Rather, it was his "understanding" that Respondent attempted to file a grievance against him, but he never saw any official grievance. In fact, Mr. Peltzer considered the matter between him and Respondent resolved and simply viewed it as a disagreement between two teachers.
Media Center Incident (Fall 2003)
At hearing, Clara O'Dell, then department chair at Bloomingdale, testified that on October 23, 2003, Respondent's students came to the media center/computer lab ("media center"). She also testified that the students began arriving at
2:08 p.m., and by 2:15 p.m., all of Respondent's students were in the media center; and that Respondent came into the media center at 2:15 p.m., stayed there for 15 minutes and then left. According to Ms. O'Dell, after Respondent left the media center, she went to the main office, signed out at 2:32 p.m., and noted that she had the approval of the principal to leave early.
In a memo dated November 12, 2003, Ms. O'Dell states in part:
It has been brought to my attention[5] that you sent your classes to the Media Center with a substitute teacher on the two days that you had CRISS training. [October 28 and November 4].
This caused problems and is against District Policy. . .
On the first day of CRISS training your sub was sent back to the classroom. On the second day, your sub was allowed to stay because (1) she had served as a sub in the Media Center . . . .
The November 12, 2003, memo indicates the following:
on October 28, 2003, Respondent's students were not supervised in the media center because someone sent the substitute teacher assigned to cover Respondent's class back to the classroom; (b) on November 4, 2003, a substitute teacher was in the media center with the students; and (c) on October 28 and November 4, 2003, Respondent was released from her classes to attend some type of training.
Student Schedule Change (January 2004)
Chris Bowden was assistant principal for student affairs at Bloomingdale in the 2003-2004 school year.
At the beginning of the semester, students at Bloomingdale were given the opportunity to change their class schedules. In January 2004, a student in Respondent's business education class, D.W., received a schedule change that moved her from Respondent's seventh-period class to her fifth-period class. The schedule change was necessary to accommodate the student's geometry course.
Respondent received the schedule change for D.W. on Tuesday, January 6, 2004. Upon learning of the schedule change, Respondent sent Mr. Bowden an e-mail expressing her concern that the change would impact the "balancing of her class."
Respondent also indicated her preference was that D.W. stay in the seventh-period class.
In an e-mail response, Mr. Bowden advised Respondent that he would continue to monitor her class loads. Mr. Bowden also indicated that once the elective schedule change period was over, he would make the necessary adjustments to balance Respondent's classes, but that D.W.'s schedule change should be honored.
On January 7, 2004, D.W. reported to Mr. Bowden that she went to Respondent's fifth-period class, but was not
accepted in the class by Respondent.6 Mr. Bowden decided to escort the student to class to help her earn entry in the class and to clarify any misunderstanding Respondent may have had regarding D.W.'s schedule. At that point, even though
Mr. Bowden had sent Respondent an e-mail asking her to honor D.W.'s schedule change, he was not sure Respondent had opened and read the email.
Before Mr. Bowden could escort D.W. to Respondent's fifth-period class, the student asked if she could be removed from Respondent's class, and Mr. Bowden granted that request.
Although Mr. Bowden made a commitment to allow D.W. to take a fifth-period class other than Respondent's class, prior to such change, D.W. had to "sign out" of Respondent's class. This school-wide procedure was required to provide teachers with notice when students were no longer assigned to their classes and, thus, could be taken off the class roll. In accordance with that procedure, D.W. was instructed to go and "sign out" from Respondent's fifth-period class and then present the schedule change to her new fifth-period teacher.
When D.W. returned to Respondent's class, Respondent did not sign the student out of her fifth-period class because she did not believe that D.W. was not in her fifth-period class. Even though Respondent did not complete or sign D.W.'s form as required for the student to be "signed out" of Respondent's
class, Respondent wrote a note on the form which stated, "[D.W.] is not in my fifth period [class]. She attended 5th yesterday. I think she skipped her 5th [with] Mr. M. Mason." Under the note, Respondent signed her name.
The student returned to Mr. Bowden's office and told him that Respondent would not sign her out of the fifth-period class. Mr. Bowden then signed the schedule change form so the student could begin attending her new fifth-period class.
On January 7, 2004, after Respondent did not execute the form allowing D.W. to "sign out" of Respondent's fifth- period class, Mr. Bowden went to Respondent's classroom to explain that there was obviously a misunderstanding. Respondent's class had just left for lunch, and no students were in the class during the following interaction.
In his discussion with Respondent, Mr. Bowden attempted to clarify what he presumed to be a misunderstanding on Respondent's part. However, Respondent told him that there was no misunderstanding and that she understood perfectly. At the time, Respondent was sitting at her desk writing a student referral, which is a request for disciplinary action for an infraction of school rules. The referral was for D.W. based on Respondent's belief that the student had skipped her assigned fifth-period class with another teacher the previous day.
Mr. Bowden believed that because D.W. had already signed out of Respondent's fifth and seventh-period classes, the student was no longer in any of Respondent's classes or Respondent's responsibility. In accordance with that belief, Mr. Bowden directed Respondent to cease writing the referral and told her that if she wrote the referral, it would not be acted upon. Respondent then told Mr. Bowden that she was going to keep the referral for her records.
After the disciplinary referral issue was resolved, Mr. Bowden again reiterated to Respondent that there had been a misunderstanding concerning D.W.'s schedule change.
During Respondent' and Mr. Bowden's exchange about the misunderstanding about the schedule change, Mr. Bowden observed that Respondent seemed disturbed and agitated. He also noticed that the issue concerning the schedule change for D.W. appeared to be very upsetting to Respondent.
Attempts to Meet With Respondent (January 2004)
Based on Respondent's reaction to the schedule change issue, Mr. Bowden decided he needed to meet with Respondent. He then attempted to talk with Respondent about scheduling the meeting, but Respondent cut him off in mid-sentence and told him, "This conference is over." She then stood up from her desk, let out an audible sound of "frustration, distress, a sigh, a moan," walked past Mr. Bowden, and then hurried down the
hallway. At that time, the students in the corridor were in the midst of going to lunch. Meanwhile, Respondent continued hurrying, though not running, down the hallway in an apparent attempt to gain space between her and Mr. Bowden.
The reason she left the classroom was that Mr. Bowden had insulted her, and she wanted to get away from him.
Before Respondent left her classroom, it was clear to Mr. Bowden that: (a) D.W.'s schedule change issue had been resolved; (b) Respondent had agreed to not submit a disciplinary referral on D.W.; and (c) Respondent was upset about the scheduling issue and did not want to talk about that issue. Nonetheless, Mr. Bowden felt it was necessary to meet with Respondent about the scheduling issue and to do so as soon as possible.
After Respondent exited her classroom, Mr. Bowden went to his office, confirmed that Respondent did not have a
sixth-period class, and determined that that was a convenient time to meet with Respondent. What he did not know was that part of the sixth period was also Respondent's lunch period.
Before he could contact Respondent about scheduling the meeting and between the fifth and sixth periods, Mr. Bowden saw Respondent sitting outside of the student affairs office at the beginning of the sixth period. Mr. Bowden then approached Respondent, indicated he had verified that she did not have a
class that period, and told her that he needed to meet with her. Respondent then stated in a loud voice, "I am not going to meet with you; you know I do not like to meet with you and I am not going to do it."7
Respondent eventually moved from a side corridor that ran between the student affairs office and the main office and into the main corridor of the school. While in the main corridor, Respondent stopped walking and turned to Mr. Bowden and said, "Why do you want to meet with me?" At some point, Respondent was standing with her hands behind her back, staring at the ceiling. Mr. Bowden attempted to persuade Respondent to go into his office in the main office suite, which was about
15 feet away, rather than have this discussion in the main corridor.
During that exchange, students were exiting the lunchroom, which was across from the main office. One teacher who was on duty and was very close to the main office area, heard the interaction between Mr. Bowden and Respondent. However, it was his impression that none of the students and staff members heard the exchange. This was evidenced by the fact that no students or staff members in the corridor at that time stopped and looked toward Mr. Bowden and Respondent.
Mr. Bowden tried to direct her from the corridor into his office so he could gauge Respondent's mental state and
determine whether she could teach her seventh-period class. Mr. Bowden also wanted to determine if he and Respondent could reach closure on the D.W. scheduling issue.
Respondent followed Mr. Bowden's directive and came into the lobby of the main office, but would not go into
Mr. Bowden's office. Instead, she told him, "I will meet you right here." She also asked him on what authority was he requesting to meet with her. Mr. Bowden explained that as the administrator on campus, he had the authority to request the meeting. Respondent then said to Mr. Bowden in a condescending manner, "I've told you, I am not going to meet with you. Do you understand that?"
Respondent asked Mr. Bowden if she could make a telephone call, and he then directed her to an office where she could use the phone. While Respondent was using the telephone, Mr. Bowden left the main office to arrange for someone to cover Respondent's seventh-period class. After Respondent completed her call, she left the main office. At some point thereafter, Mr. Bowden learned from his secretary that Petitioner had left the office.
Prior to the sixth period's ending, Mr. Bowden eventually found Petitioner in her classroom with another teacher, Fadia Richardson. After Ms. Richardson left the classroom, Mr. Bowden told Respondent that her seventh-period
class would be arriving soon and that she should not be in the classroom when they arrived. Respondent went over to her desk where she had a jacket, put her arms through the jacket, pulled the jacket over her head, and turned her back to Mr. Bowden.
From that point, when Mr. Bowden was trying to talk to Respondent, she placed her hands over her ears or fingers in her ears, looked away from Mr. Bowden into the corner and said, "I'm not listening to you anymore. I'm not listening to you anymore."
Mr. Bowden was concerned about Respondent's behavior and found it disturbing to watch a person get to this point. Mr. Bowden acknowledged that he was not a mental health professional or law enforcement officer, and did not "know what [he] was dealing with." However, Mr. Bowden believed "that we were in the middle of some sort of breakdown."
While Respondent continued to display the behavior described above, Mr. Bowden continually and repeatedly said to Respondent, "You can not be here when your students arrive." At that point, Mr. Bowden's primary concern was that Respondent leave the classroom before the 25 or 30 students arrived for Respondent's seventh-period class.
Prior to the students' arriving for the seventh period, Respondent left the classroom. Because Mr. Bowden did not know what Respondent's mental state was at the time, he
decided not to pursue her. Instead, Mr. Bowden followed up to make sure there was another teacher to cover Respondent's seventh-period class. He then went to his duty area, the main corridor outside the main office, to supervise the class change.
While he was in the main corridor, Mr. Bowden's secretary informed him that Respondent was waiting for him in the main office. Mr. Bowden went to the main office, saw Respondent sitting quietly on a sofa waiting for him, and observed that she now had a "normal demeanor." Mr. Bowden was surprised that Respondent had come to the office, but given her calm demeanor at that time, he asked if she was there to meet with him. In response, Respondent stated emphatically that she was not going to meet with him. Elizabeth Stelter, the school principal at Bloomingdale, came into the area and heard the exchange between Mr. Bowden and Respondent and offered to sit in on the conference as a third party. Respondent then again stated, "I'm not meeting with him." At that point and with only about an hour remaining in the school day, Ms. Stelter told Respondent that she was free to leave school for the day.
After the January 7, 2004, incident involving Respondent's failure to meet with Mr. Bowden, Respondent was removed from the classroom at Bloomingdale.
The Jefferson and Bloomingdale incidents were similar in that both involved a male school administrator directing
Respondent to come into the office area to meet with that administrator about her (Respondent's) conduct.
Grievance Filed by Respondent
On January 8, 2004, Ms. Kipley spoke with Respondent about the incident involving Mr. Bowden that happened the day before. Respondent discussed her feelings about the incident and indicated that she felt that the administration was out to get her and that she was being harassed by Mr. Bowden. Respondent also indicated she was upset that Mr. Bowden had interrupted her during her lunch time and believed that he should have approached her at another time. During the meeting, Respondent was visibly upset, but she was even-tempered and not
loud.
On an unspecified date, Respondent filed a grievance
against Mr. Bowden. That grievance was determined to be unfounded.
Fitness-for-Duty Evaluation
On January 26, 2004, Ms. Kipley informed Respondent that she would have to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation. This evaluation was being conducted because of the School District's concern about what appeared to be unstable behavior and insubordinate behavior. The School District wanted this in-depth evaluation to determine: (a) whether Respondent was fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher; and
whether she could safely instruct children and interact appropriately with her colleagues, peers and administrators. Evaluation Results
The School District referred Respondent to James Edgar, M.D., for a fitness-for-duty evaluation "because of a pattern of unstable and insubordinate behavior toward parents, students and administration." Dr. Edgar conducted the evaluation in or about early March 2004 and prepared a report summarizing the results of that assessment.
Based on the evaluation, Dr. Edgar reached the following conclusions:
I find no psychiatric disorder that would account for "pattern of unstable or insubordinate behavior toward parents, students and administrators". From a psychiatric perspective, [Respondent] has no impairment that would interfere with her ability to safely instruct minor children, appropriately interact with students, parents, staff and the administration.
Dr. Edgar's report notes that the results of the evaluation are based on information provided by Respondent and records provided by the School District and collateral sources. The specific records provided by the School District were not described or identified. Dr. Edgar's report notes that Respondent advised him of Dr. Feldman's diagnosis of PTSD and that she had been seeing Dr. Feldman for "problems with anger" since 2001. With regard to the PTSD diagnosis, Dr. Edgar
indicated that he had not reviewed the records of Dr. Feldman and his evaluation had found no evidence to support that diagnosis.
Notwithstanding his conclusion, Dr. Edgar's report states that "additional information not disclosed to [him] could significantly alter the assessment results."
Respondent's Current Status
During this proceeding, Respondent explained, but did not attempt to defend or excuse her conduct that is at issue in this proceeding. According to Respondent, she realized only after the fact, and after therapy, that Mr. Cugno's voice was almost identical to one of the people who had been aggressive toward her and that Mr. Cugno's "getting in her face" definitely did trigger an episode.
Respondent acknowledges that when she went in for her mandatory EPA evaluation in 2001, she was experiencing intense and sudden anger, but felt powerless to prevent it. However, years after receiving that diagnosis and therapy, Respondent is better able to deal with that issue.
In therapy, Respondent has learned (a) what will trigger an episode with her and how to guard against it; (b) how to remain aware of the surroundings; (c) how she is interacting with those surroundings and to remove herself from the situation
whenever possible; and (d) how to use relaxation techniques, such as deep breathing.
Respondent's Disciplinary/Professional Record
Except for this case, there have been no disciplinary actions brought against Respondent's educator's certificate.
Throughout Respondent's teaching career, she has consistently earned satisfactory ratings on her performance evaluations. Even with the conduct at issue in this proceeding, there have been no allegations regarding Respondent's overall effectiveness in terms of instruction and classroom management.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2009).
Subsection 1012.796(6), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Commissioner of Education to file a formal complaint and prosecute the complaint against a teacher's certificate pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
License revocation and discipline proceedings are penal in nature. In the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner has sought, among other penalties, the revocation or suspension of Respondent's teaching certificate. Therefore, Petitioner has the burden of proving the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Department of
Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as evidence which:
[R]equires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
The Amended Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and (5)(d) and (e).
Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
The Education Practices Commission may suspend the educator certificate of any person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) 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); may revoke the educator 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); may revoke permanently the
educator certificate of any person; may suspend the educator certificate, upon order of the court, of any person found to have a delinquent child support obligation; or may impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that the person:
* * *
Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.
* * *
(f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
* * *
(i) Has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 contains the Principles of Professional Conduct and provides, in pertinent part, the following:
The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
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.
* * *
(5) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
* * *
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.
Shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague.
Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, does not define the terms "gross immorality" and "moral turpitude." However, instructive in defining the terms "immorality" and "moral turpitude" in Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, are the rules relating to disciplinary actions which may be taken by school districts. Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-4.009(2) and 6B-4.009(6) provide:
(2) Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community.
* * *
(6) Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude.
Hearsay is admissible in an administrative hearing to explain or supplement other evidence, but cannot, by itself, be used as the basis for a finding of fact unless it would be otherwise admissible in a court of law.
Count 1 of the Amended Complaint alleged misconduct in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Count 2 of the Amended Complaint alleged misconduct in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of personal conduct which has seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School
Board. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed acts which violated Subsection 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes.
Count 3 of the Amended Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in misconduct by violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct. The specific provisions within the Principles of Professional Conduct that are alleged to have been violated are addressed in Counts 4 through 7 of the Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Subsection 795(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Count 4 of the Amended Complaint alleges misconduct in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) in that Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule
6B-1.006(3)(a).
Count 5 of the Amended Complaint alleged misconduct in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), in that Respondent intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner failed to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e).
Count 6 of the Amended Complaint alleges misconduct by Respondent in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule
6B-1.006(5)(d) in that she has engaged in harassment or discriminating conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive or oppressive environment and failed to make reasonable effort to assure that such individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d).
Count 7 of the Amended Complaint alleged misconduct in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(e) in that Respondent has made malicious or intentional false statements about a colleague. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(e).
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing, in its entirety, the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Debra Satchel.
DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
ENDNOTES
1/ Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes (2002), was created by Chapter 02-387, Section 757, Laws of Florida, and became effective January 7, 2003. The provisions in Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), which are applicable in this case, were formerly in Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f) and (i), Florida Statutes. The latter provisions apply to incidents alleged to have occurred between the Fall of 2001 and January 6, 2003. The language in the provisions is identical.
2/ The Amended Administrative Complaint was presented at the final hearing and was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 15, 2009.
3/ A Transcript of the second day of the hearing (October 7, 2009) was initially filed on October 27, 2009. However, upon review of the Transcript, a corrected copy of that Transcript
had to be prepared and filed. It is this corrected Transcript that was filed in December 2009.
4/ In a memo summarizing her discussions with Respondent,
Ms. Kipley indicates that on October 2, 2001, Respondent stated that when Mr. Cugno arrived in the teaching planning area, she was upset because he was yelling at her to calm down.
5/ This indicates that Ms. O'Dell had no first-hand knowledge of the events to which she testified at hearing.
6/ The student, D.W., did not testify at this proceeding.
7/ Although Respondent made this comment in a loud voice, there is no indication or evidence that anyone else heard the comment.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675
Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012
Debra Satchel
Post Office Box 2204 Brandon, Florida 33509
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.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 15, 2010 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 30, 2010 | Recommended Order | The Complaint should be dismissed where Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent is guilty of acts of gross immorality and conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as a school board employee. |
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. JOSE ANTONIO BLANCO, 09-000548PL (2009)
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. WILLIAM D. SULLIVAN, 09-000548PL (2009)
SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs BRIAN BERRY, 09-000548PL (2009)
FRANK T. BROGAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs FRANCIS W. KEEFE, 09-000548PL (2009)
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. MARIANNE CARR MARSHALL, 09-000548PL (2009)
