The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, against teachers holding Florida educator's certificates. Respondent, who has no prior disciplinary history, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 709850, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2014. The Events The incident that gives rise to this proceeding occurred during the morning of April 8, 2011, at Dillard High School ("Dillard"), where Respondent has taught mathematics since 2004. At that time, Respondent was lecturing to his Algebra I honors class, which comprised approximately 15 students. During the lecture, one of the male students, 15-year- old D.P., took out his cell phone and viewed it, contrary to one of Respondent's classroom rules. Respondent immediately directed D.P. to put the phone away, and the student complied; a few moments later, however, D.P. again took out his phone, which resulted in the same reaction from Respondent. For reasons known only to D.P., he took out his phone a third time——conduct that prompted Respondent to confiscate the item. Later, during the same class period, D.P. inquired of Respondent as to when his phone would be returned. Respondent replied that the phone could be retrieved at the end of the day from Mr. Levinsky, one of Dillard's assistant principals. None too happy with this turn of events, D.P. stewed for several minutes, at which point he got up from his table and approached the front of the room, where Respondent was seated behind his desk. Suspecting that D.P. might attempt to recover the phone (which lay on Respondent's desk), Respondent picked it up. At that point, and in an audacious move, D.P. grabbed Respondent's cell phone off the desk and stated, in an angry tone, that he would return Respondent's phone when Respondent relinquished possession of his (D.P.'s). Understandably disinclined to negotiate, Respondent calmly directed D.P. to return his property. D.P. refused. Respondent again asked, to no avail, that D.P. place the phone on the desk. After a third request, which, like the others, went entirely unheeded, Respondent stood up, walked around his desk, positioned himself near D.P., and instructed D.P.——for the fourth time——to put down the phone. D.P. complied, only to pick up the phone once again just seconds later. (While doing so, D.P. remarked that he was not going to return Respondent's "mother-fucking phone.") It is at this point that the witness' accounts diverge: D.P. and student S.H. contend that Respondent reached out with one hand and, in an unprovoked act of violence, grabbed D.P. by the throat and pushed him backwards, which resulted in D.P. falling over several desks that had been placed together; students A.A., R.B., and A.P. claim that Respondent, without provocation, slammed D.P. onto the desks after taking hold of the student's throat; finally, Respondent asserts——as corroborated by student T.F.——that D.P. moved toward him in a threatening manner and that he (Respondent) simply defended himself5/ by extending his arm, which made contact with D.P.'s upper chest or neck area. Respondent and T.F. further testified that, as a result of the defensive contact, D.P. moved backward and either tripped or fell over the desks. Before the undersigned resolves the question of how D.P. wound up on the floor, a brief rehearsal of the relevant subsequent events is in order. Moments after the physical encounter, Respondent informed D.P., who was uninjured, that he intended to escort him to one of Dillard's administrators. Enraged, D.P. removed his shirt and followed Respondent into the hallway; as D.P. did so, he directed several vulgar threats toward Respondent, such as, "I'm going to fuck you up" and "I'm going to kill you." Moments later, Respondent encountered one of Dillard's security guards, Noel Buhagiar, from whom Respondent requested assistance. Mr. Buhagiar proceeded to restrain D.P., at which point Respondent made his way to school administration. Once in the front office, Respondent provided a brief description to Mr. Levinsky (as noted previously, an assistant principal) concerning his incident with D.P. Mr. Levinsky instructed Respondent to return to class and issue D.P. a referral. While en route to his classroom, Respondent walked by D.P., who, still restrained, repeated his earlier crude threats. From what can be gleaned from the record, D.P.'s behavior ultimately earned him a five-day suspension from school. Shortly after the incident, Respondent was questioned by Edward Jackson, a school resource officer assigned to Dillard. During the interview, Respondent explained that D.P. had approached him in a "fighter's stance" and that, as a result of this aggressive behavior, he feared for his safety and used an open hand (which made contact with D.P.'s neck) to ward D.P. away. Subsequently, Officer Jackson conducted an interview of D.P. in the presence of Mr. Levinsky and the student's father, during which D.P. provided a description of the incident that largely coincided with Respondent's version of events. These statements were credibly recounted during the final hearing by Officer Jackson, who testified: The child told me, in front of his father, and A.P. [Levinsky], that there was a conversation about a cell phone. He went to get his cell phone back, in an aggressive manner, and that's when [Respondent], fearing for his safety, extended his arms out, and I guess in such force, that he caused the student to fall over some chairs. I then asked, well, Mr. [Levinsky] asked the student, did at any time, did [Respondent] use his hand to choke, choke you. And D.P. answered, to the question, indicating that [Respondent] did not use his hands to choke him. And that was said in front of his father, and in front of Mr. Levinsky, so, there was no choke at all. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 173 (emphasis added). Upon the conclusion of his investigation, Officer Jackson charged D.P. with misdemeanor assault,6/ at which time the matter was forwarded to the State Attorney's Office.7/ Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner has failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of the Amended Administrative Complaint's principal allegation—— namely, that Respondent grabbed D.P. in a "choking manner and pushed him onto [a] desk." In so finding, the undersigned rejects the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses on this issue, which, for several reasons, is less persuasive than that of Respondent and T.F. First, had Respondent committed the act alleged, it is reasonable to expect that D.P. would have suffered some form of harm, particularly since Respondent, a football coach, outweighed D.P. by at least 608/ pounds. Yet, and as D.P. conceded during the final hearing, he sustained no marks, bruises, or injuries of any kind.9/ In addition, D.P.'s present description of the event is highly dubious in light of Officer Jackson's credible testimony, which establishes D.P.'s admission during the police interview that he (D.P.) had moved toward Respondent aggressively and that Respondent had merely extended his arm for protection. Finally, D.P.'s wholly outrageous conduct, both before and after the incident——taking Respondent's property and refusing to return it, removing his shirt, and threatening to "kill" Respondent——is far more suggestive of his culpability as the aggressor. Owing to the undersigned's crediting of Respondent's final-hearing testimony, it necessarily follows that Respondent's report of the incident to law enforcement, in which he claimed self-defense, was in no manner false or dishonest.
Recommendation 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 the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 May, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Richard Stephens is a tenured instructional employee of the Leon County School Board, and has been a science teacher at Nims Middle School for seven years. On October 31, 1980, an incident occurred on the Nims Middle School premises during the lunch hour. A female student, Loretta Brown, called a male student, Johnny Bryant, an offensive name inside the school cafeteria. As she was standing on the outside of the double doors near the back entrance to the cafeteria, Johnny Bryant jumped out of his seat at the lunch table, ran outside and either jumped on Miss Brown's back or pushed her. Miss Brown flipped Bryant over, he landed on the cement sidewalk, got up and they began to fight. As respondent Stephens was leaving the cafeteria with his students, he noticed that a male student (Bryant) had jumped up from his chair and run out the door. As respondent walked out the door, he saw a male and a female student fighting. Student Bryant had student Brown pinned up against a railing, was holding her by the collar with his left hand and was violently swinging at her with his fisted right hand. The students were hitting each other about the face and the stomach. When the respondent initially encountered the two fighting students, he told them to stop fighting. They continued to fight. Being unable to verbally stop the altercation or to get between the students, and feeling that serious damage to the students could result, respondent reached under student Bryant's left arm and around his chest and tried to grasp Bryant's swinging right hand. Respondent was attempting to pull the students apart, but Bryant continued to hold on to Brown's collar. When respondent grabbed Bryant, Bryant gave no indication of control and respondent felt that Bryant needed further restraint. Respondent was eventually able to get Bryant's right arm down by his side. Bryant twice attempted to elbow respondent in the groin area. In order to avoid this attack, respondent turned his body. When he did so, it appeared that Bryant would get away from him. Respondent then lost his balance, and having made the decision to fall to the ground rather than to let Bryant go, both respondent and Bryant fell to the concrete walkway. When this occurred, respondent put Bryant's arm behind his back and squatted over Bryant's back with his knees on the ground. While on the ground, Bryant continued to kick his feet, move his head up and down and yell. Respondent told him on several occasions that he would allow Bryant to get up when Bryant calmed down. When two other teachers, Richard White and Gerald Chandler, came to the scene, Bryant was still struggling with respondent on the ground. Mr. White helped respondent and Bryant up and White and respondent continued to hold on to Bryant's arms. When Mr. Humphries, the Assistant Principal for Administration, came, Bryant was not calmed down and was continuing to try to get away. Mr. Humphries shook Bryant by the arm and told him to stop. At that time, Bryant did calm down and the students were taken to Mr. Humphries' office. Throughout the incident, respondent was of the opinion that if he let Bryant go, Bryant would have injured him or someone else. The two fighting students testified that they would have continued fighting if respondent had not stopped them. Bryant admitted that while he was on the ground with respondent, he was still mad, was yelling and that after respondent let him get up, he was still attempting to get free. Another teacher who witnessed a part of the incident stated that Bryant was not in control and that it was difficult to determine what Bryant would do if he were released. Other witnesses who observed portions of the incident testified that respondent had Bryant under control, was holding his arm in a "hammerlock" or "chicken wing" position and that Bryant was complaining that respondent was hurting his arm. When Assistant Principal Humphries investigated the incident, Bryant complained of bumping his knee, but made no remark concerning his arm. During the preplanning period prior to the 1980-81 school year, teachers at Nims Middle School were not given specific instructions or guidelines as to how to break up a fight between two or more students. Subsequent to the October 31, 1980, incident described herein, teachers were instructed that in cases of student fightings, they may use whatever force is necessary to break up the fight and that they have a right to defend themselves and protect other students. Generally, the amount of force to be used will be a judgment call on the part of the teacher dependent upon the specific situation. On November 30, 1979, a letter written by Devurn H. Glenn, the former Principal of Nims Middle School, concerning respondent's actions when stopping a fight between two students on November 8, 1979, was placed in respondent's personnel file. This letter states that ". . . while you were carrying out your duty in stopping the fight, the amount of force used by you was in excess of the minimum necessary to bring the fight to a conclusion. In light of the above finding, I instruct you to use more restraint in dealing with similar situations in the future."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Notice of Charges filed against the respondent Richard Stephens be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Johnson 2757 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Pamela L. Cooper Staff Counsel Florida Teaching Profession-NEA 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles Couch, Superintendent Leon County School Board 2757 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32312
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Petition For Dismissal, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment on professional service contract and directing payment to him of back pay and attendant benefits withheld from the date of his suspension to the date of his effective reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent The School Board of Palm Beach County Florida 3323 Belvedere Road Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the act alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 891417. Respondent was first employed as a teacher at River Ridge Middle School ("River Ridge") in the Pasco County School District in August 2003, under a ten-month contract. During the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent taught sixth-grade geography at River Ridge. On April 15, 2004, during the five-minute period while classes were changing and before the fourth-period class started, Respondent left his classroom to go to the faculty bathroom. Prior to leaving the classroom, Respondent announced to the class that there would be a "pop quiz" that day and told them to sit down, study their notes, and/or read the book. Respondent was gone no longer than five minutes. When Respondent returned to the classroom, M.M. and one of his friends, another student, were standing up "play fighting." This "play fighting" involved the two students pushing each other. Upon observing the two students pushing each other, Respondent reasonably, but mistakenly, believed the two students were fighting and took immediate action consistent with that belief. Respondent approached M.M. and the other student and yelled at them, "Break it up!" Respondent then pushed or grabbed M.M.'s shoulder, pivoting him around Respondent, in an attempt to separate him from the other student. Immediately thereafter, while Respondent was turning toward the other student, he heard a commotion, which presumably was M.M. falling on the floor.2/ Immediately after Respondent grabbed or pushed M.M., he (M.M.) fell on the floor. Prior to landing on the floor, M.M.'s back hit the corner of a nearby table.3/ As a result of hitting the table, M.M. testified that he had a bruise on his back. However, there was no evidence to substantiate this claim, including evidence as to the severity of that alleged injury or whether it required medical attention. When M.M. got up from the floor, Respondent walked M.M. over to his seat. At first, M.M. sat in his assigned seat, but then he got up from his seat and "got in Respondent's face." During this confrontation, Respondent told M.M. that he was tired of dealing with him and to go to the principal's office. Initially, M.M. didn't move, but just stood there facing Respondent. Eventually, M.M. left the classroom and went to the principal's office. However, before he left the classroom, M.M. told Respondent, "I'll get you." M.M. was embarrassed by the incident. When M.M. arrived at the principal's office, he told John Joens, the school principal, that Respondent had pushed him down. In addition to M.M.'s verbal account of the incident, he also gave Principal Joens a written statement concerning the incident.4/ After Principal Joens listened to M.M.'s account of the incident, he also discussed the incident with Respondent. Respondent told Principal Joens that he was trying to break up a confrontation between M.M. and another student. To do so, Respondent explained that he grabbed M.M. by the shoulders, pivoted the student around behind him [Respondent] to move M.M. behind him, and then turned back to the other student. In discussing the incident with Principal Joens, Respondent also reported that after M.M. fell to the floor, he told M.M., "I know you're embarrassed but you have to go sit down." Finally, with regard to students who may have seen the incident, Respondent told Principal Joens that given the seating arrangement in the classroom, most of the students could not have had a clear vision of what happened. After listening to Respondent's explanation about the incident, Principal Joens' primary question to Respondent was how the student ended up on the floor. However, Respondent was unable to answer that question, because he was not sure how M.M. ended up on the floor. After listening to Respondent's explanation, Principal Joens could not understand or determine how M.M. had ended up on the floor. Therefore, in an effort to ascertain what had actually happened, Principal Joens decided to identify and interview as many students as possible who were eyewitnesses to the incident. As part of his investigation of the subject incident, Principal Joens interviewed 16 or 17 students who were in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004. He also had the students to prepare and give him written statements about what, if anything, they observed relative to the incident. After Principal Joens completed his investigation, which consisted of input from M.M., information provided in student interviews, and Respondent's explanation and responses, he still could not determine how M.M. landed on the floor. On the day of the incident, except for two student desks and two tables, where a total of four students sat, the front of all of the student desks faced south; the backs of those desks faced north, which was the area of the classroom where the incident occurred. Therefore, in order to observe the incident, the students sitting at their desks would have had to get up from their seats or turn around in their seats. Two of the students who were in Respondent's fourth- period class on April 15, 2004, testified at this proceeding. Both students were credible witnesses. However, given the lapse of time since the incident (almost four years) and the proximity of their desks to the area where the incident occurred, it is understandable that there were details that they could not clearly recall, if they ever knew those details, or the sequence of the events. J.W., a student in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004, recalled that when Respondent entered the classroom that day, he approached M.M. and two other students who were pushing each other around and told them, "Break it up!" J.W. also testified that "they [presumably Respondent and M.M.] were arguing and Respondent pushed M.M. down and M.M. fell on the floor." When J.W. observed the incident, he was sitting at his desk, which was three rows from the area of the classroom where the incident occurred. J.W. testified that in order to see the incident, he had to turn around in his seat or look over his left shoulder, since the back of his desk faced the area where the incident occurred. D.L., a student in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004, testified that she recalled that Respondent pushed M.M. on the shoulder area and then M.M. hit the table and then fell to the chair. She did not recall M.M. falling or ending up on the floor. Furthermore, D.L. did not know the reason Respondent pushed M.M. or even if there was a reason for pushing him. When D.L. observed the incident, she was sitting at her desk, which was in the last of five rows of desks in Respondent's classroom and the row farthest from the area in the classroom where the incident occurred. The back of D.L.'s desk faced the area where the incident occurred, and in order to see the incident, she had to turn around. According to Principal Joens, the only reason an adult "gets between two students is to provide . . . [for] the safety of that student or the other student's [safety]." In this case, Principal Joens testified that he does not believe that any student's safety was in danger and, thus, there was no need for Respondent to touch M.M. and "use that force." Two days after the incident, Respondent resigned from his teaching position at River Ridge. During the eight months that Respondent was teaching at River Ridge, Principal Joens observed Respondent while he was teaching and interacting with the students. Principal Joens described Respondent's interactions with students during those observations as positive. Moreover, two former students who were in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004, testified that Respondent was a good teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 066623, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior College, Reading, Early Childhood Education and Administration and Supervision. She has earned a bachelor's and master's degree, and a doctorate. Until her suspension in August, 1982, she served as Principal of West Riviera Elementary School ("West Riviera") in the Palm Beach County School District. On January 24, 1983, a final order was entered by the Palm Beach County School Board dismissing her from her employment and cancelling her continuing contract with the district. During Respondent's tenure as Principal at West Riviera, (1973-1982) it was her policy to maintain and rigorously enforce strict discipline, or as she put it, "law and order." Her approach to maintaining "law and order" is illustrated by the following events. When Marie Rusch joined West Riviera as a substitute Kindergarten teacher in October of 1979, Respondent explained that she wanted Ms. Rusch to maintain law and order in the school: "I don't care if these children learn nothing, I want law and order." Ms. Rusch was surprised by Respondent's attitude, particularly with regard to kindergarten children. This was Ms. Rusch's first opportunity to teach in a public school. During a conference in 1973 with Nancy Pullam, (another kindergarten teacher) regarding student behavior, Respondent gave Ms. Pullam two or more rulers taped together with masking tape and told "her beat them and they will learn." Respondent passed out 18" rulers to each member of the teaching staff at West Riviera and told them that she expected them to use the rulers in administering corporal punishment. Until on or about May 7, 1980, Respondent permitted teachers to administer corporal punishment in their classrooms, contrary to Palm Beach County School Board Policy 5.18(9). She permitted teachers to administer corporal punishment for any type of misbehavior until she changed that policy on or about March 12, 1982. At that time, she advised her faculty that corporal punishment was to be administered only for fighting and foul language. Prior to March 12, 1982, Respondent failed to set any guidelines for the faculty at West Riviera concerning offenses or infractions for which corporal punishment was authorized. In her view, the only "offense" which did not warrant corporal punishment was the failure of a student to do his assigned classwork. The only alternatives to corporal punishment utilized at West Riviera were suspension from school or deprivation of a fun activity (including depriving a student of physical education or use of the library). If a child would not accept paddling, it was Respondent's policy that the student be automatically suspended for a period of five days. Respondent constantly emphasized her philosophy of strict law and order through her use of the expression "Your behind is mine," meaning that if a child misbehaved he or she would receive a paddling. Respondent repeatedly used this expression in addressing children, faculty and staff, both personally and over the school's public address system. Respondent's manner of administering West Riviera created a fearful and military-like atmosphere. She often told teachers that she wanted it so quiet in faculty meetings, and in classrooms, that she could "hear a rat piss on cotton." When Marjorie Russo was hired to teach third grade, Respondent told her that corporal punishment used at West Riviera. Respondent told the faculty at the beginning of each school year that they each had a paddle, and she expected them to keep law and order. It they didn't, they would be "blackballed" in the county. Respondent told substitute teachers that her primary concern was that they maintain law and order, that she didn't care whether the substitute taught the children anything. Dr. Howard Levarity, Assistant Principal at West Riviera, became concerned about the extent to which corporal punishment was utilized under Respondent's administration. He was so concerned that he tried to transfer to another school. He observed occasions when children were corporally punished without good reason. At West Riviera, teachers were given great latitude in administering corporal punishment so that "law and order" - as defined by respondent - could be maintained. As a result of Respondent's policies regarding the use of corporal punishment, there were 3,246 separate instances in which students were administered corporal punishment during the 1979-1980 school year. A total of 451 students (78% of the school's students, ranging in number from 576 to 607) received corporal punishment during that school year. During the 1980-1981 school year, there were 1,176 instances in which corporal punishment was administered to students. Out of a school population of 550 students, 290 (52.8%) received corporal punishment during that year. During the 1981-1982 school year, there were 560 separate instances of corporal punishment. Out of a school population of 537, 214 students (40.9%) received corporal punishment during that year. Although most of these punishments were not administered in Respondent's presence, their frequency was a direct result of her policy to encourage - even insist - that corporal punishment be applied to maintain law and order. During the 1979-1980 school year, fourth grade student Greg Aronson was corporally punished 59 times. Greg's mother was never notified by the school that he received corporal punishment on 70 different occasions. Second grade student Sterling DeShields received corporal punishment on 45 occasions. Fourth grade student Robert Duguette received corporal punishment on 61 occasions. Fourth grade student Steve Geck received corporal punishment on 43 occasions. Sixth grade student Thomas Gradison received corporal punishment on 48 occasions, four of which occurred within a one hour period of time on October 25, 1979. In each instance, Thomas received the maximum of 5 strokes, for a total of 20 strokes within one hour. Fourth grade student Keith Griffin received corporal punishment on 52 occasions. Lucius Jackson, a fifth grade student, received corporal punishment on 44 occasions, three of which occurred during the morning of December 6, 1979. In each of his 44 paddling, Lucius received the maximum of 5 strokes. Fourth grade student Mark Nunnally received corporal punishment on 41 occasions. David Pender, a fourth grade student, received corporal punishment 58 occasions. Second grade student Cameron Walker received corporal punishment on 38 occasions, with Respondent administering 17 of the paddling. Fourth grade student Elinor Williams received 34 paddling. Kindergarten student Leonard Williams received 31 paddling, three of which occurred within one and one-half hours on the morning of September 18, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) During the 1980-1981 school year, Greg Aronson received another 8 paddling, but again his parents were never notified. Lucius Jackson was corporally punished on 55 occasions. Lucius received 4 paddling on February 11, 1981, totaling 20 strokes. Fourth grade student Rufus Mitchell was administered corporal punishment on 25 occasions, two of which were eight minutes apart on October 15, 1980. Rufus received the maximum of 5 strokes during each of these paddling. Fourth grade student Lendrick McGrady was paddled 30 times. Sixth grade student Mark Oats received corporal punishment on 30 occasions. Sixth grade student Kenneth Studstill received corporal punishment on 28 occasions. Sixth grade student Hurie Whitfield received corporal punishment on 26 occasions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Although Respondent admitted that corporal punishment was ineffective for Lucius Jackson, he was paddled 44 times during the 1979-1980 school year, 55 times during the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent witnessed each of the 4 paddling which Lucius received on May 8, 1981, near the end of that school year. Although student William Dinkins was administered corporal punishment in 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 school years, his mother was never notified of the punishment, contrary to Administrative Directive D-5.35(9) of the Palm Beach County School Board. Respondent used excessive and unreasonable force on numerous occasions when she personally administered corporal punishment to elementary school students at West Riviera. Many times, she interrupted paddling which were being administered by teacher. She would take the paddle from the teacher and administer the punishment herself, because the teacher, in her view, was not striking the child hard enough. On one occasion, Respondent interrupted teacher Vickie Culton and took over the paddling because Ms. Culton was not hitting the child hard enough. When the child pulled away, Respondent followed him around the room, striking him repeatedly. The child received more than the maximum 5 strokes allowable under school board policy. In paddling another kindergarten child named Theron, Respondent pushed his head against a wall, causing him to scream and cry to such an extent that teachers stuck their heads into the hall to see what was happening. On another occasion, Respondent took Theron into a bathroom and paddled him while his classmates and teacher listened in the adjacent classroom. Respondent had just paddled Theron in her office and brought him back to the classroom. Since he continued to scream and cry, she administered the second paddling in the bathroom. Respondent interrupted Ms. Culton's paddling several times because Respondent felt she was not hitting the child hard enough. Teacher Joyce Wojtowicz had the same experience. On one occasion, she was paddling a third grade student named Carol, while Respondent observed a as a witness. Respondent interrupted the paddling and proceeded to give the girl a severe paddling, administering five strokes. In the meantime, another third grade student, Tammy was standing nearby watching. When Respondent finished paddling Carol, Tammy was shaking violently; terrified, she began to vomit. Ms. Wojtowicz was also shaken by the severity of the paddling. Respondent gave some tissue to Tammy, ordered her to clean up the vomit, and told her that she was not going to avoid paddling by throwing up. After cleaning up the vomit, Respondent paddled Tammy, giving her the maximum 5 strokes. On another occasion, Ms. Wojtowicz overheard Respondent administering corporal punishment to a child in the school clinic. As Respondent hit the child with the paddle, Ms. Wojtowicz heard Respondent say, "Are you going to piss on my carpet?" As the child was given another stroke, Respondent said, "Are you going to pee on my floor?" As Ms. Wojtowicz walked out of the bathroom, she saw that Respondent was paddling a small kindergarten child. With each stroke, the child's feet went out from under him. Another teacher, Leslie Smith, witnessed Respondent paddle a five year old kindergarten boy. Respondent hit the boy very hard on the first stroke causing him to fall on the floor, then struck him two or three times while he was on the floor. Another teacher, Marcie Ann Wolfe, sent a student with an emotional problem to the office for the purpose of having Respondent talk to him. Instead, the student returned with a disciplinary slip indicating that Respondent had paddled him. At that point, Ms. Wolfe resolved that she would no longer send students to the office for discipline. Teacher Lynne McDowell witnessed Respondent administer corporal punishment to third grade student Craig Griffin. Craig had never been paddled at school before, and he resisted Ms. McDowell's attempt to paddle him in the office. Respondent intervened, took the paddle from Ms. McDowell, and administered the paddling to Craig, striking him wherever the blows fell -- on his legs and hands. Ms. McDowell observed Respondent administer a severe paddling to another student, Shawn, with the strokes landing so hard that it "rang my ears." If a child moved or fidgeted while Respondent was paddling them, she would start over. Third grade teacher Marjorie Russo observed Respondent paddle a kindergarten or first grade boy so hard that he came up off the floor. The little boy managed to get away from Respondent and tried to go under her desk. Respondent kept hitting him while he was on the floor. In Ms. Russo's view, Respondent hit the child "ridiculously hard" for a boy that size. Kindergarten teacher Mary Rudin witnessed Respondent administer corporal punishment to kindergarten student James J. Martin in her class and in the presence of other students. Ms. Rudin had asked James to make some circles on a piece of paper, but he refused. So, Ms. Rudin asked Respondent to come to her class in an effort to get James to cooperate. Respondent then asked James to perform the task; again he refused. At that point, Respondent administered five strokes to James. She sat him down and again requested that he perform the task. Once again he refused, and once again, she stood him up and gave him five more strokes. She then made a third request for him to perform the task; he responded, "I'll do it if you get away from me." This angered Respondent. She picked him up again and paddled him a third time. After the third paddling, James performed the task. He never returned to his class after that day because he was withdrawn from school by his parents. His father, James Martin, a teacher at Suncoast High School removed James because of the severity of the paddling. Photographs taken two days after the paddling show pronounced red marks from the to of his buttocks half way down his legs to hi knees. When Mr. Martin and his wife first observed the marks, they called their doctor, who agreed to see them that evening. The doctor was shocked by what he saw, and advised that he would have to report the case as an incident of child abuse. He recommended that Mr. Martin consult an attorney. Mr. Martin spoke to Respondent the following day. She apologized, explaining that she "lost her cool." Mr. Martin went to James' classroom to get his belongings; however, James would not go inside. He remained outside in the hallway, visibly shaken. In addition to Mr. Martin, Barbara Wright and Betty Deurloo complained to the school about their children being subjected to excessive punishment. Like Mr. Martin, Ms. Wright and Ms. Deurloo removed their children from West Riviera. In Respondent's view, if a student constantly wet his pants, it was an offense warranting corporal punishment. Although Respondent testified that the only "offense" that did not justify corporal punishment was when a child refused to do his or her lesson, the testimony of Ms. Rudin and Mr. Martin indicates that Respondent did not follow her own guideline. On numerous occasions, Respondent used profanity and made inappropriate, improper, and unprofessional remarks to students at West Riviera. After paddling a student named Lawrence in her office on April 14, 1982, Respondent told Lawrence to sit down. She pointed to a heater cord and threatened to tie him up with the heater cord if he didn't sit still. Respondent told Leslie Smith's kindergarten class that if they didn't shut up she would "kick their butts through the ceiling and kill them all." Respondent referred to a female student in Ms. Wojtowicz's class named Carolyn as a "thug." Respondent told Janet Zendel's first grade students who were line up to go to the bathroom, "If you've got to piss, piss, but there's not going to be no line." Respondent asked one of Mary Rudin's kindergarten students, "What are you looking at me for? Do I have piss all over my face?" She used a loud and sarcastic tone of voice. On another occasion when a child apparently urinated in a stairwell, Respondent announced over the public address system at the school, in a loud, angry voice, "Someone peed in my stairwell. When I find out who it is, I am going to beat you bloody, bloody, bloody." Respondent repeated this several times, reiterating that when she found out who the offender was, she would beat them "bloody, bloody, bloody." Respondent also used profanity in addressing members of the faculty and staff at West Riviera. She often told faculty members, "Get your shit together," and "I want it so quiet that I can hear a rat piss on cotton." Respondent commented to Jill Proce that she wanted Ms. Proce to take her paycheck and "buy some damn pants." During the first faculty meeting of the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent discussed the possibility of angry parents using profanity toward teachers. Respondent made a remark to the effect that teachers might even be called "mother fuckers." Respondent then defined the term mother fucker, and asked a faculty member, "How do you know I didn't fuck my mother?" Teacher Roma Smith heard Respondent use profane words such as fuck, shit, piss and mother fucker, in faculty meetings at West Riviera. After accusing teacher Mary Rudin of being insubordinate for not setting up tables in the hallway for registration, Respondent told Ms. Rudin, "do you see that doorway there? Don't let it hit you on the ass on your way out, if you don't like it here at West Riviera." At a preschool meeting before the commencement of the 1975-1976 school year Respondent presided over a faculty meeting wearing a T-shirt with a picture of excrement on it and the caption, "Get your shit together." Respondent used improper, inappropriate and unprofessional language in addressing faculty members at West Riviera. AT the end of Jill Proce's first day as a teacher at West Riviera, Respondent called Ms. Proce into her office, pulled her (Respondent's) pants up tight between her legs and told Ms. Proce, "This is the way you look with the lips of your vagina hanging out." Respondent asked Ms. Proce what she was trying to do to the fourth grade boys, if she was trying to give them some ideas. Respondent then proceeded to tell Ms. Proce that if Respondent was a parent and she walked into Ms. Proce's classroom, she would think that her child was being taught by a prostitute. Ms. Proce's pants were not too tight, and she was dressed appropriately for an elementary school teacher. At the beginning of each year, Respondent issued handbooks to her teachers, with instructions that they had a paddle and respondent expected them to keep law and order. If they did not keep law and order, Respondent told them they could be "blackballed" in the county. After Respondent walked in Ms. McDowell's classroom one day and found the students noisy and disorganized, she told Ms. McDowell in a conference that Respondent had friends in high places; that if she did not shape up, she would have her blackballed in Palm Beach County and she would never teach there again. After buying new clothes in an effort to meet Respondent's criticisms regarding her attire, Ms. Proce approached Respondent one day and asked her if the clothes she was wearing were suitable. Respondent answered by saying that Ms. Proce wasn't there to suit her, she was there to suit her job, and if she didn't like it she could be blackballed of Palm Beach County. On another occasion, Respondent yelled at teacher Joyce Washington in front of Ms. Washington's class, accusing her of losing a student's medical form. Ms. Washington had not lost the student's medical form. Respondent told her if she could not get her act together, that she was going to lose her job, which she spelled out "J...O...B." During the 1981-1982 school year, primary resource teacher Patsy McClain received a telephone call from Respondent, who at the time was admitted to the Palm Beach Gardens Hospital. Respondent asked Ms. McClain to bring two students to the hospital for the purpose of braiding Respondent's hair. After getting the Assistant Principal's permission, Ms. McClain selected two girls, Elinor Williams and Jamilia Dailey. After getting permission from their parents, she drove them to Palm Beach Gardens Hospital. The girls were taken out of school in mid-morning and were gone approximately two hours. AT the hospital, they braided Respondent's hair. In November 1980, Respondent approached teacher Joyce Washington during an open house at West Riviera and instructed Ms. Washington to change student Joshua Logan's grades to all "S's." Ms. Washington had previously prepared her report cards, and had issued several "U's," indicating unsatisfactory, to Joshua. Respondent told Ms. Washington to change his grades to "S's" and to give Joshua all "S's," indicating satisfactory, on his report card for the remainder of the year. The reason given was that she did not want any more hassles from the child's parents. Although in Ms. Washington's opinion Joshua's work did not warrant all "S's," she nevertheless gave the child "S's" for the remainder of the school year. When the other students in Ms. Washington's class learned of Joshua's new grades, their grades started going down. Many teachers were frightened by Respondent and taught in an oppressive atmosphere of tension and intimidation. Jill Proce had begun to look for other employment in another county. Music could not be taught except at Christmas. Music books and instruments were removed from the classrooms. So were record players. Crayons were removed out of fear that students would get crayon marks on the floors. Joyce Washington intended to seek a transfer, but volunteered to leave West Riviera when an opening occurred elsewhere. Assistant Principal Levarity tried to get a transfer because of Respondent's heaving reliance on corporal punishment. During the fall of 1979, Fran Gill, North Area Superintendent for the Palm Beach County School District, spoke to Respondent about administration of corporal punishment at West Riviera. Ms. Gill had been advised that teachers were administering corporal punishment to student sin the classroom, in violation of school board policy and administrative directive. During that meeting, Ms. Gill explained to Respondent that she must follow the school board's Administrative Directive D5.35 and gave Respondent a copy. Among other things, this directive required that the Principal or his/her administrative designee must, in ever case, determine the necessity for corporal punishment and, in ever case, designate the time, place and member of the instructional staff who will administer the punishment. In addition, the directive provided that no teacher may be required to administer corporal punishment. Notwithstanding Ms. Gill's directive to comply with Administrative Directive D5.35, Respondent continued to require teachers to administer corporal punishment to students in the classroom in order to maintain law and order at West Riviera. When Ms. Gill again became aware in May 1980 of Respondent's noncompliance with the directive, she called her and asked whether students were still being paddled in the classroom. Respondent indicated that she was still permitting students to be paddled in the classroom by teachers. This conversation occurred on May 6, 1980. ON May 8, 1980, Ms. Gill confirmed their conversation in a written memorandum to Respondent, emphasizing her prior verbal instructions. In March of 1982, Ms. Gill again met with Respondent regarding concerns expressed to her by parents. Ms. Gill found that the directive was not being followed, and that the only change which had been made was that children were being brought to the office to be paddled. The teachers were still exercising their discretion as to whether or not corporal punishment would be administered, and parents were not being contacted beforehand. Ms. Gill expressed her concern to Respondent regarding her failure to follow the school board's administrative directive. Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Gill, date March 12, 1982, in response to Ms. Gill's concerns. In her letter, Respondent states, "I held a faculty meeting this morning and explained to teachers that we will no longer paddle students for every misbehavior." As a result of Respondent's failure to follow her specific instructions concerning adherence to school board policy and administrative directives relating to administration of corporal punishment, Ms. Gill prepared a list of fourteen specific questions for Respondent to answer regarding corporal punishment at West Riviera. Respondent received the written questions on March 18, 1982, and furnished her written responses on March 31, 1982. Respondent provided false answers to these questions. In response to question one, Respondent falsely stated that in each instance of inappropriate behavior the teacher brought the student to the office and conferred with the Principal or Assistant Principal prior to utilizing corporal punishment. In response to question three, Respondent falsely indicated that teachers were not required to paddle students. In response to question six, Respondent falsely indicated that whenever a student received corporal punishment for the first or second time, a copy of the student discipline referral slip was sent to their parents. In response to question seven, Respondent indicated that the alternatives to corporal punishment were in-house suspension or suspension from school, when in fact the alternatives utilized at West Riviera included depriving the student of attending physical education or utilizing the library. In response to question eleven, Respondent failed to indicate that alternative types of punishment included depriving the student of physical education or use of the library. In response to question thirteen concerning changes made in the administration of corporal punishment within the past three years, Respondent replied that she had complied with Ms. Gill's instructions on May 6, 1980, to refrain from allowing teachers to paddle students in their classroom. In fact, Respondent continued to permit teachers to determine whether corporal punishment was appropriate and to administer it at their discretion. Although Respondent testified that failing to do one's school work did not warrant corporal punishment, Respondent administered three consecutive paddling to kindergarten student J.J. Martin for failing to do a handwriting lesson. Although Respondent changed her policy in March, 1982 by restricting the use of corporal punishment to cases of fighting or foul language, she later administered corporal punishment to one of Ms. Wolfe's students for misbehaving in her class. Ms. Wolfe had specifically requested that Respondent talk to the student, not paddle him. Respondent admits that she did not follow Administrative Directive D5.35 prior to May 7, 1980. Yet Fran Gill had specifically directed her to comply with that directive and school board policy concerning corporal punishment in the Fall of 1979. Respondent failed to prepare guidelines for administering corporal punishment at West Riviera which identified the types of punishable offenses, the conditions under which the punishment would be administered and the specific personnel on the school staff authorized to administer the punishment, contrary to Section 232.27(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent ridiculed and humiliated children by paddling them in their classrooms in the presence of their classmates on several occasions, contrary to Administrative Directive D5.35(4). She used profane and abusive language with them. In the professional opinion of Kenneth Schrimsher, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations with the Palm Beach School Board, the number of incidents of corporal punishment administered at West Riviera during the 1979-1980 school year was excessive. In his view, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board has been seriously reduced. His opinion is credible and accepted as persuasive. Despite the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that prevailed at West Riviera during Respondent's tenure, student achievement on standardized tests improved dramatically. When she arrived at West Riviera, it was among the five worst schools in the county, rated by test scores; when she left in 1982, it was among the top five, out of a total of more than 50 elementary schools. Her methods also caused West Riviera to become one of the cleanest and best maintained elementary schools in the county. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for five (5) years (with opportunity for reapplication) for violation of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 128 Salem Court Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Holland, Esquire 605 Clematis Street Post Office Box 2648 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2648 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, specifically Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Chavero holds a Florida Educator's Certificate that is currently valid. Chavero was employed as a public school teacher in the Dade County School District at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In the 1999-2000 school year, Chavero taught English and math at Braddock. All of his students were enrolled in an Alternative Education Program known as the STARS Program. The STARS Program is offered as a last resort to students who, because of bad behavior, poor grades, or other problems, need extra assistance and attention to remain in school. If a student in the STARS Program fails to perform satisfactorily, he or she may be expelled. Chavero believed that student misconduct and a general lack of discipline at Braddock (and other schools) were preventing pupils from learning and teachers from teaching. Consistent with his pedagogic philosophy, Chavero aspired to teach his students not only the content of a course but also such social skills as proper behavior, dress, and manners. Braddock's Principal, Dr. Donald Hoecherl, disagreed with Chavero's view that behavior and social skills should be taught in the classroom. Principal Hoecherl told Chavero not to teach his students how to conduct themselves in socially acceptable ways. Apparently, the principal's admonition reflected the administration's sensitivity to the perceived "low self-esteem" of students in the STARS Program. Chavero was expected to be flexible and to refrain from confronting students or "coming on too strong" with them. This type of teaching was completely out of character for Chavero. Predictably, he was not able to abandon the authoritarian style that suited his personality and beliefs. As a result, Chavero developed a reputation as a strict disciplinarian — but "nothing out of the ordinary," in the words of V. D., a former student who testified against him at hearing. Transcript ("T-") 49. Indeed, according to this same student, Chavero's classroom rules were "pretty much the same" as other teachers'. T-49. Students began to complain, however, that Chavero was making too frequent use of a form of punishment called an “exclusion.” An exclusion is a temporary in-school suspension that the teacher may impose when a student is disrupting the class. Upon being excluded, the misbehaving student must leave the classroom and spend the remainder of the period in detention at another location. Assistant Principal Jane Garraux investigated the student complaints and concluded that Chavero’s use of the exclusion was excessive. She also determined that most of Chavero’s students (as many as 70 percent) were failing his classes. By comparison, other teachers in the STARS Program were giving passing grades to between 80 and 95 percent of their students. Following her investigation, the assistant principal initiated an evaluation of Chavero in November 1999 that led to the identification of performance deficiencies in the area of classroom control. He was placed on a 90-day performance probation and, as a result, needed to correct the identified deficiencies within that period or face termination of employment. See Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. While on performance probation, Chavero was observed and evaluated several times. In the opinion of his assessors, Chavero’s performance continued to be unsatisfactory. In February 2000, he resigned. 2/ The Commissioner sought to prove that, in the months leading to his resignation, Chavero: (a) refused, on occasion, to answer students’ questions about lessons and assignments; (b) used the exclusion tool excessively, in relation to other teachers in the STARS Program; (c) demanded more from his students in terms of academic performance and classroom decorum than his colleagues were requiring; and (d) became angry and raised his voice in class at times. This is not a proceeding to terminate Chavero’s employment, however, and poor performance does not constitute a basis for discipline under Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes — not, at least, without more than has been shown here. 3/ Therefore, even if all the general deficiencies in Chavero’s performance that the Commissioner attempted to prove at hearing were found to have existed, none amounts to a violation either of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There were, however, two specific occasions on which Chavero allegedly lost his temper and threatened the physical safety of a student or students. Together, these particular instances are the heart of the Commissioner’s case against Chavero and therefore require closer scrutiny. The First Period Incident On January 27, 2000, Chavero gave his first period class a mid-term examination. Near the end of the period, Chavero allowed the students who had completed the test to talk quietly, provided they would not bother the few who were still working. V. D. and J. A., who were sitting together in the back of the room, began conversing with one another. The class soon began to get loud, and Chavero told the students to be quiet. He held up V. D. and J. A. as an example of how he would like the class to behave, saying: "Why can't you guys whisper like J. A. and V. D." The class momentarily calmed down but quickly became noisy again. Chavero began to get angry. He told the students to lower their voices. V. D. continued to talk, and Chavero yelled at her to be quiet. Instead of obeying, V. D. denied that she had been talking loudly, which caused Chavero to yell at her some more. V. D. asked Chavero not to scream at her; he did not stop. At some point during this exchange, V. D. said to Chavero: “What the f*** is your problem?” Enraged, Chavero slammed his fist on a desk and moved quickly toward V. D. Some students, including V. D. and J. A., recall that as Chavero approached V. D., he raised his open hand, palm facing forward, as if to strike her. A number of other students, however, in written statements prepared on January 27, 2000, made no mention of the teacher’s raised hand. For his part, Chavero adamantly denied having raised his hand against V. D. V. D.’s immediate reaction suggests that she was not intimidated or frightened by Chavero’s rapid approach, regardless where his hand was. V. D. testified that she “lost [her] temper,” “got up and . . . exchanged a few words” with Chavero. T-55. More important, it is undisputed that Chavero did not touch V. D. Rather, he returned to his desk at the front of the class to write a “referral” — that is, a written account of V. D.’s misconduct that would be provided to the assistant principal for further handling. V. D. gathered her belongings and left the room. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to hit V. D. or to cause her unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that V. D. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that V. D. was in danger of likely being harmed in Chavero’s classroom on January 27, 2000. As a result, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety. The Third Period Incident R. G. was a student in Chavero’s third period math class. R. G.’s academic performance was extremely poor, and he frequently was excluded for bad behavior. He was defiant and aggressive, openly challenged Chavero’s authority, and, on at least one occasion, threw staples at the teacher. One day — the precise date of this event is not clear, but it apparently occured after January 27, 2000 — R. G. was in Chavero’s class, sitting in the back, not doing his assignment. Because R. G. was refusing to do his schoolwork, Chavero wrote a referral to send him to the assistant principal. R. G. testified that before Chavero wrote the referral, he had insulted R. G. by saying that his (R. G.’s) mother was raising an animal. However, another of Chavero’s former students named F. V., who witnessed this particular incident and testified at hearing on the Commissioner’s behalf, did not hear Chavero make this remark to R. G. Indeed, F. V. testified that he had never heard Chavero make rude or disrespectful comments to his students, nor had he observed Chavero become angry with the class. Chavero denied having insulted R. G., and the evidence supports his denial. After Chavero had filled out the referral, R. G. rose from his seat and approached Chavero’s desk. R. G. reached out to snatch the referral from Chavero’s hand in a manner that, according to F. V., was apparently intended “just to . . . annoy” Chavero. T-93. Specifically, as R. G. grabbed for the referral, he made a feint toward Chavero’s grade book. As F. V. explained, it was well known that Chavero “didn’t like it when people touched [his] grade book.” T-93. In the process, R. G. may have hit Chavero’s hand, although he denied having done so. Reacting to R. G.’s provocative act, Chavero slapped R. G.’s hand away. R. G. was neither injured nor embarrassed by this. Rather, he became angry and began yelling and cursing at Chavero, insulting him. Both R. G. and F. V. recalled that Chavero then said to R. G., “Oh, hit me if you’re a man,” or words to that effect. Chavero, however, testified that his exact statement to R. G. was: “[I]f you try to be physical you’ll get in trouble.” T-124. Chavero was the most credible witness of the three. After Chavero warned R. G. not to become physical, R. G. left the classroom. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to harm R. G. or to cause him unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that R. G. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that R. G. was in danger of likely being hurt in Chavero’s classroom on the day of the third period incident. To the contrary, it appears that R. G.’s aggressive and provocative behavior may have threatened Chavero’s physical safety. Consequently, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Armando M. Chavero. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2001.
The Issue The primary issue is whether Respondent committed the acts as alleged. The factual allegations were that the Respondent had made obscene, unprofessional and inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature to a female student; that Respondent filed or caused to be filed a lawsuit against the complainant in this cause; that Respondent had the complainant in this cause turn around in front of the Respondent and a group of male students in the class and made comments concerning the fact she was a female; and lastly, that the Respondent failed to discipline a student who had allegedly grabbed the complainant by the breast in Respondent's class. The acts are alleged to be contrary to Section 231.36(4), and Rules 6B-4.09 and 1.06, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Jamie Antonovich is a female student at Countryside High School, Pinellas County, Florida. She will be in the twelfth grade during the 1984-85 school year. Jamie Antonovich was a student at Countryside High School in the ninth grade where she was in the Respondent's manufacturing class. At that time she was 14 years of age. The manufacturing class was the only class which Antonovich had with the Respondent. At the commencement of the manufacturing class sessions, the Respondent, noting that the roll for his class reflected that Jamie Antonovich was a male, called Antonovich to the front of the room and had her turn around in front of the students in the class. Respondent asked the male students "Does that look like a male to you?" The Respondent does not dispute the fact that he filed a lawsuit against Antonovich, however, no evidence was presented as to the nature of this suit. In April 1982, the Respondent did not punish the student Vernon Goins for grabbing Jamie Antonovich's breast while Goins and Antonovich were engaged in horseplay in class. The Respondent was not a witness to the incident and evidence existed that Antonovich had initiated the physical horseplay with Goins. Antonovich testified that in the same month the Respondent asked her sexually explicit questions and made sexually explicit comments to her. The Respondent denies making any sexually explicit comments to Antonovich or asking her sexually explicit questions. Neither Antonovich nor the Respondent are disinterested witnesses in this proceeding. Both witnesses are equally credible.
Recommendation Having found that the allegations of the administrative complaint, were not proven, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint against the respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Usher L. Brown, Esquire 1960 E. Druid Road P. O. Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Robert F. McKee, Esquire 401 South Albany Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Scott N. Rose, Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County, Florida 1960 E. Druid Road P. O. Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the actions set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated July 31, 2014, and if so, whether these actions constitute just cause for suspension.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Broward County (School Board) is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals it employs. Respondent is employed by the School Board. As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Respondent’s employment is subject to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ which provides that his employment will not be suspended or terminated except for “just cause.” Respondent is required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures of the School Board of Broward County, Florida. The Incidents At all times relevant to the allegations, Respondent was employed as a physical education (PE) teacher at Riverglades. On January 10, 2014, Respondent was attempting to move his students inside after their time on the playground. One student, S.W., was talking loudly and frustrating Respondent’s efforts. In response to this, Respondent pulled down on S.W.’s arm or wrist and screamed “Be quiet!” in her ear. S.W. was not physically harmed by this incident and did not cry. However, when asked about how the incident made her feel, she testified “not good.” Respondent’s approach was unnecessary, particularly considering that Respondent is over six feet tall and S.W. was a ten-year-old child at the time. Respondent could certainly project authority and correct a student’s inappropriate behavior without the need to resort to physical contact and screaming. After speaking with her teacher, S.W. filed a Bullying Witness Statement Form. Another student, C.B., witnessed the incident and similarly filed a report. On January 15, 2014, Ms. JoAnne Seltzer, intern principal at Riverglades, held an informal conference with Respondent regarding the incident involving S.W. In the conference summary report issued on January 21, 2014, Principal Seltzer notified Respondent of her expectation that Respondent would refrain from touching, embarrassing, screaming at, or demeaning students in the future. This constituted a direct order to Respondent. On February 12, 2014, J.G., a fifth grade student at the time, filed an incident report after Respondent called J.G. by the name “Miguel” on multiple occasions. J.G. is of Hispanic origin, and J.G. believed that Respondent called him “Miguel” in a derogatory manner on the basis of his ethnicity. When J.G. attempted to correct Respondent by telling him his real name, Respondent retorted “same thing.” Respondent contended that he called J.G. “Miguel” because he was confusing J.G. with a second-grader who looked similar to J.G. and whose name was in fact Miguel. This testimony is rejected as not credible. Respondent called J.G. “Miguel” on a great many occasions, and was always corrected by J.G. These instances were not mistakes. They occurred in the middle of the school year, by which time Respondent should have known J.G.’s actual name. It is also uncontroverted that Respondent had a class roster, which should have eliminated any confusion. The purported look-a-like did not testify, nor was there any other corroboration of Respondent’s claim. These incidents occurred in the presence of the entire class, embarrassing J.G. and making him “mad.” On February 25, 2014, Principal Seltzer provided Respondent with a letter directing him to report to her office on February 28, 2014, for a pre-disciplinary meeting regarding his inappropriate conduct. Before Principal Seltzer had an opportunity to hold the meeting with Respondent, on February 27, 2014, C.B., then an 11-year-old student, filed an incident report claiming that Respondent, the day prior, had told C.B. that he was a “loser.” At hearing, C.B. also testified that Respondent called him fat. Student witnesses, as well as Respondent, credibly testified that the “loser” comment was in reference to C.B. losing a game during class. Given that context, it was not shown that the term was used in a derogatory fashion. As for the “fat” comment, Respondent admitted that the other students would joke with C.B. about C.B.’s weight and that Respondent would “laugh with the kids” but maintained he never personally called C.B. any derogatory names. However, two other students, S.W. and J.G., corroborated C.B.’s claim that Respondent called C.B. fat, and this testimony is credited. This incident embarrassed C.B. and made him feel “bad.” Respondent’s behavior was inappropriate. After these new allegations came to light, on February 27, 2014, Principal Seltzer provided Respondent with a second letter informing him of the additional incidents that had been brought to her attention and requesting that he report to her office on March 4, 2014, for his second three-day pre- disciplinary meeting. After the pre-disciplinary meeting, on March 10, 2014, Principal Seltzer recommended that Respondent be suspended for five days. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the recommendation on March 14, 2014. Subsequent to the notice of recommendation, but before its presentation to the School Board, the parents of students S.B., J.B., and K.B., requested a meeting with Principal Seltzer regarding Respondent’s inappropriate behavior in the presence of their children. S.B., a nine-year-old student, credibly testified that on one occasion Respondent, while looking directly at her, said the words “fucking bitch.” The evidence was unclear as to whether Respondent directed those words to S.B. or was speaking to someone else on the phone. Respondent contended that he does not use profanity during class. J.B., a nine-year-old student, and K.B., a seven-year- old student, both testified that they heard Respondent use the words “God dammit” and use profanity on multiple occasions during class. Respondent admitted that he used the words “God dang” during class, but denied that he ever said “dammit.” The children’s testimony is credited. A conference was held on March 19, 2014. The student's mother, Principal Seltzer, Mr. Duhart (the interim assistant principal), and Respondent discussed the allegations brought by S.B., J.B., and K.B. On April 14, 2014, Principal Seltzer held a pre- disciplinary meeting with Respondent to discuss the reports of misconduct that had surfaced after her previous recommendation for a five-day suspension. On April 15, 2014, Principal Seltzer changed her recommendation to a ten-day suspension based upon the additional complaints. Respondent acknowledged receipt of this recommendation on April 23, 2014. Principal Seltzer testified that her ultimate recommendation for a ten-day suspension was based on Respondent’s prior disciplinary history, dating back to 2008, and the fact that his recent misconduct had continued despite repeated warnings. The Amended Administrative Complaint also references reports from students that, on one occasion, Respondent attempted to kick a student in the head. Although J.G.’s, C.B.’s and E.C.’s testimony all mention this incident, the scant details elicited at hearing failed to explain how Respondent could attempt to kick a student in the head from a sitting position. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent tried to kick a student in the head. At hearing, Respondent suggested that the students who filed complaints against him had colluded in an effort to get him fired, but this proposition is rejected. Respondent’s comments and laughing with students about C.B.’s weight and Respondent’s unnecessarily physical and aggressive discipline of S.W. failed to protect these students from conditions harmful to their mental health. Respondent’s actions toward C.B. and his repeated addressing of student J.G. as “Miguel” intentionally exposed these students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement, and the actions toward J.G. also constituted harassment on the basis of race and national or ethnic origin. Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. Respondent engaged in misconduct in office. Respondent used profanity and engaged in other inappropriate communications with students J.G., C.B., S.W., K.B., and S.B. on several occasions. Respondent demonstrated incompetency to discharge his required duties as a teacher as a result of this inefficiency. Respondent intentionally refused to comply with Principal Seltzer’s direct orders not to touch, embarrass, demean, or scream at students. These orders were reasonable in nature. Respondent engaged in gross insubordination. Prior Disciplinary Action On February 13, 2008, the executive director of the School Board’s Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit gave Respondent a written reprimand based upon allegations of assault and battery. The letter stated that there was sufficient basis to establish probable cause and recommend discipline. The letter constituted a disciplinary action taken against Respondent in his position as an educator. On January 14, 2011, the intern principal of Coral Glades High School, Respondent’s employer at the time, held a pre-disciplinary meeting with Respondent based on allegations that he intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. By letter dated January 21, 2011, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for this misconduct. On January 26, 2012, the intern principal of Coral Glades High School, Respondent’s employer at the time, gave Respondent a written reprimand after finding that Respondent had used profanity in the presence of students during a heated argument with a colleague.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order finding Mr. Robert Konnovich guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, and insubordination; and suspending his employment, without pay, for a period of ten days. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 24th day of August, 2015.
The Issue Whether Raymond Wantroba (Respondent), a teacher employed by the School Board of Broward County (School Board), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the School Board and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools (Superintendent). Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2004 and holds a professional services contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). Respondent taught at Lyons Creek for nine years. Respondent has been employed as a teacher for over 25 years. During the 2012-13 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach physical education and a math class at Lyons Creek. Bernard Brennan also taught physical education at Lyons Creek during the 2012-13 school year. S.R., a 13-year-old male, was a seventh grade student at Lyons Creek during the 2012-13 school year. During that school year, Respondent taught S.R. physical education during fourth period, which was the first class after lunch. While the physical education class was coed, students would change from school clothes into gym clothes in non-coed locker rooms and change back into school clothes after concluding the class activity. S.R. had a locker, which he shared with A.D., another male student. S.R. and A.D. kept their school clothes in the locker while they were in their gym clothes. Mr. Brennan knew S.R. and he knew S.R.’s mother, who is a teacher at Lyons Creek. Mr. Brennan joked around with S.R. by hiding his shoes, a backpack, and a jacket on different occasions. Respondent did not typically joke around with S.R. On February 6, 2013, Respondent saw a group of eighth grade male students playing with a woman’s undergarment (lacy, purple panties) during his first period class. Respondent took the underwear and placed it in the office he shared with Mr. Brennan. During lunch hour on February 6, Mr. Barker was resting in Respondent’s office when Respondent placed the panties on Mr. Barker’s leg. Respondent used his cell phone to take a picture of Mr. Barker with the panties on his leg. Mr. Barker heard the cell phone take the picture, gave the panties back to Respondent, and left Respondent’s office. Mr. Barker did not see what Respondent did with the panties. On February 6 during Respondent’s class, S.R. and A.D. changed from their school clothes into their gym clothes. They placed their school clothing and school shoes in the locker they shared. S.R. and A.D. both testified that they locked the locker before leaving the locker room for the class activity.1/ Following the class activity, S.R. and A.D. began to change back into their school clothes. When S.R. tried to put his foot into his shoe, he discovered the panties stuffed into his shoe. When he took the panties out of his shoe, he was among between 30 and 40 classmates, many of whom laughed at him. Respondent was also present and laughed when S.R. took the panties out of his shoe. Respondent asked S.R. if the panties were his and if he wore them every day. S.R. was embarrassed by the incident. Respondent denied at the formal hearing that he put the panties in S.R.’s shoe, and he denied making the statements attributed to him by S.R. and A.D. That denial is not credible in light of the other, more credible evidence presented by the School Board. Respondent asserts that he put the panties in a communal locker near S.R.’s locker because Mr. Brennan wanted to put the panties in S.R.’s locker.2/ Respondent also asserted that he put the panties in the communal locker in an effort to ease his relationship with Mr. Brennan.3/ Mr. Brennan testified, credibly, that he knew nothing about the panties until the following day. S.R.’s mother heard about the incident the day it happened. That afternoon as they were walking towards her car to leave school, S.R. explained to his mother what had happened. S.R. and his mother immediately found an assistant principal and reported the incident. The school administration began an investigation into the incident the following day. On February 7, Respondent spoke to S.R. without any other adult present and asked him to “clear the air” with the school administration so he and Mr. Brennan would not get into trouble. S.R. did not know who put the panties in his shoe, but he suspected Mr. Brennan. The record is not clear as to what Respondent wanted S.R. to tell the school administrators. On February 8, Dr. Toomer sent Respondent a letter advising him that there would be a pre-disciplinary meeting conducted February 14. Respondent was advised he could be represented at that meeting. During the pre-disciplinary meeting on February 14, Respondent admitted to Dr. Toomer that he had placed the panties in S.R.’s locker. Respondent stated the he wanted to feel accepted by Mr. Brennan and Mr. Barker. Although there was no direct evidence that Respondent had a key or the combination to the lock on S.R.’s locker, his admission to Dr. Toomer establishes that Respondent put the panties in S.R.’s locker. Prior to the incident involving the panties, Respondent had been counseled about his classroom management, locker room supervision, behavior management, and his own behavior on occasions in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011. In May 2012, Respondent’s employment was suspended without pay for three days following his refusal to allow a student to use the bathroom. In January 2013, Debra Harrington, an assistant principal at Lyons Creek, counseled Respondent about the lack of adult supervision in the locker room. Ms. Harrington notified Respondent in writing as to her concerns and expectations (School Board’s Exhibit 11). Ms. Harrington advised Respondent that failure to adhere to her expectations could result in further discipline. Dr. Toomer recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent’s employment be terminated. In turn, the Superintendent recommended to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. On April 9, 2013, the School Board accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The School Board suspended Respondent’s employment without pay and instituted these proceedings. With his mother’s approval, S.R. remained a student in Respondent’s fourth period physical education class until Respondent’s employment was suspended. Respondent testified that he did not intend to hurt any student and was remorseful for his behavior.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Raymond Wantroba’s employment without pay through the end of the 2013-2014 School Year. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of December, 2013.
