The Issue This case concerns the administrative prosecution by the Petitioner against the Respondent through an Administrative Complaint and amendment to that Administrative Complaint. The original statement in the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of purchasing a forged transcript, which transcript indicated that the Respondent had completed requirements for a masters degree from the Florida A & M University and had received that degree, and that the Respondent in turn used the forged transcript to fraudulently receive a certification from the Florida Department of Education, Office of Certification, to the effect that the Respondent held a masters degree. These acts on the part of the Respondent purportedly violate Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in particular, for reason that the Respondent has committed an act of gross immorality, used fraudulent means to secure a teacher's certificate, and engaged in conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness. The Respondent is also accused of violating Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, for failing to provide a proper example for students and to have violated Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code, by not practicing her profession at the highest ethical standard. By amendment to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent is also accused of violating Subsection 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, by being charged with uttering a forgery and for that charge being adjudicated guilty of a felony and placed on three years probation, due to her plea of nolo contendere to felony charges. Adjudication in this matter allegedly was made on August 3, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, by Administrative Complaint and the amendment to that complaint, attempts to discipline the Respondent by action in revocation or suspension of the teacher's certificate of Delma M. Dawson, or other appropriate action. The Respondent having been afforded the opportunity for a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, availed herself of that opportunity and the formal hearing was conducted on September 10, 1981. At present, the Respondent is the holder of a teacher's certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, No. 423465, issued on October 31, 1979, and valid through June 30, 1986. This is a regular certificate, masters level. Dawson had obtained this certificate through the process of an application filed with the Teacher's Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education. The date of the filing was June 29, 1979. The application and accompanying transcript to that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. The transcript associated with the application reflects completion of a masters program at Florida A & M University, with the award of a Master of Education Degree with a major in Elementary Education. In fact, this transcript was a fraudulent transcript which the Respondent had purchased from am individual at Florida A & M University named Eugene Sutton. Sutton had access to certain school materials which allowed him to fabricate the bogus transcript. Dawson was to pay $3,500.00 for the purchase of the bogus transcript indicating her achievement of a masters degree and, in fact, paid $3,000.00 for that purchase. At the time of the purchase, she knew that she had not completed the necessary course work and complied with the other requirements for receipt of the alleged graduate degree. Dawson had been a continuing education student at Florida A & M University beginning in January, 1976, and had earned 23 hours of credit. This credit earned was not part of the 54 hours necessary to achieve the masters degree she claimed to have, but was instead, credit towards the validation of her undergraduate degree from Edward Waters College of Jacksonville, Florida. That institution not being accredited, the credit earned from Florida A & M University was for purposes of validating a degree from that unaccredited school. The actual transcript of credit hours earned from Florida A & M University may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A. At present, the Respondent is an employee of the Duval County, Florida, School System. She was hired to work as a teacher in Duval County on August 23, 1977. On November 6, 1979, she presented the masters level certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education to the officials in Duval County which was an upgrade in her status and through the presentation of this credentials change, it ostensibly entitled her to approximately $900.00 a year in additional compensation in school years 1979- 80 and 1980-81. This is a differential between this teacher at the masters level rank of certification as contrasted with the teacher at a bachelors level of certification employed by the Duval County School System. Dawson never received this additional compensation in view of the discovery of her activities in purchasing a degree which she had not earned. Since the time of her involvement in the purchase of an illegal graduate degree, the Respondent has been charged in the Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida, under the provisions of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes, with uttering a forgery, a third degree felony and entered a nolo contendere plea to that offense. For this plea, the defendant was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for a period of three (3) years. The terms of the disposition of Respondent's case may be found in petitioner's Exhibit No. 16, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the judgment of guilt and placement of the defendant on probation. At present, the Respondent is being used as a substitute teacher in the Duval County School System and as an employee in the library services of that school system. Her most recent evaluation, as well as those evaluations made of her performance during the pendency of her service with bits Duval County School System, has shown her to be a satisfactory employee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license rights of the Respondent to teach in the State of Florida and the associated certificate No. 413465 be permanently revoked far the violations as established herein. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 16th day of October, 1981.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether and how the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should discipline the Respondent on charges that she submitted another teacher’s work to earn an endorsement to her teacher certificate for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Kimberly Bank, holds Florida educator certificate 993098, which expires on June 30, 2018. She is certified in English and reading. During the 2012-2013 school year, she was employed by the OCPS as a reading teacher at Oakridge High School. In January 2013, the Respondent and a fellow Oakridge reading teacher named Charnetta Starr enrolled in an online course through CaseNEX to earn credit towards an ESOL endorsement to their teaching credentials. ESOL endorsements were required for their jobs. Ms. Starr completed all required course work, including participation in online discussions, journal entries, and workbook submissions, and earned credit for the course. The Respondent began the CaseNEX class, but stopped participating after a few weeks and was told by the course facilitator that she was being withdrawn from the class. The course ended on April 24, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the Respondent emailed Ms. Starr to ask her to provide the Respondent with Ms. Starr’s course work, which Ms. Starr emailed to her. The Respondent enrolled to take the CaseNEX class again during the summer of 2013. She copied Ms. Starr’s journal entries and workbook submissions from the January course and submitted them verbatim as her own work for course credit during the summer course. The submissions struck the course facilitator as being very familiar, and her investigation revealed that they were exact copies of Ms. Starr’s submissions. The facilitator reported this to her supervisor. The Respondent was again withdrawn from the class, this time for violating course prohibitions against plagiarism. The Respondent and Ms. Starr were reported to OCPS, which reprimanded them and suspended them for three days. The Petitioner initiated separate, but virtually identical administrative cases to discipline the educator certificates of both the Respondent and Ms. Starr. The Petitioner agreed to settle Ms. Starr’s case for a reprimand and $750 fine, and the EPC accepted the settlement, because Ms. Starr was not perceived to have used the Respondent’s work product, but only to have allowed her work product to be used by the Respondent. Ms. Starr testified that she agreed to the settlement but actually does not believe her actions were wrong or violations because she did not know the Respondent was going to plagiarize her work and submit it for credit. Because the Respondent was perceived to have used Ms. Starr’s work product and submitted it as her own for CaseNEX course credit, the Respondent’s administrative case proceeded, with the Petitioner seeking to fine her, suspend her educator certificate, and place her on probation. The Respondent contends that she and Ms. Starr collaborated on all of Ms. Starr’s journal entry and workbook submissions with the intention that each would submit the identical work as their own. Initially, the Respondent contended that this was permissible “collaboration” under the CaseNEX honor code and course requirements. Later in the hearing, the Respondent seemed to concede that it was against the honor code and the course’s requirement that each teacher taking the course had to submit his or her own original work. At that point in the proceeding, she seemed to be taking the position that her conduct mirrored Ms. Starr’s and that her discipline should be the same (i.e., that she should not be suspended). In her proposed recommended order, the Respondent again took the position that her conduct was permissible collaboration under the CaseNEX honor code and the course’s requirements and that no discipline should be imposed. The evidence was clear and convincing that the work submitted by the Respondent for credit in the summer 2013 CaseNEX course was not the product of collaboration between her and Ms. Starr. The Respondent testified that she and Ms. Starr collaborated by jointly doing work for the course from the very beginning of the January 2013 course with the intention of each submitting their joint work product for credit. Yet, it is obvious that the Respondent’s work submissions prior to her withdrawal from the January 2013 course were not the same as Ms. Starr’s. The Respondent testified that she collaborated with Ms. Starr throughout the January 2013 CaseNEX course. She testified that they produced joint work for them both to submit for credit in the course. She testified that after she was withdrawn from the January course, she continued to collaborate and produce joint work product with Ms. Starr, and that it was understood that the Respondent would submit the work as her own when she retook the course. The Respondent testified that she misplaced and lost her thumb-drive with a digital copy of the joint work product and asked Ms. Starr to send her a copy as an attachment to an email, which Ms. Starr did on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that the Respondent emailed her to ask for a copy of Ms. Starr’s work product from the January CaseNEX course and that Ms. Starr complied on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that this was her own personal work product, not joint work product. She denied knowing that the Respondent intended to plagiarize and submit it as her own. She testified persuasively that there were other legitimate uses the Respondent could have made of the work besides plagiarizing it. Where there is conflict between the Respondent’s testimony and Ms. Starr’s testimony, the Respondent’s is rejected as being false, and Ms. Starr’s is credited as being the truth. The evidence was clear and convincing that Ms. Starr did her own work throughout the January 2013 course. None of the work submitted by Ms. Starr for credit in the January 2013 course was produced jointly with the Respondent. If the Respondent were telling the truth, and she and Ms. Starr collaborated on their work submissions, her early submissions for the January CaseNEX course would have been identical to Ms. Starr’s. They were not. On the other hand, some of her submissions during the course she took during the summer of 2013 were identical to Ms. Starr’s submissions. For this and other reasons, Ms. Starr’s testimony was more credible than the Respondent’s when their testimony was in conflict. The Respondent attempted to attack Ms. Starr’s credibility by use of a screen shot of an incomplete and out-of- context cell phone text message exchange between them on June 13, 2013. At 11:25 a.m. on that date, Ms. Starr texted the Respondent: “OK. Did you sign up for the online modules for the $1000? Let’s start working on them so we can get paid on 7/31.” The Respondent answered: “Girl I have started. The kids do 2 hrs in the computer lab and I do the modules. They are easy but looooooong!” Ms. Starr replied: “OK. Send me any info you have for it please.” The Respondent texted: “You just watch a video and answer 2 multiple choice questions. Skip through the video and go to the questions. You can try as much as you want. There”. There was no evidence as to what preceded or followed the exchange. When Ms. Starr was confronted with the text exchange on cross-examination, she understood that it was being presented to impeach her testimony that the Respondent contacted her about providing the Respondent with their supposedly joint work product from the January CaseNEX course. In her haste to vehemently defend herself, Ms. Starr failed to realize that the text message exchange actually had nothing to do with her providing the Respondent with her work product from the January course, but was about a different course they were taking to earn bonus pay, and she testified incorrectly that it was the Respondent who initiated the text message exchange that was in evidence. The cross-examination failed to impeach the essence of Ms. Starr’s testimony. The evidence was that the Respondent is a good teacher. She performed satisfactorily both at Oakridge before the CaseNEX cheating incident and at Conway Middle School after it. Nonetheless, it is clear that her effectiveness as an employee of the school district was seriously impaired by her plagiarism and cheating on the June 2013 CaseNEX course. For one thing, she was reprimanded and suspended for three days. For another, she did not get the ESOL endorsement that was required for the job she held at Oakridge. Since the Respondent was guilty of plagiarism, and Ms. Starr was less culpable, it is reasonable for the Respondent’s discipline to be harsher than Ms. Starr’s. A period of suspension is reasonable. Based on the EPC records of discipline imposed in similar cases that were officially recognized in this case, it appears that it has been the practice of the EPC to impose a one-year suspension, in addition to a fine, probation, and a requirement to take a college-level course in ethics, for a teacher who admits to plagiarism and cheating in a CaseNEX ESOL endorsement course. In the Respondent’s case, a longer period of suspension is warranted due to the Respondent’s dispute of the charges and her false testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the EPC enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged, suspending her educator certificate for 18 months, placing her on probation for two years with conditions to be determined by the EPC, requiring her to take a college-level course in ethics under terms and conditions determined by the EPC, and imposing a fine in the amount of $750. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of June, 2016.
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), (e), (f), (g), (i), and 6B- 1.006(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Ellen Goldberg (“Goldberg”) holds a Florida Educator's Certificate that is currently valid. For the past 20 years, more or less, she has been employed as a public school teacher in the Dade County School District. In the 2000-2001 school year, Goldberg taught reading and language arts to seventh graders at Shenandoah Middle School. On November 8, 2000, many of Goldberg’s students were interested in discussing the presidential election, which had not yet produced a president-elect, though the polls had closed the night before.1 Believing this topic would be a good subject for an academic debate, Goldberg asked her students if they knew whom their parents had voted for——Governor George W. Bush of Texas or Vice President Al Gore——and why. A majority of those who responded expressed support for Gore.2 Because they were in the minority, Goldberg put the onus on the Bush backers to recite factual grounds for their choice, ostensibly to persuade the Gore supporters that Bush was the superior candidate. Those students who, in Goldberg’s judgment, gave thoughtful answers were given extra credit. Those who failed adequately to articulate reasons for choosing Bush (or elected not to participate in the discussion) received no extra credit but were not penalized. Participation in the discussion was voluntary. There is conflicting evidence as to whether Goldberg called upon Gore supporters likewise to defend their man. It is determined that some students, looking for extra credit, did volunteer to speak on Gore’s behalf. During this discussion, Goldberg revealed to her students that she had voted for Gore. She also argued that Bush wanted to take away a woman’s right to an abortion. The undersigned is convinced that Goldberg made it clear to her class where she stood in this electoral contest. At least a couple of students were upset that their teacher had asked how their parents had voted and also seemed to be advocating partisan political views that they did not share. One student’s mother, after being told about this classroom debate, wrote a letter to the school’s principal complaining about the incident. This parent requested that her son be removed from Goldberg’s class, and he was.3 In due course, the school initiated an internal disciplinary proceeding against Goldberg that culminated, on December 14, 2000, with the principal issuing the teacher a letter of reprimand. In this letter, Goldberg was directed “to immediately refrain from imparting [her] personal views and beliefs and sharing one-sided views with [her] students” and “to refrain from using inappropriate procedures in the performance of [her] assigned duties.” The Charges In his Amended Administrative Complaint against Goldberg, which was served on August 6, 2002, the Commissioner made the following pertinent factual allegations: On or about November 9, 2000, [Goldberg] asked her students how their parents voted in the presidential election. However, only those students who said their parents had voted for Bush had to explain their answers. Some students reported that it made them feel nervous and uncomfortable to talk about their parents’ decisions in this way. Additionally, [Goldberg] told her students who she voted for and made negative comments about the other candidate. On or about December 14, 2000, [Goldberg] was issued a letter of reprimand by her principal. On these allegations, the Commissioner accused Goldberg of having violated subsections (3)(a), (3)(e), (3)(f), (3)(g), (3)(i), and (4)(a) of Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which are part of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. If proved by clear and convincing evidence, the alleged rule violations would be grounds for discipline under Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Ultimate Factual Determinations While the undersigned agrees with the Commissioner that Goldberg exercised poor judgment in her classroom on November 8, 2000,4 he is not convinced that she intended to disparage, embarrass, discriminate against, or infringe upon the rights of, any of her students. Rather, Goldberg’s explanation that she believed the political debate served the legitimate pedagogic purpose of honing the students’ critical thinking skills, which would be useful on a standardized test such as the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, is accepted. This is not to suggest that no student was offended or embarrassed in Goldberg’s class that day or to discount the feelings of those who were, but only to find that it was not Goldberg’s conscious object to cause such discomfiture. The undersigned is not convinced that Goldberg unreasonably created conditions in her classroom that were harmful to learning or harmful to her students. To be sure, the undersigned is of the opinion that Goldberg’s questioning her seventh-grade students about how their parents had voted, even as part of a voluntary exercise for extra credit, was ill advised, as was expressing her personal political views. The undersigned reasonably infers, however, that on the day after an extraordinary presidential election that was too close to call, some discussion of the current political events was probably unavoidable. Therefore, given the context in which Goldberg’s conduct occurred, it would be unfair and inaccurate to characterize the conditions in her classroom as harmful. Goldberg did not fail to keep in confidence “personally identifiable information.” The information she solicited (how parents had voted) would not, by itself, permit the personal identification of any student. Moreover, in any event, there is no evidence——and hence can be no finding——that Goldberg disclosed this information outside the classroom, wherein its use, Goldberg believed, served a professional purpose. The undersigned is not convinced that Goldberg attributed her personal views to the school or any other organization with which she was affiliated. The problem in this case is not that Goldberg failed reasonably to distinguish between her personal views and those of the school (or another organization), but rather that she expressed personal views which prudence dictates she should have kept to herself. The undersigned is not convinced that Goldberg’s effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired in any way as a result of the incident that occurred on November 8, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent Ellen Goldberg. Jurisdiction is retained in this cause to enter a final order disposing of Goldberg’s motion for sanctions (i.e. an award of attorney’s fees and costs) pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes. If the Commissioner wants to be heard on this matter, he shall file a written response no later than December 27, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2002, 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 6th day of December, 2002.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Broward County School Board (“BCSB”), to suspend Respondent, Karleef Jamel Kebreau (“Respondent”), from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Parties BCSB is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. Respondent was employed by BCSB as a math teacher at Miramar. Respondent has taught for BCSB for 17 years. Respondent is working pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent’s Prior Discipline and Summary Memoranda On or about December 14, 2011, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from BCSB and was required to attend Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Overview Training for inappropriate conduct concerning his violation of both the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession. Respondent received this Letter of Reprimand because of an investigation into inappropriate conduct regarding allegations that he repeatedly approached students to take modeling photos of them in their bikinis. The investigation also concerned allegations that Respondent was watching movies with female students in his classroom after school hours. On or about November 28, 2012, Respondent received a Summary Memo addressing the following concerns: his failure to attend mandatory proctor training; his failure to pick up interim reports; his failure to follow proper procedures; his failure to notify a student that he had her iPod; his intentional use of embarrassing and disparaging remarks to a student by calling her a “shone” (slang for prostitute) in class; and his lack of professional judgment and integrity. On or about May 14, 2015, Respondent received a Summary Memo addressing the following concerns: his use of embarrassing and disparaging remarks to a student and his lack of professional judgment and integrity. He received this Summary Memo after an email from a concerned parent was received by Miramar administration concerning Respondent’s behavior. The email referred to Respondent participating in making a list of the prettiest to the ugliest girl in his class and calling a student stupid. Respondent denies that he created the list, but admits that he knew about the list, that he should have addressed the issue to end it, and further that he commented on it. Allegations Giving Rise to the Suspension On October 11, 2018, Miramar Principal Maria D. Formoso (“Formoso”) received an email from someone who identified himself as “Captain Alex.” Captain Alex wrote that his girlfriend was a student at Miramar, and that he was in fear for her safety while she was in Respondent’s class. Attached to his email, Captain Alex provided copies of cell phone text messages between him and his girlfriend describing how Respondent had approached her and began hugging and touching her hair. Captain Alex’s email also indicated that this was happening to other female students at Miramar. Formoso advised John Murray, Assistant Principal (“AP Murray”), who helped identify Captain Alex’s girlfriend as C.G. C.G., who was in 12th grade during the 2018-2019 school year, advised Formoso, that on October 11, 2018, she was “face-timing” with her boyfriend on her cell phone, prior to the start of class, and as she entered Respondent’s classroom, Respondent walked up to her and gave her a full-frontal hug. As Respondent was hugging her, he was also manipulating her hair on the back of her head without her consent. C.G. stated that Respondent regularly gave her unwanted hugs and that the hugs made her feel uncomfortable. He also gave her compliments, played with her hair, and rubbed her shoulders. According to C.G., since the beginning of the school year (i.e., 2018-2019), she has received several unwanted hugs from Respondent prior to entering his classroom. C.G. stated that the hugs would last 30 seconds and that Respondent would play with her hair as well as rub her shoulders. During one of the hugging incidents, Respondent whispered into her ear “[y]ou give thick a whole other meaning.” Statements from Other Students After obtaining C.G.’s statement, Formoso interviewed and obtained statements from other female students identified by C.G. to have also received unsolicited hugs from Respondent. Those students were identified as S.N., N.O., and D.J. After obtaining these additional statements, Formoso contacted the BCSB Special Investigative Unit (“SIU”) to initiate an investigation. Detective Bernard Canellas of SIU arrived at Miramar to conduct an investigation concerning Respondent’s conduct. As part of the investigation, he obtained several handwritten statements and conducted recorded interviews under penalty of perjury. After the investigation was completed, Respondent was given a copy of the report of the investigation and was advised that BCSB will move forward to bring the investigative findings to the Professional Standards Committee. Detective Canellas obtained a written statement and sworn recorded statement of S.N. S.N. also provided testimony at a deposition, which the parties agreed to submit in lieu of an appearance at the final hearing. According to S.N., who was an 11th grade student during the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was her math teacher during her freshman year. S.N. testified during her deposition that during her first encounter with Respondent, he approached her and gave her an unwanted hug as she entered his classroom. On one occasion during her freshman year, as Respondent proceeded to hug her, he whispered in her ear “[h]ow would you feel if I told you I wanted to be your boyfriend.” S.N. said the statement made her feel weird and creeped out. S.N. stated that Respondent continued to give her unwanted hugs over the next three years, but he never made any more statements to her while hugging her. S.N. testified at her deposition that she has been approached and teased by her girlfriends about the hugs she received from Respondent. S.N. also testified that one day while Respondent was hugging her, his hand brushed against her breast as he pulled away. When this happened, she told Respondent, “I don’t want you hugging me anymore.” Respondent neither responded to her nor did he try to hug her again. D.J. provided a written statement and sworn recorded statement to SIU. She also provided deposition testimony, which the parties agreed to submit in lieu of an appearance at the final hearing. D.J. was a student in Respondent’s class during the 2017-2018 school year. D.J. stated that Respondent asks for hugs from the female students. She testified that one day when he asked her for a hug, D.J. told him no. Respondent admitted in his deposition testimony that D.J. told him not to hug her. Thereafter, D.J. testified that Respondent negatively affected her grades. D.J. also testified that Respondent has hugged her more than 30 times. In September 2019, two more students, L.M. and T.K., came forward to AP Murray with similar allegations against Respondent. These students came forward when AP Murray was handing out letters to students in Respondent’s class to obtain their contact information in the event they were witnesses for the instant matter. Their allegations were included in the Amended Complaint. L.M. was a student in Respondent’s geometry class. She provided a written statement to AP Murray and testified at a deposition which the parties agreed to be used in lieu of her appearance at the final hearing. She testified that Respondent was too “touchy” and personal with students. Respondent would flirt with female students and make them uncomfortable. She also testified Respondent would hug the female students as they walked into class and call them “cutie” or “sweetie.” L.M. found Respondent’s behavior annoying and disappointing. T.K. also testified that one day during the 2018-2019 school year, when she was in his class, Respondent called her up to his desk and asked her about her dating status. T.K. responded that she was single. Respondent told her that there were male students in the class eyeing her. T.K. responded that she was not interested in guys her age. Respondent then asked T.K. if she liked guys in their fifties or his age. This made T.K. feel uncomfortable. T.K. also testified that, on another occasion in his class, he talked about his grey sweat pants. Respondent told the class that a woman he had been dating told him that she did not want him wearing grey sweat pants, but he did not know why. Respondent stated that all the girls at the mall were staring at him in his grey sweat pants. Respondent said that when he looked in the mirror, his “junk” looked huge. When he said this to the class, he pointed at his pelvic area. T.K. alleges that it is disturbing that a teacher feels comfortable enough to tell the students in his class, who range in age from 14 to 18, this story. Respondent’s Response to the Allegations S.M. gave a sworn recorded statement to SIU. She also provided deposition testimony, which the parties agreed to submit in lieu of an appearance at the final hearing. S.M., who was a 12th grade student in the 2018-2019 school year, was also never a student of Respondent’s, but she started getting unwanted hugs from Respondent at the beginning of her junior year. S.M. would receive unwanted hugs from Respondent while in the hallway. S.M. testified during her deposition that Respondent would call her “[m]y Haitian Queen” and that the hugs made her feel uncomfortable. S.M. also testified that one day while Respondent was hugging her, his hand brushed against her breast as he pulled away. When this happened, she told Respondent, “I don’t want you hugging me anymore.” Respondent did not respond to her, nor did he try to hug her again. Respondent admits that he would stand in the doorway to the classroom and give students, including females, hugs as they entered. Respondent claims this is consistent with the behavior of other teachers at Miramar. When asked not to hug a particular student, Respondent immediately stopped. Respondent denies making inappropriate or flirtatious comments to students, touching their hair, or propositioning any female student. Respondent specifically denied ever hugging C.G. in an inappropriate manner or touching her hair. He first became aware of the allegation when notified by the School Board’s investigator. Respondent further denied complimenting C.G. inappropriately, or ever rubbing her shoulders. At the time of the allegation, C.G. was failing Respondent’s class and transferred to a different class soon after. Respondent noted that student D.J. also failed his class and transferred to another class. Respondent offered and filed the deposition transcript of K.S., which the parties agreed to be used in lieu of testimony at the final hearing. K.S. testified that she was in Respondent’s class in 9th grade and that she was now in the 12th grade. She testified that Respondent hugs everyone, including her, in either a full-frontal hug or side hug at the entry way of the classroom if Respondent was holding the door. She witnessed Respondent hug T.M. The Amended Administrative Complaint makes reference to similar allegations allegedly made by students N.O, S.M., B.S., T.M., and T.K. However, they did not testify in this matter and the only evidence presented related to them is uncorroborated hearsay.1 Respondent testified he no longer hugs his students since these allegations arose. Some students have tried to hug him and were confused when Respondent declined. He now shakes their hand or gives them a “dab.” BCSB Response to the Investigation Based on the SIU investigation, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause to recommend a one-day suspension without pay and EEO sensitivity training for Respondent. This was later changed to a ten-day suspension without pay by BCSB, which was also adopted on July 10, 2019. Formoso testified that BCSB increased the one-day suspension to a ten- day suspension because Respondent’s conduct amounted to sexual harassment. BCSB provided all notice and process that was due as it pertains to the investigation and procedural requirements from the time the investigation was commenced through BCSB’s adoption of the 1 Although the statements of these students contain descriptions of Respondent providing unwanted hugs and making inappropriate flirtatious comments to other female students, they were not relied upon for the decision of this Recommended Order. The deposition testimony of the other students was credible and enough to prove the allegations against Respondent in the Amended Complaint. Superintendent’s recommendation for a ten-day suspension in relation to this matter.
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 upholding Respondent’s suspension for ten days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County Public Schools 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801 Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The sole issue for determination in this cause is whether the failing grade received by petitioner from Professor Kenneth Vinson in a constitutional law course was a result of arbitrariness, capriciousness or bad faith.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: while enrolled as a student in the Florida State University College of Law, petitioner received a failing grade in constitutional law for the winter quarter of 1975 from his professor, Kenneth Vinson. After discussing his grade with Mr. Vinson, petitioner filed an appeal pursuant to the grade appeal policy of the College of Law. A board comprised of three students determined that there was probable cause for the grade appeal and recommended that the appeal be referred to a full committee for hearing. After some delay apparently resulting from the loss of the report of the student board, a committee consisting of two students and three faculty members was appointed. Mr. Vinson did not attend the hearing, but submitted to the committee a memorandum, attaching thereto a completed examination paper with his written comments concerning the answers given. Petitioner appeared and offered testimony concerning his grade. The committee was also supplied with five or six other completed examinations with grades ranging from "A" to "F". These exams were copied in such a manner that neither the student involved nor the grade assigned were known to the committee. The five members of the committee rated these exams and substantially agreed with the grades assigned by Vinson to each paper. Each member of the committee placed petitioner's exam in the "F" category. In its final report, the committee expressed concern with Vinson's lack of sufficient assistance to them in the articulation of his standards and his lack of cooperation in the grade appeal process. Nevertheless, it was the conclusion of the committee that petitioner's appeal should be denied for the reason that Vinson had recognizable standards of grading and that there was no gross deviation in the application of his standards to petitioner's examination paper. The committee's findings are more fully set forth in a ten page decision which was admitted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit 3. The examination in dispute is a 38-question, short answer exam, a type traditionally and frequently administered in law school courses. In this type of examination, the objectives of the professor are inherent in the examination questions asked. The weight to be assigned each question on such an examination is not always determined by the professor before grading the papers. A cut sheet or master list of desired answers is difficult to prepare for an essay- type examination in law school. As well as evaluating the student's ability to identify the issues involved in a legal problem, the law school professor also seeks to evaluate the student's knowledge of the substantive law relating to an issue. Thus, if a student deviates from the projected issue, he may lose credit for that but gain credit for a good discussion of the erroneously-selected issue. Often, the law professor is seeking a judgmental or subjective response to a question on an examination. In such situations, the preparation of a master answer to all questions would be futile. Among educators, there appears to be no uniform methodology for grading examinations. Those educators often referred to as behaviorists advocate specific written standards and objectives both for evaluation purposes and to facilitate the student's learning. Others referred to as humanists object to a specific statement of objectives and standards, feeling that such would be too limited and constrictive. The difficulty with a non-written, personal approach to evaluation is the assessment of its validity and replicability as to time and another student. One method of testing the reliability of the grading procedure utilized is to have other persons assign a grade to the completed examination. If two or more persons were to assign the same grade as that originally assigned, this would provide replicability and would indicate that the original grade assigned was reasonable and the method of evaluation was reliable. As noted above, the specific statement of standards and objectives is not universally employed by educators, and its nonuse does not imply unethical behavior or that one's teaching methods are invalid. Professor Vinson has been teaching law school courses for over seven years. It was his testimony that, although the mandatory blind or anonymous grading system was not in effect at the time he graded Petitioner's examination, he in fact did not know whose paper he was grading at the time he assigned a grade to Petitioner's paper. All exam papers were graded by him anonymously. Vinson's method of grading was to review five or six exam papers, get a "feeling" for the type of responses received, assign tentative grades to them and then perhaps change those grades based on his conception of the total class curve. He does not find that a cut sheet or set of model answers is helpful in a short essay type examination. When evaluating a paper for grading purposes, Mr. Vinson stated that he compares students' answers with each other and forms an opinion of the student's understanding of the subject matter and class discussions. When grading papers, he also looks at the students' writing style, knowledge concerning the substance of the course, and understanding of legal processes. He further evaluates the student's ability to recognize issues, manipulate legal jargon and apply cases studied and discussed during the course. Vinson applied the same criteria or standard of evaluation to petitioner's examination as he applied to other examinations. The ultimate grade assigned each paper constituted Vinson's value judgment, based upon his experience as a law school professor, as to that student's knowledge concerning the substance of the course taught by him. While Vinson has no written standards or criteria for evaluating a student's performance on an examination, he feels that his standards are implicit in classroom discussions and that the questions asked on his examinations form the answers to be given. The failing grade assigned to petitioner's examination was a result of Vinson's opinion of petitioner's understanding of the subject matter of the course taught.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's amended petition be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: President Stanley Marshall Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Stanley C. Kiser 3220 Jim Lee Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Bickel University Attorney Suite 309 Westcott Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 John D. Carlson State Board of Education 400 Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent, Mark Ostermeier, violated Sections 1012.795(1)(c), (1)(g), and/or (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011), and/or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged by the Administrative Complaint dated October 14, 2014; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the Florida Educational Practices Commission, is authorized by Florida law to investigate and prosecute cases against teachers with Florida teaching certificates. See §§ 1012.315, 1012.795, and 1012.796, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Mark A. Ostermeier (Respondent), holds a Florida educator’s certificate, Certificate No. 662488, covering the subject area of art, grades kindergarten through 12. Respondent’s teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2016. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed by the Brevard County School District (District) and worked as an art teacher at the high school and elementary school levels. Except for the school year ending 2002, the District issued acceptable evaluations to Respondent. From the time Respondent was assigned to Bayside High School (Bayside) until the 2008/2009 school year Respondent received acceptable evaluations. For the school years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Respondent was assigned to Bayside. The principal at Bayside during the relevant time span was Robin Novelli. While at Bayside, Respondent was responsible for instructing students in grades 9 through 12 in the area of art. During the 2008/2009 school year, Mr. Novelli became concerned regarding Respondent’s classroom management, planning, and instruction. Although he signed off on the evaluation for that year (performed by another school administrator), Mr. Novelli decided he would assume the role of evaluator for Respondent for the following school year. Before 2008/2009, Respondent received acceptable evaluations. The principal at Bayside during those years was John Tuttle, who signed off on all of Respondent’s evaluations, but did not personally evaluate Respondent. Mr. Tuttle believed Respondent to be a competent instructor. In May 2009, Respondent exhibited unacceptable behavior and Mr. Novelli received complaints from a parent and student that Respondent had refused to return the student’s artwork. The student withdrew or did not re-enroll in Respondent’s art class, and Respondent took one of the student’s paintings to his home. When the student and parent demanded the return of the painting, Respondent refused to return it. When Mr. Novelli intervened, Respondent relented and eventually returned the student’s painting. The student believed Respondent was refusing to return the painting in an effort to get the student to re-enroll in Respondent’s class. Respondent denied the allegation but did not have a valid reason for not returning the student’s art. Bayside did not have an advanced placement (AP) art program. Respondent was desirous of establishing such a program and sought to do so. One of the activities that would enhance an AP art program was a field trip Respondent proposed for students to attend a National Portfolio Day conference. Respondent attempted to pitch the field trip for his art students, but did not follow directives in order to get the trip approved. Mr. Novelli did not approve the trip. Respondent did not have art students who met the requisite level of proficiency to warrant an AP level class. Nevertheless, Respondent continued to fuel the students’ desire to attend the conference. When Respondent failed to meet the prerequisite criteria to have the field trip approved, he blamed Mr. Novelli. In October 2009, Mr. Novelli observed Respondent and gave him an interim evaluation that marked him as overall unsatisfactory. Five categories were unsatisfactory and one category needed improvement. Thereafter, Mr. Novelli gave Respondent prescriptive plans for improvement. The Professional Development Assistance Plans (PDAPs) itemized what Respondent needed to do to improve his performance. The plans provided specific strategies and acts for Respondent to do to improve. Respondent did not follow the PDAP. Trying to communicate with Respondent proved difficult, as his interpretation of what was needed to improve differed from the directives of the PDAP. Respondent did not improve, and it became Mr. Novelli’s opinion that students in Respondent’s art classes had been deprived a minimum educational experience. Mr. Novelli’s expectations of Respondent were based upon his years as a trained administrator to evaluate teachers in all courses. Because Respondent continued to provide deficient classroom management, planning, and instruction, Mr. Novelli evaluated Respondent as unsatisfactory. As the end of the school year approached, Respondent’s performance did not improve to any significant degree. Rather than continue at Bayside, Respondent’s union representative, acting on his behalf, sought a transfer for Respondent to another school. That transfer was granted by the District. Respondent made several false accusations against Mr. Novelli and/or other school administrators. At one time or another Respondent stated he had been recorded with a USB recording pen; had been falsely arrested because of a false claim made by a District employee; had been poisoned due to an environmental hazard that Respondent was forced to endure; lost a child because of District treatment; and had his car vandalized by a school administrator. None of the accusations were accurate. Respondent started the 2010/2011 school year with a PDAP at Lockmar Elementary School (Lockmar). While at Lockmar, Respondent was supervised by the principal, Ms. Hostetler. Respondent respected Ms. Hostetler and acknowledged she had worked to assist him. Nevertheless, despite her efforts to give Respondent constructive help to meet the criteria and to improve deficiencies, Ms. Hostetler evaluated Respondent as unsatisfactory. The issues with planning, classroom management, and ability to provide effective instruction to students continued. In October 2010, Ms. Hostetler gave Respondent an interim evaluation that scored him as unsatisfactory in four categories and needs improvement in one. Ms. Hostetler noted that (as in the past) Respondent failed to have adequate lesson plans, failed to provide meaningful instructions to students in an organized, efficient manner, and failed to manage his classroom to assure that all students were appropriately engaged in the lesson. Additionally, Ms. Hostetler noted that Respondent did not have his classroom ready for instruction when students arrived for class and did not timely release the students back to their teachers at the conclusion of the art session. This was a problem because the classroom teachers were delayed or inconvenienced by Respondent’s behavior. Despite counseling for this issue, Respondent’s deficiencies at the beginning and conclusion of class continued. It came to Ms. Hostetler’s attention that Respondent was sending disruptive students outside his classroom to “look for dinosaurs.” His belief that this technique for behavior management was acceptable was erroneous. Ms. Hostetler did not approve the practice and opined that it placed students at risk. Respondent did not accept Ms. Hostetler’s authority as definitive on the issue. Respondent maintained that his technique was an acceptable strategy that should have been allowed. Ms. Hostetler next evaluated Respondent in February of 2011. Noting little improvement, the February evaluation found the Respondent’s teaching practices remained unsatisfactory. Respondent failed to use 21st Century equipment as Ms. Hostetler had requested. Additionally, he did not use art materials appropriately, did not control the classroom, and did not differentiate course work by age and grade. Nevertheless, Ms. Hostetler gave Respondent more time to improve and again issued a PDAP that was designed to give Respondent specific directives. At the conclusion of the school year, Ms. Hostetler evaluated Respondent’s performance as unsatisfactory. He was given a contract for the following school year in error. The District eventually caught the mistake and notified Respondent that his employment with the schools would be terminated. Subsequent to a two-day administrative hearing, the DOAH Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order that found the District’s action was supported by the weight of the evidence presented. Respondent’s teaching was unacceptable during the 2010/2011 school year and failed to provide students with a meaningful educational opportunity. Respondent was incompetent to comply with directives, which were reasonable and tailored to help Respondent meet the mandates of the PDAPs. Respondent’s art students were deprived a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Educational Practices Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen K. Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Robert Charles McClain, Esquire 4910 Flora Drive Melbourne, Florida 32934 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' factual stipulations, the following relevant facts are found. Miami-Dade Community College is a public educational institution operated by the District Board of Trustees. Its North Campus has an enrollment of approximately 14,000 students, and employs approximately 340 professional faculty and administrators and 300 clerical personnel. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Joseph T. King was employed on an annual contract basis as an instructor in the Division of Occupational Careers, Business Data Processing Department, at the North Campus. As pertinent here, his latest annual contract was for the period from August 1984 to August 2, 1985. That contract has not been renewed and did not create the expectancy of employment beyond August 2, 1985. As pertinent to this proceeding, the organizational administrative structure of the North Campus, in descending order, is as follows: the President of the College, the Campus Vice-President, the Dean of Academic Affairs, the Associate Deans of the various divisions, the department Chairpersons and instructors. The North Campus Vice-President is the chief administrative officer at that campus and is responsible for providing broad leadership and administrative direction for all of the campus programs and services. The Dean of Academic Affairs is the chief academic officer and is responsible for the faculty and for providing the planning, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the various instructional divisions. During the time periods relevant herein, Dr. Lukenbill was the Dean of Academic Affairs and Dr. Kelly was the North Campus Vice-President. Dr. Lukenbill had been employed at the college since 1972 and was appointed as the North Campus Dean of Academic Affairs on January 28, 1985. Dr. Kelly, having served in various levels of college administration for 23 years, was appointed as the North Campus Vice-President during the first week of February 1985. The Acting Associate Dean of the Division of Occupational Careers was Blanca Gonzalez. Within this Division is the Department of Business Data Processing, chaired by Lincoln Andrews. The Respondent King was an instructor in that Department. From January 30, 1985 through February 17, 1985, Respondent was unable to work due to medical reasons. On February 11, 1985, Respondent was advised by telegram from the Director of Personnel Services that he would be required to present a physician's statement to the Associate Dean of his Division substantiating that he is physically able to resume his duties. During the period between January 30, 1985 and February 17, 1985, Respondent did hand-deliver a letter from himself to the College President on January 30, had one dinner engagement, made two visits to a former faculty member's home and had one faculty member in his home. February 18 was a school holiday. At approximately 8:00 a.m. on February 19, 1985, Respondent returned to the North Campus and reported to Associate Dean Gonzalez' office for the purpose of providing documentation regarding his ability to return to work. With him was Harry Forster, a former faculty member who had been terminated and had been asked not to return to the campus. Respondent presented Ms. Gonzalez with certain documentation from his physician and requested her to sign a receipt for the documents. Ms. Gonzalez signed and returned the documents to the Respondent and the conversation between them concluded. At that point, Mr. Forster told Ms. Gonzalez that he wanted to speak with her about the Chairperson of the Business Data Processing Department. Ms. Gonzalez then telephoned Mr. Lukenbill, the Dean of Academic Affairs, and asked him to come to her office to join the meeting because she felt the Academic Dean should be a part of the discussion which Mr. Forster desired to initiate. Having been recently appointed as Academic Dean, and Respondent having been on sick leave since January 30, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill had not met Respondent prior to February 19, 1985. As he walked into Ms. Gonzalez' office, he introduced himself to the Respondent and shook his hand. A discussion thereafter ensued between Dr. Lukenbill, Mr. Forster and Ms. Gonzalez, with the Respondent taking no part in the discussion. The matters discussed by Mr. Forster related to his concerns or beliefs regarding certain activities and personnel at the College. They did not involve the Respondent, though both the Respondent and other administrators had previously heard the allegations made by Mr. Forster. At the conclusion of the discussion between Forster, Lukenbill and Gonzalez, Dr. Lukenbill turned to the Respondent and stated that he would like to have a few words with him and asked if he had a few moments. His purpose in initiating that discussion was a combination of courtesy, to establish a rapport with a faculty member he had just met, and to assure himself that Respondent was physically able to resume his duties as an instructor. It was not unusual for Dr. Lukenbill to speak directly with faculty members, in spite of the organizational it chain of administrative command. In response to Dr. Lukenbill's invitation to talk together, Respondent produced his attorney's business card and responded that he would not speak with Dr. Lukenbill. Respondent then left Ms. Gonzalez' office with Mr. Forster, and attended his scheduled classes. For some time prior to February 19, 1985, Respondent had been involved in a contract dispute with the College concerning his salary. His retained attorney had written a letter dated February 14, 1985, to President McCabe regarding this matter and had requested a response within five days. Respondent was of the impression that he should not speak to college administrators concerning his contract dispute or the Forster allegations in the absence of his attorney. When Dr. Lukenbill asked to speak with the Respondent on the morning of February 19, neither he nor the Respondent mentioned Respondent's salary or contract dispute with the College. Dr. Lukenbill had no knowledge of the February 14 letter from Respondent's attorney to President McCabe. While Respondent testified that he would have spoken to Dr. Lukenbill had Dr. Lukenbill advised him that he wished to discuss academic matters with him, the evidence is clear that Respondent did not express this to Dr. Lukenbill nor did he inform Dr. Lukenbill that he only did not feel at liberty to discuss his salary dispute or the Forster allegations in the absence of his attorney. Dr. Lukenbill did not intend to speak with Respondent concerning either Respondent's contract dispute with the College or the allegations made by Mr. Forster. He had previously heard those allegations and felt that they concerned matters unrelated to the Respondent. Dr. Lukenbill was concerned that Respondent's refusal to speak with him created a situation whereby he, as the Dean for Academic Affairs, could not fulfill his responsibilities of managing the assignment of faculty and the conduct of classes. For this reason, he contacted Vice- President Kelly after the February 19 incident and expressed his concern that Respondent's refusal to speak with him impaired his ability to carry out his responsibilities. Dr. Kelly was also concerned and puzzled about Respondent's refusal to talk with the Dean, and agreed that the situation needed to be immediately resolved. At approximately 11:00 a.m. on February 19, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill instructed Ms. Gonzalez to deliver a note to Respondent requesting him to come to Dr. Kelly's office to meet with Dr. Kelly and Dr. Lukenbill at 11:30 a.m. Ms. Gonzalez had a memorandum prepared and attempted to have it delivered to Respondent's lab. The evidence is conflicting as to the time of the attempted delivery and as to the Respondent's schedule of classes and/or labs on that particular day and time. Respondent did attend two of his classes on the morning of February 19. In any event, the memorandum of February 19 was not delivered to the Respondent. On the morning of February 20, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill again requested Ms. Gonzalez to prepare and deliver a note to Respondent requesting him to meet with Dr. Lukenbill and Dr. Kelly in Dr. Kelly's office at 12:15 p.m. Ms. Gonzalez prepared the memo and attached the similar memo of the previous day. Neither memo stated the reason or purpose of the scheduled meeting. The February 20 memo and attachment were delivered to the Respondent during his scheduled class, and Respondent appeared at Dr. Kelly's office at the scheduled time. Vice-President Kelly had never met Respondent prior to February 20, 1985. He was aware that there had been some problems with faculty members missing classes in the Respondent's Department and had heard the Respondent's name in this regard. His concern, however, on February 20 was to attempt to understand and remedy the Respondent's refusal to speak with his Academic Dean on February 19. Dr. Kelly had no knowledge of Respondent's contract dispute with the College and perceived no connection between Mr. Forster's allegations and the Respondent. Respondent appeared at the February 20 meeting with Dr. Kelly and Dr. Lukenbill and the three individuals sat at a small conference table. Respondent immediately placed a tape recorder on the table and asked if there were any objections to the meeting being taped. Drs. Kelly and Lukenbill both indicated they had no objection. Respondent turned on the tape recorder, taped some background information and then indicated to the others that they could proceed with the discussion. It is undisputed that the discussion began with Dr. Kelly stating that they wished to speak with the Respondent about what occurred on the previous day. What Dr. Kelly was referring to, and what Dr. Lukenbill understood to be the purpose of the meeting, was the Respondent's refusal to speak with his Academic Dean on February 19. In response to Dr.,Kelly's opening statement, Respondent threw his attorney's business card on the conference table and refused to speak to the Vice-President or the Academic Dean. Dr. Kelly explained to the Respondent that he considered Respondent's behavior, both then and on the previous day, to be inappropriate, intolerable and a very serious matter. He informed the Respondent that if he were not going to speak with Dr. Kelly or Dr. Lukenbill, there would be no way Respondent could remain on campus and that he would recommend his suspension to the College President. Respondent inquired as to whether Dr. Kelly was ordering him to leave the campus; Dr. Kelly responded that he was requesting him to leave the campus and Respondent then left Dr. Kelly's office. Respondent offers the explanation that, since the notice of the February 20 meeting did not set forth the subject matter or reason for the meeting, he had no way of knowing what Dr. Kelly meant by stating that he wished to discuss what occurred on February 19. This explanation is not credible and does not justify his conduct of refusing to speak to his college administrators. First, even if Respondent had been instructed by his attorney not to discuss his contract dispute in her absence, there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent's contract or salary dispute was ever mentioned during the February 20 meeting. Dr. Kelly was not even aware of such a dispute. While Respondent testified that he himself inquired as to whether the meeting had anything to do with his contract, he further testified that Dr. Kelly responded that he did not want to talk about a contract dispute but instead wanted to talk about what happened with Dr. Lukenbill the previous morning. Thus, even accepting the Respondent's versions of the February 20 meeting, it is clear that Respondent understood, at some point in time, that the intended purpose of the meeting was to discuss Respondent's refusal to speak with Dr. Lukenbill. Respondent never offered any explanation to Dr. Kelly or Dr. Lukenbill as to why he would not speak to them. It is clear that the meeting started and ended with the key administrators of the North Campus expressing their desire to have Respondent explain to them and change his position concerning his unprofessional behavior on that day and the previous day. Respondent's own fears or concerns regarding either his contract dispute or the Forster allegations do not excuse his willful and continued failure to communicate with the top two administrators responsible for his employer's functions and operations. By telegram dated February 20, 1985, Dr. McCabe, Petitioner's President, advised Respondent that he was suspended without pay pending Dr. McCabe's recommendation for dismissal to the District Board of Trustees. By letter dated March 1, 1985, Dr. McCabe advised Respondent that he would recommend Respondent's termination at the March 26, 1985, District Board meeting based upon the charge of gross insubordination. At that meeting, the District Board suspended Respondent without pay pending the termination proceedings. The Petition and Notice for Dismissal was served on April 2, 1985, and Respondent requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Joseph T. King be dismissed from employment retroactively to the date of his suspension for gross insubordination. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of December, 1985. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 20th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent have been approved and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner: 7 and 8. Rejected as to date of February 19, 1985, due to evidence to the contrary. 32. Partially rejected, no competent, substantial evidence regarding Respondent's schedule between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. 51. Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent: P. 3, last full sentence Rejected, not a factual finding. in last paragraph. Last paragraph beginning Rejected, not a factual finding on P. 3. And irrelevant and immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald M. Middlebrooks, Esquire and Nancy E. Swerdlow, Esquire Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Neil Flaxman, Esquire Flaxman and Flaxman, P.A. 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 311 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Robert H. McCabe, President District Board of Trustees Miami-Dade Community College 11011 Southwest 104th Street Miami, Florida 33176
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged acts involving moral turpitude, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1) (c), Florida Statutes (2003).1 Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for being convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other criminal charge, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for a plea guilty or a decision of guilt in any court, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(2), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for failure to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(a). Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for submitting fraudulent information on a document in connection with professional activities, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn Stewart, holds Florida Educator Certificate 747243, covering the area of Guidance and Counseling, which was valid through June 30, 2005. Respondent was employed as a guidance counselor at Sea Breeze Elementary School, in the Manatee County School District, during the 2003/2004 school year, until she resigned sometime in the fall of 2003. On or after October 1, 2003, Respondent was arrested and charged with two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to those charges, both third degree felonies, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Florida, Case Nos. 2003-CF-3150 and 2003-CF-4094, on May 18, 2004. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was sentenced to credit for time served in the county jail, court costs, and facility fee. On or about March 18, 2004, following the issuance of an Information, Respondent was arrested and charged with the felony offense of filing fraudulent insurance claims, between October 1, 1999, and September 12, 2003, with her employer, the Manatee County School Board. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendre to the charge of filing fraudulent insurance claims for less that $20,000, a third degree felony, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, in Case No. 2004-CF-1067, on May 24, 2005. Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years probation. On April 15, 2004, Respondent was charged, by Information, with the offense of Poisoning Food or Water of Michael Skoyec, which occurred between August 31, 2003, and/or September 1, 2003. Respondent pled not guilty to the charge, a first degree felony, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial before the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Case No. 2004-CF- 1787. Prior to the trial, the State Attorney amended the Information by adding a second count, charging Respondent with Attempted Second Degree Murder, a second degree felony. Following the trial which concluded on February 11, 2005, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count, Poisoning Food and Water, and a verdict of guilty on the lesser count included offense of Battery (a first degree misdemeanor), as to the second Count. At the sentencing hearing on April 19, 2005, Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, and costs, followed by five years' probation. Respondent was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections on April 19, 2005, and is at present serving her sentence in the Gadsden Correctional Institution. Following her conviction and sentence, Respondent appealed her convictions to the Second District Court of Appeal. The conviction was affirmed on March 3, 2006, and the Mandate issued on May 18, 2006. In each of the criminal cases in which she entered a plea of guilty or no contest, Respondent, through her attorney, stipulated that there was a factual basis for the charge, or the facts were stated on the record for the court to determine the factual basis. Following these incidents, Respondent resigned her position with the Manatee School District in the fall of 2003. There was adverse publicity in the newspaper about the charges against Respondent, including the poisoning charge. There was no dispute that as a result of these incidents Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously, if not totally, reduced. The honesty of educators is relied upon by administrators. Respondent's actions, including her fraudulent acts, prevented administrators from relying on her honesty. Fellow employees rely on an educator's honesty, and Respondent's actions similarly prevent that reliance in the future. On October 18, 2004, Respondent was charged by Information, with one felony count of falsifying records, on September 22, 2003, of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). She entered a plea of no contest, was adjudicated guilty, and placed on five years' probation for that offense on May 24, 2005. Although the avenue of direct appeal of her conviction has been exhausted, Respondent has retained legal counsel to explore the possibility of filing post-conviction relief in the courts in regard to those charges, where she has been adjudicated guilty by the court. Although Respondent acknowledged that grounds existed to revoke her teaching certificate, she testified that she was very good at what she did as a guidance counselor and desired the opportunity to seek reinstatement of her teaching certificate in the future. Respondent offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: A final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Subsections 1012.795(1) (c), (e) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6b- 1.006(5) (a), and (h). Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. If is further RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, or a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, as prohibited by section 1012.795(1)(j), by using institutional privileges for private gain and by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (5)(a); and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds educator certificate 1012045, which is valid through June 30, 2019. The certificate covers English and Reading. In March 2015, Respondent was employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools as a language arts teacher at Brownsville Middle School, where she had taught since 2006. On March 2, 2015, outside the presence of other proctors, Respondent administered the 2015 Florida Standards Assessment in English Language Arts (Test), which is taken in a paper-based format. In the course of administering the Test, Respondent noticed that the subject of the writing prompt was William Shakespeare. Respondent did not read any passages set forth in the Test, but, that evening, Respondent advised her son that, when he took the same Test in Broward County the next day, he would be prompted to write about William Shakespeare, and he should do his best to finish the Test. Objectively, knowledge of the subject of the prompt would not confer upon Respondent's son an advantage over his peers. As the word, "prompt" implies, the citation to William Shakespeare was merely to induce the students to write something, not to display their knowledge of Shakespeare or his plays and poetry. On the other hand, Respondent's motive in disclosing the subject of the prompt to her son was to put him a little more at ease when he took the Test; from this perspective, Respondent's motive was to confer upon her son an advantage that would not be enjoyed by the other students who took the Test. Most parents, like Respondent, could encourage their children to do their best and finish the Test, but none could give them the small measure of assurance that comes with knowing the subject of the prompt ahead of taking the Test. Emboldened by his special knowledge, Respondent's son told his teacher, loudly enough that some of his classmates could hear, that the Test was easy and that it was about a poet named Shakespeare. The teacher ordered Respondent to be quiet and, secure in the knowledge that the students did not know who Shakespeare was, justifiably determined that this disclosure a few moments before starting the Test would not affect the validity of the results. The teacher reported the matter to her principal, and eventually the matter was referred to the Miami- Dade County School District. When asked, Respondent admitted to telling her son about the prompt. Eventually, Respondent agreed to a five- workday suspension, without a right to a hearing, as opposed to a proposed termination, subject to a right to a hearing. She has served her suspension and remains employed by the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent is an experienced teacher, whose career has taken place within the era of high-stakes testing. This simple case pivots on an act that, in effect, verged on the inconsequential, but, in genesis, revealed a worrisome inattentiveness to the demands of one's profession in maintaining an unassailable boundary between public duty and private interest. The proper penalty must recognize the mereness of the act, but inculcate in Respondent an aversion to self-dealing.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of section 1012.795(1)(g) and imposing a reprimand and a requirement that Respondent complete successfully 15 hours of teacher ethics or professionalism coursework, online or in person, by August 1, 2019, on her own time or using her personal leave. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with having entered into a sexual relationship with a minor who was a student at a school where the Respondent was an administrator and teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 518573 covering the area of English. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. During the school years of 1978-1979, 1979-1980, and 1980-1981, the Respondent was employed as an administrator and teacher at Summit Christian School in West Palm Beach, Florida. During those same school years, J. R. G. was a female student attending Summit Christian School. Those school years were, respectively, her sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school. J. R. G. was fifteen years old during her sophomore year of high school. During J. R. G.’s sophomore year the Respondent was her History teacher and was also the Principal of the school. During the next two school years, the Respondent continued to be the Principal of the school, but he did not teach classes on a regular basis. During most of the three school years mentioned above, J. R. G. was frequently a baby-sitter for the Respondent’s children. During that period of time J. R. G. was on very friendly terms with the Respondent, with the Respondent’s wife, and with the Respondent’s children. During that period of time J. R. G. was a frequent visitor to the Respondent’s house at times other than when she was baby-sitting. During J. R. G.’s sophomore year and until about the middle of her junior year, whenever J. R. G. baby-sat for the Respondent the Respondent always drove J. R. G. from her home to his home at the beginning of each baby-sitting job and he always drove her home after each baby-sitting job. The Respondent’s wife never drove J. R. G. to or from a baby-sitting job. During the second half of J. R. G.’s junior year and during her senior year she drove herself to and from baby-sitting jobs at the Respondent’s house. Although the circumstances described in paragraph 6, above, provided an opportunity for the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the evidence of such misconduct falls short of the clear and convincing standard which is applicable in this case.1
Recommendation For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th of February, 1997.
