Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jean-Baptiste Guerrier (Guerrier), holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 59692 covering the area of English which is valid through June 30, 1995. Guerrier was employed as a teacher at Miami Edison Middle School during the 1992-93 school year. On September 20, 1993, the following disciplinary action was taken by the Dade County School System against Guerrier for conduct unbecoming a school employee: Directives were issued to Respondent to refrain from making inappropriate remarks. Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand. Respondent was placed on prescription. Respondent received an unacceptable rating for Category VII and an overall summary rating of unacceptable on his 1992-93 TADS Annual Evaluation. On November 29, 1994, the Commissioner of Education issued an Administrative Complaint against Guerrier alleging that he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to three eighth grade female students during the 1992-1993 school year. Based on the evidence presented Guerrier did not make such comments. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Guerrier engaged in inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature with two eighth female students during the 1992-1993 school year. Based on the evidence presented Guerrier did not engage in such behavior. A teacher at Miami Edison Middle School observed Guerrier putting his arm around female students during the changing of classes. He did not identify the students. During these occasions, Guerrier's back was turned towards the teacher. The teacher characterized Guerrier as a gregarious teacher. During the 1992-1993 school year, Guerrier had three female cousins who were attending Miami Edison Middle School. Guerrier would put his arm around his cousins' shoulders when he would see them at school. Guerrier did not put his arm around any other female students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-649 Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Respondent's alleged immorality and misconduct in office on March 29, April 5, 6, 8 & 13, 1976, under Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, as set forth in letter to Respondent from James E. Maurer, dated June 18, 1976.
Findings Of Fact During the academic year 1975-1976, Respondent was a classroom instructor in science at the Coconut Creek High School, Broward County, Florida. In the fall of 1975, Marcia Vulpis, a 14 year-old student at the school, was assigned to his class. He noticed during the ensuing months that she stared at him frequently which made him somewhat uncomfortable. About December, he spoke to Pamela Quianthy, Attendance Clerk at the school, about Marcia's behavior. Quianthy, who had observed Marcia on several occasions because of her presence in the office as a student aide, agreed that she was a rather strange girl and that she, Quianthy, also felt uncomfortable in her presence. In March, 1976, Marcia came into another class that Respondent was teaching and somewhat hysterically told him that she needed to see him right away. Respondent sensed the urgency in her request and was pleased that she had sought him out since she had seemed somewhat hostile during prior months. They thereafter had a long discussion at his office during which she informed him that a young man who lived next door to her had raped her and that she was bleeding inside. At this time, she also expressed past and present suicidal ideations and thoughts of murdering certain persons. She said that she had not told her mother or the police about the rape and did not wish to do so. He urged her to see a physician about her condition and determined that she was willing to have her 21 year-old aunt take her for such purpose. Respondent asked Quianthy to talk to her concerning the matter and she did so. During this conversation, Marcia told her that she had been raped and had not told anyone about it. Quianthy recommended that she inform her parents and also advised her to see a doctor. The next day the aunt came to the school to take Marcia to a doctor and Respondent sent them to the school dean for necessary permission to leave the grounds. (Testimony of Respondent, Quianthy) During the third week of March, 1976, Marcia, who sat at a desk directly in front of Respondent in his classroom, began writing notes to him during class in which she expressed love for him. On one occasion, after class, she told him that she wanted to go to bed with him. He reprimanded her for her statement. She pursued her request by subsequent notes and he penned some responses thereon advising her to come to his office to talk about it or to call him at home. He was concerned for her welfare and wished to help her. He did not refer her to the school counselor because she refused to talk to anyone else about her problems and he felt capable of providing necessary counseling because of his past experience as a Baptist minister and handling work experience programs in the school system. He made arrangements with Quianthy for her to phone him at his office during Marcia's visits in order that he would have an excuse to leave if necessary because he feared what the student might do on these occasions and wanted some means of leaving gracefully. The meetings in his office were held usually before afternoon classes commenced, and were at the request of Marcia. At one of these meetings, she told him that he was "driving her crazy" and attempted to kiss him. He pushed her away and cautioned her against such demonstrations. On another occasion, she remained after class and kissed him on the cheek, telling him that she loved him. He also admonished her at that time for her conduct. The above-mentioned incidents were the only times when there was physical contact between Respondent and the student. (Testimony of Respondent, Quianthy Petitioner's Exhibits 3-8) Respondent showed Marcia's notes to his wife and they discussed them a number of times. He also showed the notes to Quianthy and Regina Howard, a friend. Mrs. Howard had previously sought out Respohdent to assist her daughter with adolescence problems because she knew of his background as a minister and youth counselor. He discussed Marcia's situation with her and was serious about his concern for the girl. He requested that Howard get in touch with Marcia. She tried to do so several times, but was unable to contact her. (Testimony of Respondent, Ruth Barnett, Howard) During the school Easter vacation in April of 1976, Marcia called Respondent's home and his wife answered the telephone. Marcia asked to speak to "Ronnie" and during a subsequent conversation with Mrs. Barnett, learned that Respondent had shown her notes to his wife. Marcia was quite upset at learning this fact and said, "I'll show him." She also acknowledged to Mrs. Barnett that she had kissed the Respondent in his office and that she would assume the blame for that incident. Respondent attempted to speak with her at this time but she was too upset. The next day her aunt called him and said that Marcia had told her of certain sexual advances that had been made by Respondent. He informed her that this was not true and asked her to have Marcia call him. She did so and they agreed to meet at Fort Lauderdale Beach because she was staying with her father there. They subsequently met at a prearranged place where Respondent picked her up in his car and, after driving around a few minutes looking for a parking space, parked in a vacant motel parking lot. Respondent explained to her that he had retained her notes against her wishes and shown them to others because he did not feel confident to counsel her concerning female problems. There was no physical contact during this meeting. (Testimony of Respondent, Mrs. Barnett) After Easter vacation was concluded, Marcia informed Respondent that her mother had found her diary and that he would have to be careful or she (Marcia) would "put a noose over his head." Her mother, after discovering the "diary" (consisting of several sheets of notebook paper) that contained matters concerning Respondent, took Marcia to their church, Jehovah's Witnesses, where she told the elders of the church about her association with Respondent. Her father, who was divorced from Marcia's mother, was present and heard Marcia relate her alleged experiences with Respondent. He thereafter reported the matter to the authorities at Coconut Creek High School, taking with him one or two pages of Marcia's diary which contained entries for the last week of March. These included references to several of her visits to Respondent's office during which he had purportedly kissed her and fondled her breasts. (Testimony of Respondent, John Vulpis, Petitioner's Exhibit 11) A school investigation ensued during which Marcia initially declined to cooperate, but eventually made a written statement in which she,stated generally that she trusted and respected Respondent, that he was a good man and she did not wish anything to happen to him. Respondent was questioned by school security personnel and he related the two incidents when Marcia had kissed him on one occasion and had attempted to do so on the other. He also told them about the incident at the beach which had not been known to the investigators at the time, and he turned over Marcia's notes to them. Later, Marcia made another written statement in which she said that she and the Respondent had kissed each other three different times in his office and that on at least two occasions, he had put his hands on her breasts inside her blouse and kissed her breasts. Her statement also related that they had kissed one another during the beach incident and that he had kissed her breasts and had put his hands down her pants and that she had touched his "privates." In this statement she also said that he had made certain suggestive statements to her during classes earlier in the school year and that, although she had informed him of a sex experience with a "guy I loved," she had not told him she was raped. (Testimony of Respondent, Stearns, Patterson, Petitioner's Exhibits 9 & 10) Marcia Vulpis testified at the hearing and her version of the relationship with Respondent and their meetings differs in material respects from that of Respondent which is set forth in the foregoing Findings of Fact. She testified that Respondent made several suggestive remarks to her during the school year. She admitted seeking him out to discuss the incident with the boy next door and that he had advised her to see a doctor. She stated that, although she had disliked Respondent at first, she later changed her views and began writing notes to him. She admitted asking him to go to bed with her, but testified that while discussing this request in his office on March 29, 1976, Respondent pulled her in the corner and kissed her. She also testified that during other visits to his office on April 5, 6 & 8, they kissed one another, and Respondent kissed her breasts and touched her on the vagina, and that she touched him on the penis through his trousers. She stated that similar acts occurred during their meeting on the beach in mid-April. After her mother discovered the diary and her father had reported the relationship with Respondent to school authorities, she asked the Respondent what they were going to do and he replied that they were in a lot of trouble. Although conceding that she was upset after discovering that Respondent had showed her notes to his wife and others, she said that she did not tell anyone she would seek revenge for his disclosure. She also conceded that she had taken LSD and "pills" from nine to eleven years of age and had had a few "trips". She testified that she attempted to kill herself when she was ten years old with a needle when she was "freaked out." She further stated that she had thought about suicide a lot of times and that the last time she harbored these thoughts was in early March and that they were prompted by her failure to get along with her mother. Although she had loved Respondent, she decided after the investigation that she loved him no more. (Testimony of Marcia Vulpis) School policy at Coconut Creek High School which is announced to all teachers at the beginning of each school year, is that an upset or disturbed child should be referred by an instructor to the school guidance staff, that included a full-time psychologist. This policy was also contained in a handbook issued to instructional personnel. (Testimony of Weatherred, Roesch, Larson) Respondent is 45 years old and posseses a bachelor of arts degree in theology and linguistics and a masters degree in elementary education. He additionally has completed approximately 90 hours of post-graduate study. He served as a Baptist minister for five years in Lowell, Massachusetts and three years in another pastorate in Newton, New Hampshire. His prior experience includes service as an elementary school principal at Turner Falls, Massachusetts. He entered the teaching profession because of family obligations that required greater remuneration than received in the ministry. He has four children. He entered the Broward County school system in 1970 working with low- achievers at the Pines Middle School in a work experience program for two years. He served one year at Plantation doing the same type of work and in 1974 was transferred to the Coconut Creek High School where he set up a work experience program. He has done extensive work in counseling young people with their problems both as a minister and teacher. Respondent admitted that he had had marital conflicts with his wife in the past and that he had lived alone in Florida for a period of time, but that their marriage relationship was good at the present time. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3) Although denied by Respondent on cross-examination, evidence was received that he had patted two female office employees of the Coconut Creek High School on their posteriors in a "friendly" manner while walking by them in the office, and that he had also ran his finger down the back of their dresses. (Testimony of Ivell, Herter) Respondent was suspended without pay by Petitioner on June 18, 1976 pending final action on the charges involving Marcia Vulpis. (Exhibit l)
Recommendation That the School Board of Broward County, Florida reinstate Ronald R. Barnett as an instructor and restore all back pay and other benefits that have been withheld during the period of his suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 13th day of August, 1976.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Richard Humphrey, should be dismissed from employment with the Broward County School system.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Richard Humphreys, is an instructional employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, holding a continuing contract of employment, and was assigned as a classroom teacher to Coconut Creek High School, Coconut Creek, Florida, for the school year 1978 - 1979. On March 7, 1979, the Superintendent of Schools for Broward County notified the Respondent that a petition for his dismissal would be submitted to the Broward County School Board. On March 16, 1979, said School Board suspended the Respondent from his classroom assignment and placed him in a non-teaching position at the county office. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing by an impartial hearing officer, and the undersigned Hearing Officer was assigned to conduct the hearing. Respondent Humphreys has been an employee of the Petitioner School Board for approximately ten (10) years. Respondent signed a statement dated November 3, 1969, entitled "Code of Ethics of the Education Profession." In part the said statement included "I have read the 'Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida' and recognize my rights as a member of the education profession in Florida and accept the obligation and responsibility placed upon me." The principal of the school in which Respondent was employed as a faculty member for the school year 1978 - 1979, James Weatherred, discussed the 1978 - 1979 Student Conduct and Discipline Code with the faculty and admonished the faculty that the code should be implemented. The code was distributed to each member of the faculty with directions to give the booklet to the students. On page thirteen (13), under "General Conduct," "using profane, obscene, indecent, or immoral language and/or gestures" is listed as "Unacceptable Behavior." Rosa Lawson, an administrative assistant at Coconut Creek High School where Respondent was employed, had, among other duties, the responsibility to supervise personnel, including Respondent, who has been directly under her supervision for about four (4) years. Prior to October 19, 1978, Ms. Lynn Barry, a teacher in the school system, notified Ms. Lawson that Respondent had used language before her and two classes of approximately forty (40) students to the effect of "Bring that fucking equipment in." Ms. Lawson promptly left a slip in the mailbox of Respondent notifying him to meet her for a conference. A conference was held on October 19, 1978, at which time Respondent was warned and directed to stop using that kind of language on the campus. Subsequently, on or about January 22, 1979, Ms. Lawson, in her official capacity, again directed Respondent to refrain from using profane language in the presence of students. This admonition was in a second conference. The Hearing Officer finds that these orders were given to Respondent by Rosa Lawson in a friendly type of conference that also included other topics pertaining to Ms. Lawson's duties as supervisor of Respondent as a faculty member. On or about February 12, 1979, an employment evaluation, Exhibit 4, was made by Ms. Lawson and presented to Respondent, who refused to sign it at that time but returned the next day and signed it. When asked whether he wished to discuss the evaluation, Respondent replied in the negative. On or about January 16, 1979, at Coconut Creek High School, Respondent told Alfred O'Neill, a tenth-grade student at said high school, to "Get your fucking ass across the room. I'm sick of your shit." This was established through the testimony of Rosa Lawson, the administrative assistant, by Alfred O'Neill, the student, and by Theresa O'Neill, his parent, on June 14, 1979, and by Respondent. On or about January 26, 1979, at the aforesaid high school, Respondent told Joseph Varanese, a tenth-grade student at the school, "Varanese, get the fuck out on the field." This was established through the testimony of James Weatherred, Principal of Coconut Creek High School, Ronald Wilhoit, an administrative assistant at said school, Rosa Lawson, an administrative assistant at said school, add by testimony of Joseph Varanese, the student, and Carol Varanese, his parent. During the period of December, 1978, through February, 1979, at Coconut Creek High School, Respondent once told Michael Mulesky, a tenth-grade student at said school, "These assholes. This shit should have stopped five (5) years ago." This was established through the testimony of Michael Mulesky, the student, Theresa O'Neill, a parent, Mary Keller, an employee at said high school, and Rosa Lawson, an administrative assistant at said school. In December of 1978, at Coconut Creek High School, Respondent told students in his physical education class to "Hurry up and get dressed, and get the fuck out of here so the painters can get back to work." This was established through the testimony of Roy Smiley, a teacher at the aforesaid high school. On a date unknown, Respondent told male students in his physical education class at Coconut Creek High School to "Bring your ass over here. Get the hell over here. What the fuck are you doing over here?" This was established through the testimony of Juanita Williams, a teacher at the aforesaid school. The obscenities and disparaging statements uttered by Respondent Humphreys embarrassed the tenth-grade student, O'Neill, and caused loss of respect for Respondent as an educator. Respondent's obscenities to student Mulesky caused this student embarrassment. The disparaging remark to student Varanese shocked the student's consciousness and embarrassed him. On several occasions the profane and obscene language used by Respondent was uttered in a loud voice and within hearing of a number of students and faculty members. The profane and indecent outbursts of Respondent are irresponsible, and Respondent should have had more respect for members of the public, students and teachers. On at least two occasions faculty members felt compelled to complain to their supervisor about the offensive language used by Respondent at the school. The profane utterances of Respondent Humphreys are insensitive to the rights of others and impair the effectiveness of the school he serves and his own effectiveness as a teacher within the system. Respondent was on notice that profane, obscene, indecent and immoral language was unacceptable behavior and enforced student compliance with the student conduct and discipline code by requiring them to do twenty-five (25) to seventy-five (75) push-ups for non-compliance. He testified that he did not condone swearing in class and counseled with students, demanding that they cease using such language in class. Respondent failed to refrain from the use of indecent language himself and failed to set a good example for the students. Respondent was instrumental in the proper signing and dissemination of the student handbook and the filing of the signed parent and student acknowledgements. The consequences of unacceptable behavior on the part of the student includes suspension from classes and from all school activities. Respondent was, or should have been, on written notice that profane, indecent and obscene language would subject him to suspension or dismissal from his job. Briefs were submitted by both parties, and Petitioner submitted proposed findings of facts. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Richard Humphreys, be dismissed from employment with the Broward County School System. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce E. Wagner, Esquire Suite 301, Justice Building 524 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 =================================================================
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's educators certificate.
Findings Of Fact In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent, Elizabeth Weisman, held a Florida Teaching Certificate No. 475382. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education and mathematics and was valid through June 30, 2005. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a dropout prevention teacher at Second Chance School in Tallahassee, Florida. The school is part of the Leon County School District. There is no evidence that Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on any prior occasion since she began teaching in Leon County in October 1980. Second Chance School is a school for children with disciplinary problems and who have a history of being extremely disruptive and cannot be handled in a regular school setting. Ms. Weisman was in a difficult position when she started teaching at Second Chance School. She was assigned to teach outside her field and was replacing a teacher who was not as strict a disciplinarian or as demanding of performance as Ms. Weisman. In general, her students did not react well to the increase in discipline and expectations of performance and likely caused increased referrals to the principal's office. Both Ms. Weisman and the students had to adjust to each other On April 6, 2001, J.M. entered Respondent's classroom. Respondent asked him to leave her classroom. He was not supposed to be in the classroom because he had been referred to the principal's office the day before for discipline. J.M. attempted to comply with Respondent's request, but a number of students entering the room blocked him from leaving. Respondent made a shooing motion with her hands to J.M. and raised her foot to indicate for J.M. to leave the room. The gestures were done in a playful manner and were intended as such. While Ms. Weisman's foot was raised, she accidentally brushed or pushed J.M.'s buttocks with her foot. J.M. could feel the push. However, it did not cause him to lose his balance or cause any harm to him whatsoever. The evidence did not demonstrate that J.M. was unduly embarrassed or otherwise affected academically by the incident. Indeed, the incident gave J.M. a good story to tell to others at school. The evidence did not demonstrate that the push was inappropriate or violated any state rules or statutes governing teachers. There was no evidence that Ms. Weisman was less effective as a teacher due to this incident. W.F. testified that on two occasions he witnessed Respondent state to the class that they were "acting like jackasses." J.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. Specifically, W.F. testified that on the first occasion, Respondent stated to the class that they were "acting like jackasses" after class members refused to return to their seats during an altercation between two students occurring outside the classroom. The classroom students were generally cheering the fight on. With respect to the second instance, W.F. testified that Respondent made the statement after W.F. and several of his classmates tricked Respondent into placing her hand on a pencil sharpener covered with glue. W.F. conceded the description was an accurate description of the behavior of the students at the time. At no time did Respondent call an individual student an improper name. Although W.F. testified he was embarrassed by Ms. Weisman, W.F.'s testimony is not persuasive on this point. Nor is it realistic to conclude any significant embarrassment given the bold nature of W.F.'s behavior which preceded these comments. W.F. also testified on direct examination that he witnessed Respondent call the class "a bunch of rat bastards." Again W.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. During cross-examination, however, W.F. testified that the remark was made to a specific female student during a verbal altercation between the student and Respondent. However, Respondent denies ever using or knowing the term "rat bastard." Given Respondent's demeanor, the inconsistency, and the unreliability of the other evidence, Respondent's testimony is the more credible. There was no credible evidence that any student was ever affected in any way by these incidences. No evidence of any change in grades or reduced test scores was introduced at the hearing. An increase in disciplinary referrals was noted by the principal, but that increase was not shown to be tied to these incidences. The increase, if any, was more likely to be due to the fact that she was a new teacher, teaching out of field, who was more strict with her students and demanded more from them. Moreover, statistics supporting this perceived increase in disciplinary referrals was not offered at the hearing. Indeed, later testing showed Ms. Weisman's students improved their test scores. However, the testing was for a different year and class. It was not clear that the same students were being tested. The improvement does show that Ms. Weisman is an effective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23d day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 23d day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John O. Williams, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street The Cambridge Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michael B. Smith (Smith), has been continuously employed as a teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1977. During the 1985-86 school year, Smith was employed under a continuing contract as a work experience teacher at Miami Norland Senior High School. The Assault and Loan Among the students in Smith's second period work experience class was Colleen Ann Dougherty (Colleen); a 15 year old female and 10th grade student. Colleen had been a student of Smith's since September 1985, and they enjoyed a good student- teacher relationship until the events which gave rise to these proceedings. 1/ On February 10, 1986, Smith asked Colleen to remain after class. Once the other students had left the classroom, and Colleen and he were alone, Smith engaged Colleen in a brief conversation concerning the progress of her outside employment. Gauging the conversation at an end, Colleen picked up her purse and book bag preparatory to moving to her next class, but was distracted when Smith asked her what was in her purse. As Colleen looked into her purse, which was hanging from her right shoulder, Smith placed his left hand on her right hip and his right hand on her left shoulder. When Colleen looked up, Smith pulled her toward him, and kissed her on the lips. Smith's conduct was uninvited and unexpected; Colleen, disconcerted, left the classroom. On February 11, 1986, Smith was covering Colleen's first period class for her regular teacher. After the class had started, Smith asked Colleen into the hall and, exhibiting his divorce papers and a sense of urgency, asked to borrow $50.00 by the end of third period. Colleen informed Smith that she did not know if she could get the money by then since she would need to go to her boy friend's house for the bank book. Thereupon, Smith gave Colleen a pass to visit her friend Jessica to see about transportation. After arranging for transportation with Jessica, Colleen returned to Smith, who was still standing in the hall outside the classroom, and informed him that Jessica and she could get the money. At this time, Smith told Colleen that he liked her and suggested that they meet at school one night so he could repay the money. When Colleen expressed a lack of understanding concerning Smith's comments, he told her to look down and said, "even standing next to you excites me." On looking down, Colleen observed that Smith had an erection. Colleen quickly changed the subject and left with Jessica to get the requested $50.00 from the bank, which she later gave to Smith. Colleen was troubled by what had transpired and was afraid that if she reported the incident the administration would not credit her statements over those of a teacher. However, on Wednesday, February 12, 1986, Colleen told her boss what had transpired between Smith and her, and on the evening of February 12, 1986, she informed her grandmother. On February 13, 1986 Colleen, together with her boss and grandmother, informed the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School concerning the events of February 10-11, 1986. Smith was subsequently suspended from his teaching position, and this administrative proceeding duly followed. In choosing to credit Colleen's recollection of the events of February 10-11, 1986, as opposed to Smith's, I am not unmindful of minor discrepancies in the proof. However, the candor and demeanor of Colleen, coupled with the corroborating proof, compels the conclusion that Smith did commit, without invitation or provocation, the acts set forth in paragraphs 3-5, supra. Smith's conduct was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious to bring himself and his profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Due to the notoriety of his conduct, Smith's service in the community, as well as his effectiveness in the school system, has been severely impaired. The Excessive Absences The proof establishes that Smith was absent from his employment on 26 days during the 1985-86 school year. Five of those days, and possibly six, were for personal reasons, rather than illness. While teachers are generally allowed only 4 personal days each school year, the School Board offered no evidence to rebut the proof that the additional 1-2 days were authorized by Smith's supervisor, or that all time off was duly approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent, Michael B. Smith, from his employment, and dismissing Respondent, Michael B. Smith, from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 21st day of November, 1986.
