Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 139016 covering the area of history and qualifying him to teach grades 7 through 12. From on or about January 27, 1988, until August 29, 1989 the Respondent was employed by the Board as a teacher at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School, teaching 8th grade gifted students ranging in age from 13 to 14 years and 11th and 12th grade advanced placement history students ranging in age from 16 to 18 years. Respondent is presently employed by the Board, assigned to the Media Center in Jacksonville, Florida where he was assigned on August 29, 1989. Prior to his present employment with the Board, the Respondent had been employed by the Florida Community College of Jacksonville (FCCJ) for 21-1/2 years as a teacher/administrator. Before assuming his teaching duties at Sandalwood, Respondent had read the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and understood and accepted the obligations and responsibilities placed on him by the code. On June 21, 1989, S.L.W. ran away from her home in North Carolina and while standing outside of a local fast food restaurant, a short distance from her home, an individual called Adrian Freeman offered her a ride. S.L.W. was not acquainted with Freeman before he offered her a ride. Freeman learned from S.L.W. that she had run away from home and offered to help her and not tell anyone. S.L.W. spent the night at Freeman's house and while there she became intoxicated and "passed out." While S.L.W. was passed out, Freeman sexually assaulted her. The next day, June 23, 1989, S.L.W. decided to leave Freeman's house and he drove her to the bus station. At first, S.L.W. was going to Myrtle Beach but because the bus for Jacksonville, Florida left earlier she decided to go to Jacksonville. Before S.L.W. left for Jacksonville, Freeman made arrangements with the Respondent for him to meet S.L.W. in Jacksonville and find her a place to stay. Upon arriving in Jacksonville, S.L.W. was met at the bus station by Respondent. The Respondent told S.L.W. that he was a high school teacher. S.L.W. told Respondent that she was in the tenth grade and a runaway. Respondent then told S.L.W. that she would be staying at the home of Lee Daniels. Respondent then bought S.L.W. some food. When S.L.W. finished eating he carried her to the home of Lee Daniels but they were told to come back later. Respondent and S.L.W. later returned to the home of Daniels around 10:00 a.m. Respondent showed S.L.W. to her room and told her to take a shower. After taking she shower she put on her clothes and got under the cover. At this point, Respondent returned to the room with an alcoholic beverage for S.L.W. Respondent then told S.L.W. to remove her clothes item by item and once she was undressed began to massage her body. Later Respondent attempted sexual intercourse with S.L.W. and, although Respondent did not have an ejaculation he did penetrate S.L.W.'s vagina with his penis. Respondent then left Daniels' home and was seen by S.L.W. on only two other occasions. There was no physical contact between them on these occasions. S.L.W. remained at Daniels' home for approximately three weeks. Eventually, S.L.W. was picked up by a State Trooper at a bar and through the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department was returned to her mother. S.L.W. identified Respondent for the sheriff's department as the person who sexually assaulted her by pointing him out in a high school year book. Based on this identification, Respondent was arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious assault upon a minor. Respondent's conduct involving S.L.W. was immoral, reflects on his character, not only as an individual but more specifically as a teacher, and is in violation of the Duval County Teacher's Tenure Act and the Code of Ethics of the teaching profession. Although the publicity of Respondent's involvement with S.L.W. created by several newspaper articles and television stories and by word of mouth of the students, teacher and parents of Sandalwood seriously impaired his effectiveness as a teacher at Sandalwood, there was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been seriously impaired in the Duval County School System as a whole.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 4(a) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act and terminating his employment with the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6704 Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-4. Adopted in Findings of fact 1, 3, 2 and 4, respectively. 5-7. Rejected as not being material or relevant to this case or not being supported by any substantial competent evidence in the record. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 12-55. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 6 through 19, otherwise rejected as not being material or relevant, or being redundant or subordinate, or not supported by any substantial competent evidence in the record. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Facts 2 and 3. 3.-4. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 17, otherwise rejected as not being material or relevant. Rejected as not being material or relevant. Covered in Preliminary Statement. 7.-10. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 6-17, otherwise rejected as not being material or relevant, or redundant or subordinate, or not supported by any substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, otherwise rejected or not being material or relevant, or being redundant or subordinate, or not being supported by any substantial competent evidence in the record. 16. Rejected as not being supported by any substantial competent evidence in the record. See Findings of Fact 10 through 18. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Gail A. Stafford, Esquire 421 West Church Street, Suite 715 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Wilfredo D. Rivera-Carde, was employed by the School Board of Dade County pursuant to a professional service contract as a JROTC Instructor assigned to Miami Jackson Senior High School. During the course of his employment as a JROTC Instructor, the Respondent's students in the JROTC program included the following: T. F., S. G., I. R., E. P., and B. V. Of these, all but B. V. were females. At all times material hereto, the JROTC Instructors had their offices in a large room that was divided by large cabinets and other furniture into two offices. The back office was the Respondent's office. The back office was accessible via a passage way from the larger office occupied by the other two JROTC Instructors. The passage way was formed by tall cabinets on both sides. During the 1992-93 school year, I. R., who was at that time a female student enrolled in the JROTC program, was one of the JROTC clerks. In her capacity as clerk she was required to perform clerical duties in the Respondent's office on a frequent basis. When I. R. was performing those clerical duties, often the only other person in the back office was the Respondent. At all times material hereto, the School Board's employee conduct rule was in effect at Miami Jackson Senior High School. The rule provides that teachers must maintain a proper relationship with all of their students and prohibits inappropriate touching of students by teachers. The employee conduct rule is incorporated in the teacher handbook, a copy of which is provided to each teacher each year. Moreover, it is the practice of the Principal at Miami Jackson Senior High School to review the employee conduct rule with all teachers during orientation at the beginning of each school year and at faculty meetings throughout the year. During the course of the Petitioner's investigation of this matter, the Petitioner provided the information it had gathered to police authorities. In March of 1993 the Respondent was arrested on criminal charges filed by female students, T. F. and I. R. The criminal charges against the Respondent have since been dismissed by the Office of the State Attorney. For the reasons mentioned in the Preliminary Statement, in the Endnotes, and in the Appendix, the evidence in this case is insufficient to prove any of the allegations of misconduct set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board issue a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 5th day of October, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 23rd day of January, 2017.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed teacher in the state of Florida, having been issued Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 415935 by the Department of Education. In October, 1985, Respondent was a guidance counselor at the Larkdale Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. On October 30, 1985, T B. was eleven years old and a fifth-grade student at Larkdale Elementary School. On that date, while returning from the bathroom to her classroom T. B. encountered Respondent in the hallway. Respondent asked T. B. to accompany him to his office for the ostensible purpose of performing some filing. Upon arriving at Respondent's office, Respondent requested that T. B. fill up a candy jar. While T. B. was bending over getting candy out of the bottom of the filing cabinet, Respondent placed his hands around her waist. Respondent then lifted up so that she was standing in front of Respondent. Respondent placed his hand under her dress, then placed his hands inside her dress and fondled her breast. T. B. began crying and asked Respondent's permission to return to her classroom. At the time, Respondent was T. B.'s guidance counselor, and she talked to him about "everything." In February, 1986, Respondent was still employed as a counselor at Larkdale Elementary School. In February, 1986, K. C. was twelve years old and a fifth-grade student at Larkdale. In February, 1986, K. C. and two other students were standing in a hallway outside a classroom when they were approached by Respondent. Respondent placed his arms around K. C. and began talking to her. He then placed his hand on K. C.'s left breast. K. C. slapped Respondent's hand and told Respondent she was going to inform her teacher of what had occurred. On March 7, 1986 the Broward County Sheriff's Office filed a Probable Cause Affidavit against Respondent. The Probable Cause Affidavit alleged that on October 30, 1985, Respondent had committed a lewd and lascivious assault on T. B., a child under the age of 16, contrary to section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes. The Probable Cause Affidavit alleged: The victim was doing secretarial work for the Defendant, and was sitting on the floor in the Defendant's office sorting papers. The Defendant came up behind the victim, and put both his arms around her sliding one of his hands inside her shirt, and began to fondle her breast, the victim had forcibly [sic] get away from the Defendant. Respondent was arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious assault upon T. B. Subsequent to the filing of the Probable Cause Affidavit, the State Attorney's Office for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit filed a one-count criminal information against Respondent (Case No. 86-4538CF) which charged Respondent with committing a lewd and lascivious assault on a child (T. B.), in violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes. The State Attorney's Office for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit also filed a one-count criminal information against Respondent (Case No. 86-4539CF) which charged Respondent with simple battery on a child K. C., in violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes. On June 5, 1986, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes, a second degree felony, as alleged in the information filed by the State Attorney's Office in the matter of State of Florida v. James R. Feldman, Case No. 86-4538CF. Adjudication was withheld. On June 5, 1986, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes, a first degree misdemeanor, as alleged in the information filed by the State Attorney's Office in the matter of State of Florida v. James R. Feldman, Case No. 4539CF. Jacquelyn Box (f/k/a Jacquelyn Moore) was the Principal of Larkdale Elementary School during the 1985-86 school year. With regard to T. B., Ms. Box received a report from a teacher that Respondent had been touching the student inappropriately. She discussed the matter with the student and informed the student's mother. Ms. Box also reported the incident to the school system's Internal Affairs Department. With regard to K. C., Ms. Box became aware of the incident after the student's mother confronted Respondent. Upon being informed of the incident by her daughter, the student's mother came to the school to confront Respondent. During the confrontation, the student's mother struck Respondent. Upon being notified of the confrontation, Ms. Box contacted the Police Department and the school system's Internal Affairs Department. Both the staff and the students of Larkdale Elementary School were aware of the sexual improprieties committed by Respondent with regard to each of the female students. Certain students discussed the allegations with the Principal. Approximately 40-50% of the 4th and 5th grade students were aware of the allegations. The Principal was contacted by the parents of students in that school who were concerned about the incidents. Students and staff must have trust and confidence in a guidance counselor for the counselor to be effective. At times, a guidance counselor has to engage in one-on-one counseling with a student. One of the areas a guidance counselor works in with the students is human sexuality. A guidance counselor cannot be effective if the students do not trust him. The disclosure of the foregoing incidents had a negative impact upon Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher, substantially reducing that effectiveness. The students did not trust Respondent following the disclosure and would not trust Respondent if he returned to the school as a guidance counselor. Respondent's actions in fondling the two female students and the subsequent disclosure of Respondent's actions rendered Respondent totally ineffective as a guidance counselor. Respondent's actions in conjunction with the disclosure destroyed the bond of trust necessary for a guidance counselor to be effective.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH Case No. 87-3908 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 20 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause. The remainder of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are in the form of a letter with unnumbered paragraphs. For purposes of specific rulings herein, each paragraph has been numbered consecutively. Only Respondent's paragraph numbered 7 has been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's paragraphs numbered 1, 47 6, 8-13, and 15-17 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact bud rather as consisting primarily of argument. Respondent's paragraphs numbered 2, 3, 5 and 14 have been rejected as being contrary to the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Chris H. Bentley, Esquire 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James R. Feldmann 6210 Northwest 26th Court Sunrise, Florida 33313 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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.
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.
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
