The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, and other offenses in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), (e), (f) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Daniel Ayers, holds Florida Educator Certificate number 735644, which was valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher at Gulfport Elementary School in the Pinellas County School District during the relevant school year. On July 5, 2000, at about 8:15 p.m., Respondent entered the public restroom at Lake Seminole Park, Pinellas County Florida, where he was observed by Deputy James Brueckner of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. It is a well-used park, and people were present that evening. It was still light at that time, and Lake Seminole Park was being used by families and children. The playground is close to the northeast corner of the restroom Respondent entered. Respondent approached a urinal, and, after facing it for about 30 seconds, he went to the back wall where it was possible for him to observe, through the openings, anybody approaching the restroom. At that point, Respondent had his penis in his hands and was masturbating by holding his penis and fondling it. He then replaced his penis in his pants through the fly, pulled down his shorts, and began moving his hand up and down on his penis in a rapid motion. Deputy Brueckner, who was inside the restroom, removed his badge and identified himself to Respondent. He told Petitioner that he was a detective and showed him the badge. He told Respondent that he was under arrest, but that he should be calm. They would go out to his vehicle to do the paperwork. Respondent made a move towards the door, as if he was going to run. Deputy Brueckner grabbed him, and Respondent shoved the deputy and fled. Deputy Brueckner pursued Respondent and caught him. Respondent swatted the deputy several times. Two other deputies came to Deputy Brueckner's assistance, and Respondent was subdued. Respondent was charged with indecent exposure of sexual organs (a misdemeanor) and with resisting arrest with violence (a felony). He subsequently entered a plea of No Contest to the charge of indecent exposure of sexual organs and to the reduced charge of resisting arrest without violence in Pinellas County Circuit Court. He was adjudicated guilty on both charges by the court and placed on probation. Respondent admitted to Michael Bessette, an administrator in the office of professional standards, Pinellas County School District, that he was the person arrested and charged as a result of the incident on July 5, 2000. In Bessette's expert opinion, the public would not tolerate the type of behavior exhibited by Respondent on July 5, 2000, at Lake Seminole Park. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced to the point where the school district had to remove him from teaching duties. In Bessette's opinion Respondent engaged in conduct that constitutes gross immorality and would not be tolerated under state or local ethical standards. Respondent resigned his teaching position with the Pinellas County School District on April 25, 2001, following his conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Section 231.2615(1)(c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for three years, imposing a $1,000 fine for the above violations, and that upon re- application for certification, imposing such conditions as are just and reasonable. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Daniel Ayers 7096 111th Street, North Seminole, Florida 33772 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Mary Benekin holds teaching certificate No. 478252 and is certified to teach at the elementary and secondary levels in the areas of mental retardation and specific learning disabilities. Benekin was employed on annual contract as an exceptional education teacher in the Duval County School District at the Matthew W. Gilbert Seventh Grade Center. She began employment there in 1984 and continued to teach in that position until approximately February 20, 1987, when she left her position and did not return. The Petitioner seeks to revoke or otherwise penalize Benekin's teaching certificate for misconduct involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; for misconduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f); for misconduct which violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education in violation of Section 231.28(1)(h); and for misconduct which intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. These charges were based on 6 specific factual allegations against Benekin: use of sexually explicit language and terms in the classroom; recounting to students various sex acts she and her boyfriends performed and discussing other sex- related matters; sitting in front of students with her feet on her desk and her legs spread apart, sometimes scratching her vaginal area; making reference on numerous occasions to drugs and asking students if they knew where to buy drugs; repeatedly borrowing money from students, having students buy food for her, and asking students for some of their food; and making derogatory statements about students in the presence of other students, including statements that they smelled bad. Sexual Language and Discussions On direct examination, Ray Cummings, a student in Benekin's 4th period science class, stated that Benekin talked about sex to Tom Tom (Thomas Jones) on one occasion and that she said she "sucked men's dicks." On cross examination, Ray said that either Benekin or Racheal Ashley made the statements. Then on redirect examination, Ray said that Benekin talked "nasty," but did not say "suck men's dicks." Instead, she said something else regarding sex acts, about not allowing a man to "put his thing in her, that she would let him feel all over her." Ray then testified that he heard Benekin make these statements to Thomas. Finally, on recross examination, Ray said Benekin made these statements to "Racheal and them." By contrast, the report of the principal, Curtis Randolph, shows that Ray told the investigator there that he did not know of anything going on in Benekin's class. Also, Ray's testimony is contradicted by Thomas' statement. (See Findings of Fact 11 and 12). Kathy Jessup testified on direct that she overheard Benekin say, in a conversation with someone who Kathy cannot identify, that she would "suck men's dicks." Kathy testified that her friends told her Benekin said this in other classes, too. Kathy also said that she heard Benekin talk about sex, but she can't remember what was said or to whom. On cross examination, Kathy testified that Benekin told the whole class that she "sucked men's dicks." By contrast, the principal's report again shows that Kathy made no mention in that investigation of the alleged sexual discussions or the specific statement regarding "sucking men's dicks." Several sworn statements from students who were not present to testify were submitted "only for the purpose of corroboration." Regrettably, these statements do not corroborate much of the direct evidence. The statement of Kenyatta Brown says essentially that Benekin talked about sex to Tom Tom and Ray everyday and that Racheal told her that Benekin said she "sucked men's dicks." This is contrary to Ray's testimony and Thomas' statement and to the story she told to the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 14). Racheal Ashley's statement says Benekin told "us" about specific sex acts and that she "suck's men's things." However when this is compared to other students' testimony and statements, it begins to become apparent that Racheal is probably the source of these alleged statements. Racheal's statement is directly contrary to the story she told the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 13). Antinette Phillips' statement states that Benekin told the class all about her sex life and goes into great detail. No other students' recall of the events agree with Antinette's and no other student related the details stated by Antinette. Antinette's statement also differs from what she told the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 15) Thomas Jones' statement indicates that Ray and Racheal told him that Benekin said she sucked her boyfriend's dick and that she let him fondle her. Thomas specifically stated that other students told him about Benekin's alleged discussions about sexual acts between her and her boyfriend. Finally Thomas stated that Benekin said what she does at home, she leaves at home. Thomas never heard any sex talk from Benekin. Clearly Thomas' statement is directly contrary to Ray's testimony and Racheal's statement and the report of the principal's investigator. The principal made a report of the information related by students in the course of his investigation. This information is contrary to the later statements of most of these students. For example, Racheal attributed the descriptions of sexual acts and the statement about sucking men's dicks to a Mrs. Sowell, another teacher. Racheal never said anything about Benekin in relation to these sexual discussions. Kenyatta Brown told the investigator that Benekin said in class that she and her boyfriend sucked each others privates and that Benekin asked Thomas and Antinette about their sex lives. This is directly contrary to her written statement. (See Finding of Fact 8) Antinette Phillips told the principal's investigator that Benekin told her, Thomas, Ray and Antinette about various details of her sex acts with her boyfriend. Again, these details are not consistent with the details given in her statement. It appears from all of these conflicting statements that a rumor circulated that Benekin made these statements; however, the testimony of Ray and of Kathy is specifically found to lack credibility and no weight is given to the student's statements because they contradict, not corroborate, the allegations. Accordingly, insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that these sexual discussions and use of sexual terms occurred. Inappropriate Sitting and Scratching The direct testimony of Ray Cummings again is that Benekin sat with her feet on her desk and that on one occasion she scratched her fresh appendectomy scar. The direct testimony of Kathy Jessup was that Benekin put her feet up on her desk while wearing pants. Kathy never saw Benekin scratch herself. Various of the sworn statements alleged that Benekin put her feet on her desk with her legs open and her underwear showing and scratched her vaginal area. These statements were admitted only to corroborate other admissible evidence. Here, there was no direct evidence to be corroborated by these statements. The only evidence entitled to any weight or consideration is that Benekin put her feet on her desk and on another occasion, while standing, scratched in the area of her fresh appendectomy scar. Neither of these acts can be construed to be misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Reference to Drugs The only direct testimony was that of Ray and Kathy. Ray never mentioned drugs in relationship to Benekin and Kathy specifically testified that she never heard of or saw Benekin discuss, mention or use drugs. Kathy did testify that other of her "friends" told her that Benekin told them that she used drugs. The only mention of drugs and drug use by Benekin came from the sworn statements which were admissible only to corroborate direct evidence. There being no direct evidence regarding any statements Benekin made to students regarding drugs, no finding can be made in regard to this alleged misconduct. Borrowing Money and Taking Food Ray Cummings testified that when students brought candy or food to class, they had to share it with everyone, including Benekin. He gave candy to her. Benekin would collect money from students to get snacks from the food machine in the teachers' lounge. When a student did not have money, the others would chip in. On one occasion, Benekin gave 15 pennies to Kathy for 3 nickels to be used in the food machine. Kathy testified that Benekin borrowed 15 cents from her and did not pay it back. Benekin also borrowed from other students. Kathy did not recall Benekin using the borrowed money for snacks for the whole class. On cross examination, Kathy could not remember receiving 15 pennies from Benekin, but agreed that it probably happened. Kathy also could not remember a student from whom Benekin borrowed money, but thought it may have happened with Thomas and Antinette. Kathy also recalled Benekin getting snack cookies from the teachers lounge for the students. Finally, on redirect examination, Kathy could remember only two times that Benekin borrowed money: the 15 cents from her and some money from Thomas. The sworn statement of Racheal corroborates that Benekin took candy from the students and asked them to buy her lunch. The sworn statement of Antinette corroborates that Benekin borrowed a quarter from Thomas. Thomas' sworn statement indicates that Benekin borrowed money from him and other students and that she never repaid him. Thomas also states that one day he had a Snickers bar and he refused to give any to Benekin. Later she saw him take a quarter from her desk and wrote a referral (disciplinary slip) for taking it. When he gave her a piece of candy, she let him throw away the referral. Based on this direct evidence and corroborative evidence, it is found that Benekin did borrow money from Kathy and Thomas and that she did take candy or food from students. Derogatory Statements Ray testified on direct that one time it stunk in the classroom and Benekin said that probably one of the girls was on her period. On cross examination, Ray acknowledged that Benekin explained to the class that if a student has a body odor, they are to come to her and she will let them go wash their body and apply a deodorant and that they are all human. Kathy remembered Benekin saying on one occasion something about someone smelling in the classroom. Benekin simply said something about an odor in the classroom. Kathy never heard Benekin put students down in class. If she had something to say to them, she would call them over to her desk and tell them. Kathy never heard her say it out loud in class. The only corroborative evidence in this regard is the principal's report which states that Kenyatta told the investigator that "Benekin made her feel bad in class by telling her that she (Kenyatta) smelled like she had been having sex." Kenyatta's sworn statement makes no mention of this and there is no showing that if statement was even made, whether it occurred in the hearing of other students. Thomas also told the investigator that one time he told Benekin that it smelled bad in the classroom and Benekin replied, "It must be one of my girls on their period." The allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that Benekin made derogatory statements about students in the presence of other students, including statements that they smelled bad. The evidence does not support this allegation. At worst, Benekin on one occasion made a general statement that a bad odor in the classroom must be the result of one of the girls being on her period. This is not a derogatory statement about a particular student and did not expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. A finding cannot be made based on the hearsay statement of the principal which reported the hearsay statement of Kenyatta since neither hearsay statement corroborates admissible evidence. Benekin's Use of Drugs While there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Benekin asked students where to buy drugs, Benekin's own testimony is that she discussed drugs with students as part of a class project on drugs. In cross examination, Benekin acknowledged that she entered a hospital for treatment of chemical dependency on cocaine. She entered this hospital on approximately February 20, 1987, when she became aware of the principal's investigation. During the conference with the principal on that day, Benekin asked Mr. Randolph for help and asked for the necessary papers to request a medical leave of absence. Randolph understood that Benekin was referring to medical assistance for a drug problem. The medical program which Benekin entered is a two-year program with a 30-day inpatient component. Benekin completed the 30-day component and remains involved in the after care component. Effect of the Investigation As a result of the rumors and accusations made by students against Benekin, as revealed in the principal's investigation, Randolph expressed the opinion that Benekin was no longer effective as a teacher, that her effectiveness in the school had diminished and that her presence was a detriment to the faculty and the student body. No opinion was expressed regarding loss of effectiveness if the allegations were not true.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Mary C. Benekin. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5658 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Education Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 33. Proposed findings of fact 3 and 4 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 6 is irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 5 and 8-21 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. While each contains one or more statements which are true, the contents of each, taken as a whole, do not agree with the facts found herein. Additionally, there is an element of argument contained bin these paragraphs which are not adopted herein. Proposed findings of fact 22 and 23 are argument and are therefore rejected as findings of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Mary C. Benekin The proposed findings of fact filed by Respondent are intermixed with conclusions of law and argument. Further, extensive additional facts, not made a part of the record, are presented. Accordingly, Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order, except to the extent that they are unsupported by the competent substantial evidence or that they are argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Steffens Attorney at Law 106 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Mary C. Benekin Route l, Box 249-E Pineville, South Carolina 29468 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 W. Madison St., Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in a three count Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of assertions that the Respondent used various forms of corporal punishment on her students and that she also engaged in verbal abuse of her students.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 151121, covering the area of elementary education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. During the 1990-1991 school year and during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Elementary School in the Dade County School District. In January of 1992, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler at A. S., who was a minor male student in her class. The ruler hit A. S. in the face and left a scratch on his face. This incident took place in class in the presence of other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched A. S., a minor male student, on the ear in front of the other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck L. W., a minor female student, with a ruler on her hands and on her legs. The ruler left marks on L. W.'s hands. Student L. W. cried as a result of being struck with the ruler and she felt sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent on several occasions used offensive and indecent language in the classroom, sometimes directing such language towards her students. The offensive and indecent language included such words as "fuck," "damn," "bitch," and "ass." During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape to restrain M. S., a minor male student. Specifically, the Respondent taped student M. S.'s mouth closed, taped his arms to the arm rests of his chair, and taped his feet to the legs of his chair. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, P. B., to keep his mouth closed. Student P. B. was taped up in front of the class, which caused him to feel sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, A. S., to keep his mouth closed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, T. L., to keep his mouth closed and to prevent him from talking. The Respondent also used tape to restrain T. L. Specifically, the Respondent taped T. L. to his chair. On several occasions during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler, and other similar objects, at students in her class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, M. S., with a wooden ruler. This incident was observed by the other students in the class and made M. S. feel sad and embarrassed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, P. B., on the buttocks with a wooden ruler. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor female student, D. H., on the buttocks with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent stuck minor male student, T. L., on his left arm with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched the ear of minor male student, T. L. in class. On numerous occasions prior to the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent, and all other teachers at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, had been made aware of the policies of the Dade County School District prohibiting corporal punishment. The Respondent had also been made aware of what was encompassed by the term "corporal punishment." In a memorandum dated February 12, 1991, concerning the use of corporal punishment, the Respondent was specifically instructed not to throw rulers at students.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years and providing that any recertification of the Respondent shall be pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of September 1993. 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 28th day of September 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6896 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, although the language used is more accurately described as indecent or offensive than as profanity. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13: Accepted in substance, with some repetitious information omitted. Paragraph 14: Admitted Paragraph 15: Rejected because not charged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, many of which are also irrelevant. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5: These paragraphs are accurate summaries of a portion of the allegations and of a portion of the evidence, but there was other evidence which supports a finding that Audric Sands was struck on the chin by a ruler thrown at him by the Respondent. Paragraph 6: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20: These paragraphs are all essentially correct summaries of the testimony described in each paragraph. Although there are differences in the details reported by the several child-witnesses, such differences are not unusual when several young children describe an event. There was a great deal of consistency on several relevant matters. Paragraphs 21 and 22: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the testimony of the witness referred to. Although the witness Mr. Jim Smith testified he never heard or saw any misconduct by the Respondent, I still find the testimony of the child-witnesses to be persuasive. The child-witnesses were with the Respondent on many occasions when Mr. Smith was not present. Also, Mr. Smith worked as an aide to the Respondent only from some time in November or December until sometime in late January. Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the Respondent's testimony. To the extent the testimony summarized here conflicts with the testimony of the child-witnesses, I have generally accepted as more persuasive the testimony of the child-witnesses. Paragraphs 26 and 27: I have resolved the conflicts in the evidence other than as suggested here. I have found most of the child-witnesses' testimony to be credible. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Chaires, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent’s alleged conduct is a violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25 and/or Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and is just cause for his dismissal as a teacher in the Pinellas County School District.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Reginald K. Reese, is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding a professional service contract with Petitioner, the Pinellas County School Board (School Board). Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher by the School Board in August 1988. Respondent was hired as a full- time teacher in the Pinellas County School System in August 1989, and has been a teacher in the district since that time. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he was employed as a teacher at Riviera Middle School. Throughout his tenure with the School Board, Respondent's teaching career has been exemplary and he has consistently received good evaluations. It is undisputed that Respondent is held in high regard and considered an excellent teacher by many parents of children he has taught and by his colleagues and administrators with whom he has worked. Respondent is viewed by his former principal and current assistant principals as an excellent educator. His co-workers view him as an excellent teacher, the epitome of quality, a wonderful teacher, top-notch, one of the best, innovative, creative, compassionate with children, an inspiration to students, and one of the teachers students come back to the school to see. Two parents whose children were taught by Respondent several years ago believe that Respondent's work and effort as a teacher had turned their children around and made them responsible, productive adult members of society. Prior to the recommended disciplinary action which is the subject of this proceeding, Respondent has never been the subject of disciplinary action by the School Board or any of its administrators. On Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at about 1:00 p.m., Respondent parked his vehicle at the entrance of the south trail near the mangrove area in the vicinity of 4th Street and 115th Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent then exited his vehicle and entered the south trail of the mangrove area. It is undisputed that while in the mangrove area, Respondent engaged in a sexual activity, specifically oral sex and masturbation, with two other adults. The contact between Respondent and the other individuals was consensual and involved adults who were strangers to each other. This sexual activity was observed by Corporal Ward of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. The mangrove area in which the incident occurred was not clearly visible from the street. However, the area is considered a public place and is next to a busy four-lane road. Moreover, within that vicinity, people engage in recreational activities, including sunbathing, fishing, and boating. After the sexual activity had concluded, Respondent was arrested at the scene of the incident described in paragraph 7 by an officer with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office who had observed the acts. As a result of the incident, Respondent was charged with committing an unnatural and lascivious act and exposure of sexual organs. Respondent pled nolo contendere to exposure of sexual organs and an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt was entered on December 30, 1999. Further, an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt on a Plea of Nolo Contendere to the charge of unnatural and lascivious act was entered on December 30, 1999. An Order to Seal Criminal History Record was entered on January 4, 2001. On the advice of counsel, Respondent did not report his arrest, the charges filed against him, or the orders entered resolving the criminal matters to School Board officials at or near the time they occurred. Respondent reported his arrest in a letter dated June 10, 2001, to the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards, when he applied for renewal of his teaching certificate. Upon receipt of the June 10, 2001, notification of Respondent’s arrest, the School Board investigated the matter. Following the investigation, on July 18, 2001, Respondent was notified in a certified letter that Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools, would be recommending to the School Board that Respondent be dismissed from employment. The basis of the recommendation of dismissal is that the conduct engaged in by Respondent on November 10, 1999, violated Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25 and the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. It was alleged that these violations constitute just cause for Respondent's dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. Dr. Hinesley's recommendation of dismissal is based on several factors. First, Dr. Hinesley believes that the conduct engaged in by Respondent on November 10, 1999, was immoral in that it took place in a public area. Second, Dr. Hinesley believes that dismissal of Respondent is warranted because Respondent's actions were inappropriate and embarrassed the school system and the school. Finally, Dr. Hinesley believes that the conduct engaged in by Respondent was inappropriate and impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Pinellas County School District. Information regarding the subject incident has not been widely disseminated because the record was sealed by court- order. However, all of the witnesses testifying in support of Respondent were advised of the details of the incident. In light of this knowledge, teachers who have worked with Respondent, a former administrator who supervised Respondent, former students of Respondent, parents of Respondent's former students, and community members supported Respondent. While admitting that Respondent made a mistake or had a lapse in judgment, they believe that his exemplary teaching record and dedication to students and to the profession will allow him to overcome the challenges that may arise if and when the incident becomes public. Many of them also believe that his service to the Pinellas County School District community will not be impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order that dismisses Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline Spoto Bircher, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 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 Is the Petitioner qualified for licensure?
Findings Of Fact On October 4, 1989, Petitioner filed his application for licensure as a real estate salesman. Question #7 of the application asked whether the applicant (Petitioner) had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere even if adjudication was withheld (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 1). The Petitioner admitted to having been arrested on July 3, 1984 and to pleading nolo contendere on October 17, 1985 to committing a sex offense against a child and the commission of lewd and lascivious acts. The Petitioner was placed on probation for ten (10) years for the first offense and was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the second offense with thirty-five (35) days credited for time served. A condition of his probation is that he cannot reside or stay overnight with a child under the age of 18. At the formal hearing in this case, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and admitted that he had molested his oldest daughter, age 11, and pleaded nolo contendere to said offense in 1984 and three (3) months later molested both his oldest daughter, then age 12, and his youngest daughter, then age 9, and pleaded guilty to said offenses. Petitioner further testified that the initial offense had been committed over a period of approximately two weeks and that the second offense had been committed over a period of approximately two months. The offenses occurred while he was undergoing rehabilitation therapy for the traumatic amputation of his leg. Since his release from jail, Petitioner has received treatment for his behavior at the Florida Mental Health Institute, North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center and Community Behavioral Services. Petitioner's brother testified concerning his brother's life. The Petitioner had been an Eagle Scout; had been a scoutmaster; had been a member of the Navy Reserve and had had no problems prior to loosing his leg in an accident. Since his release from jail, the Petitioner has provided child support to his ex-wife and daughters. Petitioner had resided with and been employed by his brother until his brother adopted a child. The condition of the Petitioner's probation that the Petitioner can not reside with a child under the age of 18 required the Petitioner to change his residence and employment with his brother. He was employed by Kelly Temporary Services at the time of hearing and was working in a bank in customer service. The Petitioner has remained in therapy as required by his probation. The Petitioner has been in the presence of children when other adults were present since his release from jail and the Petitioner's behavior was exemplary. The Petitioner's brother opined that the Petitioner had "rehabilitated himself," and pointed out that very severe consequences would result to Petitioner for a third offense. The Petitioner admitted that the offenses had occurred in isolated settings when no other adults were present.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application to take the state examination for licensure as a real estate salesman be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 2nd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1844 The Petitioner wrote a letter to the Hearing Officer, which was read and considered. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-6. Adopted. 7. Rejected, as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joselyn M. Price, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, FL 32801 Grady William Aplin, Jr. 905 South Kings Avenue Brandon, FL 33511 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Wise abused his position as a treating psychiatrist for five young women by using his influence over them to engage in sexual relationships with them in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes, (1979), [now codified as Section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987)] and whether he is therefore guilty of unprofessional or immoral conduct in violation of Section 458.1201(1), Florida Statutes, (1969) [now codified as Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, (1987)]. If Dr. Wise is guilty of any of these activities, he would also be guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1987), which proscribes the violation of any portion of Chapter 458. Sexual misconduct with patients would also constitute gross or repeated malpractice, which is forbidden by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Wise has been a licensed medical doctor, holding license ME0008520. He has been licensed in Florida since 1957 and practices in the area of Adult and Child Psychiatry in Miami. He has been a board certified psychiatrist in since 1965. Patient L. H. From July 1969 through April 1971, Dr. Wise treated L.H, who was 21 years of age. When she began treatment, she was experiencing panic attacks and had other problems resulting from sexual molestation as a child, rape, alcoholism, and family problems. At first she had visited Dr. Wise weekly, but toward the end of her 1 1/2 years of therapy, she saw him every other week. L.H. alleges that shortly before she terminated her treatment with Dr. Wise she had a severe panic attack which caused her to telephone Dr. Wise, who then offered to provide therapy at Dr. Wise's apartment. When she arrived, she says Dr. Wise was in his bathrobe, took her to the bedroom, told her to place her hand on his penis and had sexual relations with her. She also maintains that Dr. Wise saw her on one other occasion in his office, when no sex occurred. L. H. said nothing about Dr. Wise's conduct at the time the incident was to have taken place. Fourteen years later, L.H. was seeing a psychologist in St. Louis, Missouri, Dr. Gertrude Williams. In the course of therapy with Dr. Williams, L.H. stated that she had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wise while she was his patient. This disclosure to Dr. Williams is consistent with the testimony L. H. gave at the final hearing. In October of 1985, L.H. filed a complaint against Dr. Wise with the South Florida Psychiatric Society alleging sexual misconduct, but after a two-day hearing a panel of twelve doctors found against L.H. and in favor of Dr. Wise. The testimony of L. H. was no more persuasive in this case than it was before the Psychiatric Society. In October, 1985, L.H. also filed a complaint which the Department investigated, but found the charges unsubstantiated. No disciplinary action was initiated against Dr. Wise at that time. The evidence in the instant case with respect to the allegations of misconduct by Dr. Wise with L.H. was not clearly convincing or persuasive. Patient S.P. Dr. Wise treated S.P. from July, 1980 through July, 1981 at his office in Miami. She was then approximately 19 years old and had complaints of nervousness, insomnia and hyperventilation. She saw Dr. Wise approximately two times per week (on Tuesdays and Thursdays) for therapy. Although originally seen in the morning, her appointments were changed to late in the afternoon. S.P. alleges that within two months after beginning treatment, while she was sitting on the couch during a therapy session, Dr. Wise got up from another couch, sat down next to her and began to kiss her. She also alleges that during subsequent visits Dr. Wise had sexual intercourse with her. S.P. filed a civil lawsuit for malpractice against Dr. Wise alleging the same sexual misconduct alleged here as the basis for her damage claim. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Wise. S.P.'s marriage failed while she was seeing Dr. Wise. She had often stayed out late, and told her husband that she was at therapy sessions with Dr. Wise. It is not clear whether these late night absences from home were actually the result of appointments with Dr. Wise or were the result of other appointments which she justified to her husband by claiming they were appointments with Dr. Wise. After terminating treatment with Dr. Wise, S.P. began seeing a Roman catholic priest who was also trained as a counselor. She told him that she had been seeing a local psychiatrist who, after a few sessions, had engaged in sexual intimacy with her. After moving back to her mother's home due to her breakup with her husband, S.P. also told her mother that she and Dr. Wise had been sexually intimate. These statements by S. P. were consistent with her testimony at final hearing; that the testimony is consistent, however, does not make it persuasive. Taken as a whole, the evidence that Dr. Wise may have engaged in a sexual relationship with S. P. is not clearly convincing. Patient L. M. Dr. Wise treated L.M. during the period from late 1972 through February of 1973. She was sixteen years old and was seeking to improve her relationship with her parents. She alleges that during one of her early visits Dr. Wise questioned her about the pimple on her forehead, and asked whether she had pimples on any other area of her body. She says she responded that she had a pimple on her back, and alleges that Dr. Wise then asked to see her back. When she lifted her pullover, she says Dr. Wise fondled her breasts briefly. Viewing the testimony of L.M. as a whole, the evidence is not clearly convincing that Dr. Wise ever fondled her breasts. Patient K. M. Dr. Wise treated K.M. from 1982, when she was 18 years old, until 1984. K. M. came to see Dr. Wise because of problems including an abortion she had when she was 15 years old, as well as a prior incestuous relationship with her brother. K.M. testified that she would go to Dr. Wise's office for treatment late in the evening, when they also would engage in sexual intercourse. She also testified that in 1985, after she terminated her therapeutic relation with Dr. Wise, she told her general practice physician, Dr. Peter Shea, during an office visit, that she had an affair with Dr. Wise. As with the foregoing witnesses, the statement made to Dr. Shea is consistent with K. M.'s testimony at final hearing, but that consistency does not enhance K. M.'s testimony. The testimony of K.M. concerning liaisons with Dr. Wise is not clearly convincing. Patient L. G. L.G. saw Dr. Wise beginning in April, 1974 when she was 21 years old. When she first came to Dr. Wise she complained of depression, unhappiness, and confusion. She told Dr. Wise that she was lonely and did not have a good relationship with men. Dr. Wise also treated L.G.'s sister, Joan. After about two months of seeing her on a weekly basis, L.G. alleges that Dr. Wise came over to the couch where she was sitting, embraced her, and during the course of the treatment, their physical relationship became more intimate. The intimacies were to have included oral sex which L.G. performed on Dr. Wise, which she thought was therapy for her psychological problems with sexual intimacy. L.G. terminated her relationship with Dr. Wise and began seeing a psychologist at the University of Miami, Edward Rappaport. During the course of treatment L.G. reported to Dr. Rappaport that she had been sexually involved with Dr. Wise. The testimony of L.G. at final hearing is consistent with the statement she made to Dr. Rappaport during therapy that Dr. Wise engaged in sex with her while she was seeing Dr. Wise for professional help. The consistency of the testimony does not make it persuasive. Considering the testimony of L.G. and Dr. Rappaport, the evidence offered to show that Dr. Wise had engaged in sexual intimacies with L.G. while she was seen as a patient is not clearly convincing.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the second amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY 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 22rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed by the Department of Professional Regulation Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Accepted in findings of fact 2, 6, 10, 11 and 12. Covered in finding of fact 11. 6-7. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. 13 Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 7, of the facts stated that are rejected. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. The proposals concerning the telephone calls are rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 24. The proposal concerning the telephone calls is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 26.-29. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 13, although the proposals are rejected because L.G.'s testimony was not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. is not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 13. 39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Covered in finding of fact 13. 41.-42. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. was not clearly convincing. 43. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because of the testimony of the complaining witnesses has not been clearly convincing. 50.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed By Dr. Wise Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2 Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12, to the extent necessary. Covered in finding of fact 14. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Sewell, Esquire Law offices of Mark P. Lang 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 707 Post Office Box 2127 Orlando, FL 32802-2127 Jonathan King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750A =================================================================
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 The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Ms. Claudine Etienne, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Etienne holds Florida Educator's Certificate 845026, covering the areas of English and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Etienne was employed as an English teacher at Miami Springs High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. On or about January 20, 2012, an unknown student ignited a smoke bomb or large firecracker in a locker in Ms. Etienne's classroom. Ms. Etienne was unsure what the device was or how it was ignited. Smoke was generated from the device, and it filtered into the classroom. One or more students requested to leave the room because of the smoke. In her deposition, Ms. Etienne indicated that at the time of the incident, she was aware that one of the students assigned to her class, C.E., had asthma because she had a conversation with C.E.'s mother in December about it. Ms. Etienne testified that she did not recall C.E. asking her to leave the room on the day of the incident, however, and in fact did not remember if C.E. was even in class that day. Ms. Etienne did not believe the smoke was sufficiently serious to require her to allow the students to leave the room. She was uncertain how to proceed until administrators who had been called arrived in the classroom. Ms. Etienne instructed the students to stay in the room until an administrator arrived. One student subsequently required medical attention as a result of the smoke inhalation. In her written statement, C.E. stated that paramedics came to the school to assist her because she could not breathe after her exposure to the smoke in the classroom.2/ Ms. Etienne later received a verbal reprimand from the school district.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Ms. Claudine Etienne in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through her violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issuing her a letter of reprimand, and assessing a fine against her in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2017.
