The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against the Respondent for sexual misconduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 686332, covering the area of emotionally handicapped education, which was valid through June 30, 2002. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Bayonet Point Middle School in Pacso County School District. A.Y. was an emotionally handicapped student who had been a student of the Respondent in the 1999-2000 school year. Between June and December 2000, when A.Y. was 13 years old, the Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with A.Y. This relationship included kissing, fondling, and on more than one occasion the Respondent's digital penetration of A.Y.'s vagina. On or about December 15, 2000, the Respondent was observed meeting A.Y. at a library when she got into his car and drove away. He later claimed he was counseling her. The Respondent was charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor as a result of his behavior with A.Y. On November 26, 2001, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both counts. The Respondent was adjudicated guilty on both counts, and sentenced to eight years in prison, followed by seven years of probation, concurrently on each charge. James Davis, the Director of Human Resources for the School Board of Pasco County where the Respondent taught, testified. Mr. Davis was a certified teacher with many years of experience and testified about professional standards and the impact of the Respondent's acts upon the school system. For a teacher to enter into a sexual relationship with a student, especially a young, emotionally handicapped student, is very harmful to the student emotionally and academically. A.Y. became defensive, and then felt guilty that she had caused the Respondent to get into trouble. Furthermore, such conduct destroys the faith the parents and other community members have in the educational system. There were articles in the newspaper about the situation which were adverse to the educational environment. The parents of A.Y. were very angry about the acts committed by the Respondent. The Respondent, when questioned by administrative staff for the Pasco School District, admitted he made an error in meeting A.Y., but denied any other inappropriate conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered permanently denying the Respondent a teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 James C. Howard Gulf Correctional Institution 500 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 34655 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted certification as a law enforcement officer under the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-16, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the matter to' be determined deals with the propriety of the denial of certification based upon the belief on the part of the Respondent that Petitioner does not have the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. See Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Sheriff's Office of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, had submitted an Affidavit of Certification for Petitioner Harold B. Walbey, Jr. In response to that affidavit, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issued a Statement of Denial, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The basis of denial was related to the belief that Petitioner did not evidence the requisite good moral character required for certification. See Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes. In particular, the denial related to a series of events leading to the revocation of Petitioner's Florida Teaching Certificate by order of the State Board of Education entered on October 12, 1979. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 is a copy of that order of revocation together with the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The revocation of the teacher's license was premised upon a conclusion of law that Petitioner had committed acts of gross immorality and moral turpitude in his relationship with junior high school female students in the school in which he taught. Those acts had sexual connotations. It was also determined in law that Respondent had lost his effectiveness as a teacher in view of the underlying circumstances. Petitioner took issue with the denial of his law enforcement certificate and requested a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and a hearing was held on October 8, 1982, in Jacksonville, Florida. On November 2, 1981, Petitioner was employed as a temporary or probationary employee of the Sheriff's Office, in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, in the position of Correctional Officer at the County Prison Farm and remains in that employment at this time. Duties of the Petitioner would include floor assignment, medication, food, preparation for commitment, booking, releasing and other functions. Among those other functions Petitioner transports female inmates, by motor vehicle, with no other law enforcement official or other person in attendance. These trips in which Petitioner has custody and control over female inmates are infrequent. Officials within the Duval County Sheriff's Office who presented Petitioner's Affidavit of Certification maintain a neutral posture on the question of his certification and have vouched for Petitioner to the extent necessary to elicit a final decision from Respondent on the question of certification. The chief personnel officer for the Duval County Sheriff's Office feels that the Petitioner would make a good employee if he has become sufficiently rehabilitated following the incidents which led to the revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate. Petitioner is well accepted by his superiors in his capacity as Correctional Officer and has received acceptable performance evaluations. Petitioner has been married three (3) times and is the father of twelve (12) children, none of which reside with him. He is responsible for furnishing support to his children. Petitioner holds a BS degree from Edward Waters College and a Masters degree from Florida A & M University. He has served in the military, both in the Air Force and the Army National Guard. Walbey is now forty-five (45) years of age. Testimony from community leaders and neighbors and acquaintances of Petitioner show him to be a person deemed to be reputable and hard working and a fine neighbor. No testimony was offered related to efforts which Petitioner had made in trying to effect his rehabilitation through professional assistance on the topic of those matters which caused him to lose his teaching certificate or opportunities in which Petitioner had conducted himself with proper decorum when in the presence of young women following that disciplinary action. Petitioner did not concede the facts of those incidents leading to the revocation as a part of his presentation.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner's application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate should be granted or denied. The Respondent contends that Petitioner's Teacher's Certificate was permanently revoked in 1978, and that the Respondent has not presented evidence that would justify the reissuance of a Teacher's Certificate. Petitioner contends that permanent revocation was not originally justified, and that his past conduct does not justify his being permanently removed from the teaching profession.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has submitted an application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate. His application was denied by the Department of Education, and he has appealed that denial to the Education Practices Commission. Petitioner is qualified by age and academic background for certification as a teacher. The Department of Education contends that his application for certification should be denied because he is not of good moral character and has committed acts which would authorize the revocation of his Teacher's Certificate. On or about September 21, 1971, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty by the County Court in Duval County, Florida, of contempt of court. He was fined fifty dollars. The contempt adjudication related to the Petitioner's failure to pay numerous parking fines. On or about July 2, 1973, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm, breach of the peace, and public intoxication. On September 5, 1973, Petitioner entered a plea to the offense of breach of the peace. The other charges were dismissed, and Petitioner was placed on unsupervised probation for a period of six months. On or about September 20, 1976, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of the offense of driving while intoxicated and ordered to serve ten days in the Duval County Jail. On March 15, 1977, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of the offense of driving with a revoked driver's license and fined the sum of one hundred dollars plus court costs. On December 6, 1977, Petitioner entered a plea of no contest to the offense of "consuming alcohol where sold on lot" and was placed on unsupervised probation for a period of one month. On August 24, 1973, Petitioner submitted an application for employment with the Duval County School System. The following question was set out on the application: "Have you ever been arrested for any offense other than minor traffic violations?" Petitioner responded that he had not been. This response was untrue. He had in fact been arrested and adjudicated guilty of contempt of court and, less than a month prior to submitting the application, had been arrested on other charges that were not minor traffic offenses. Petitioner's explanation for responding to this question in the negative was that he considered the contempt citation to be for minor traffic offenses and that he had not yet been adjudicated guilty with respect to the other arrest. The explanation is not worthy of being credited. Petitioner was employed with the Duval County School System based upon his application. On September 19, 1973, Petitioner submitted an application for a State of Florida Teacher's Certificate to the Department of Education. The following question was set out on the application: "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?" The Respondent answered "No." The answer was false. A teaching certificate was issued to the Petitioner based upon the application. While he was employed with the Duval County School System, the Petitioner falsified a request for leave. He submitted a leave request stating that his daughter was ill on September 20, 1976. In fact, Petitioner's daughter was not ill. He needed leave in order to appear in traffic court for sentencing for the criminal offense of driving while intoxicated. By Order entered July 19, 1978, the State Board of Education permanently revoked Petitioner's Florida Teacher's Certificate. The revocation was based upon Petitioner's criminal convictions, Petitioner's falsifying his employment application, Petitioner's falsifying his application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate, and Petitioner's falsified leave request form. On April 1, 1981, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the offense "unemployment compensation fraud" in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence were withheld, and Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of one year. Petitioner's personal conduct as set out above seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher. It does not appear that the Petitioner has in any way rehabilitated himself since his Teacher's Certificate was revoked in 1978. Indeed, he has since that time committed a crime involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), while in a classroom at Neptune Beach Elementary School on September 19, 2013, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the documentary evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the following facts are found: The Florida Education Practices Commission (“the Commission”) is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. 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. At all times relevant to the instant case, Ms. Kennedy held Florida Educator Certificate 889874, covering the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages. Ms. Kennedy’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2017. Ms. Kennedy began her teaching career in 2001 after graduating with a bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education from the University of North Florida. The school district assigned Ms. Kennedy to Neptune Beach Elementary on September 9, 2013, approximately two weeks into the 2013-2014 school year. The principal of Neptune Beach Elementary, Elizabeth Kavanagh, then assigned Ms. Kennedy to a third-grade class being taught by Ms. Amber Rodenkirch. It is unclear whether the two teachers were equals in the classroom or if Ms. Rodenkirch gave direction to Ms. Kennedy. The students in Ms. Rodenkirch and Ms. Kennedy’s class (“the class”) sat at tables rather than in chairs with a writing surface attached thereto. As illustrated by Petitioner’s Exhibit 13, the chairs utilized by the students were of two types. One type consisted of a plastic seat resting on metal tubes. The metal tubes had four flat ends making contact with the floor. The second type of chair also consisted of a plastic seat resting on metal tubes. However, the second type of chair made contact with the floor by having two metal tubes lying flat on the floor. As a result, it would be much easier to slide the second type of chair along a carpeted floor than the first. When seated in the second type of chair, the children in the class would often lean forward. By doing so, they would cause the back portion of the metal tubes on which the seat rested to rise up off the floor. When working with a student, Ms. Rodenkirch and Ms. Kennedy would be standing behind or next to a seated student. If that student was seated in the second type of chair and leaning forward, there was a tendency for the metal tubes on which the seat rested to come down on a teacher’s foot once the student leaned or sat back in his or her chair. Because it was painful for a chair to come down on her feet, Ms. Kennedy greatly preferred the first type of chair to the second. On September 19, 2013, Ms. Kennedy had recently been in a surfing accident which left one of her feet black and blue. In all likelihood, Ms. Kennedy was particularly concerned that day with the children leaning forward in their chairs. On September 19, 2013, Ms. Rodenkirch was working with a student and was 10 to 14 feet away from Ms. Kennedy. A student, C.J., was leaning forward in his chair, and Ms. Rodenkirch witnessed Ms. Kennedy tip C.J. out of his chair. After getting up from the floor, C.J. sat back down in his chair and appeared to be startled. Ms. Rodenkirch asked Ms. Kennedy if C.J. fell out of his chair, and Ms. Kennedy responded by stating, “With a little help.” Ms. Rodenkirch interpreted that statement as confirmation that Ms. Kennedy intentionally tipped C.J. out of his chair. At a different time on September 19, 2013, Ms. Rodenkirch was again about 10 to 14 feet from Ms. Kennedy when she witnessed Ms. Kennedy tip another student, N.B., out of his chair. As was the case with C.J., N.B. fell to the floor and was startled. Ms. Rodenkirch did not say anything to Ms. Kennedy after witnessing the incident with N.B. However, she was very upset about what she witnessed that day and reported what she saw to Ms. Kavanaugh after the children left school. After hearing Ms. Rodenkirch’s description of what happened in the class earlier that day, Ms. Kavanaugh called her supervisor, the regional superintendant, and requested direction. The regional superintendant, Kelly Coker-Daniels, instructed Ms. Kavanaugh to contact the Department of Children and Families and the local school district’s investigative branch. Both of the aforementioned entities conducted investigations. The local school district concluded that there was “substantial evidence to sustain the charges of exercise of poor judgment and inappropriate physical contact with students against Robin Kennedy for her role in these incidents.” (emphasis in original). Based on the investigation conducted by the Department of Children and Families, the Duval County Public School System: (a) issued a letter of reprimand to Ms. Kennedy; and (b) notified her that, pending approval by the school board, she would be suspended for 15 consecutive working days without pay. Because of the events described above, the parents of C.J. and N.B. requested that their children be transferred to another third-grade class. At least one other student transferred to a different class because she was worried that Ms. Kennedy would pull a chair out from under her. During the final hearing in this matter, Ms. Kennedy denied ever intentionally doing anything that could injure a student. During cross-examination, she responded affirmatively when asked if Ms. Rodenkirch was lying when she testified that she saw Ms. Kennedy tip C.J. and N.B. out of their chairs. However, the undersigned finds that Ms. Rodenkirch was a much more credible and persuasive witness than Ms. Kennedy. Therefore, the undersigned credits Ms. Rodenkirch’s testimony and finds that Ms. Kennedy did tip over the chairs of C.J. and N.B. on September 19, 2013, at Neptune Beach Elementary. Without a doubt, tipping students out of their chairs reduced Ms. Kennedy’s effectiveness as a teacher. That is underscored by the fact that students were transferred to other third-grade classes due to Ms. Kennedy’s actions. Ms. Kennedy’s conduct demonstrates that she failed to make reasonable efforts to protect her students from mental and/or physical harm. While it is very fortunate that none of the students in the class suffered any serious physical injuries, that might not have been the case if a student had hit his or her head on a hard object after being tipped out of his or her chair. Also, it is obvious that tipping a student out of his or her chair could expose that student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Accordingly, Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Kennedy violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending Robin Welch-Kennedy’s educator’s certificate for 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 5th day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact At relevant times to this inquiry Respondent has held the teaching certificate number 664911 in the area of substitute teacher issued by the Petitioner. In the case of the State of Florida v. Robert Ray Stone, in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Marion County, Case Number 90-1630-CF-A-W, Respondent was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide, a single count of leaving the scene of an accident in which a death was involved and a single count of evidence tampering. The accident was alleged to have occurred on May 6, 1990 and the alleged evidence tampering was said to have occurred between May 6 and May 12, 1990. On April 30, 1991 Respondent was tried, found guilty and was adjudicated guilty of unlawfully and willfully failing to stop his vehicle at the scene of an accident or as close thereto as possible, or forthwith to return to that scene and fulfill the reporting requirements and rendering of aid requirements set out in Section 316.062, Florida Statutes, thus violating Section 316.027, Florida Statutes. He pled and was adjudicated guilty of unlawfully and knowingly altering, destroying, concealing, or removing any record, document or thing, in this instance an automobile and/or automobile parts with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in any proceeding or investigation, knowing full well that a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation by duly constituted prosecuting authority, law enforcement agency or grand jury of the state was pending or was about to be instituted, and through such evidence tampering violated Section 918.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The accident in question involved death. These offenses in Counts 3 and 4 to the information to which Respondent offered his pleas were third degree felonies. The two counts of vehicular homicide were not pursued and are not part of the judgment and sentence in the aforementioned case. For his plea Respondent was given concurrent sentences of twelve months imprisonment for Counts 3 and 4 to the second amended information, followed by six years probation to run concurrent. In the imposition of the sentence the court also recommended payment of restitution and investigative costs, alcohol counseling, and that the Respondent consume no alcohol and that the driver's license of the Respondent be revoked for a period of three years. Knowledge of the crime was publicized in the Ocala Star Banner in its July 10, 1990 edition. Frank Washington, Jr., Director of Personnel for the Marion County School System, Marion County, Florida, in which Respondent had been employed as a substitute teacher, offered his opinion on the Respondent's effectiveness to serve as a substitute teacher following the subject incident. Mr. Washington has 31 years of experience in education to include classroom instruction at the elementary, junior high and high school level, service as assistant principal or principal in elementary and middle schools as well as his administrative service. Mr. Washington holds a Florida certificate to teach. Mr. Washington is somewhat familiar with the criminal law case against the Respondent. As a consequence of the case Respondent has been removed from the approved list of substitute teachers in the Marion County School System. Mr. Washington's opinion on the effectiveness of the Respondent to carry forward his duties as a substitute teacher is that Respondent's effectiveness has been reduced. This is especially true given that the school system has limited control over substitute teachers as contrasted with full-time teachers. Mr. Washington's concerns about Respondent's effectiveness also addresses the apparent disregard for human life evidenced by the Respondent in his conduct in leaving the scene of an accident where a human life was lost and the deceit demonstrated by the Respondent in his evidence tampering following the accident. Mr. Washington does not believe that this type individual needs to be in the classroom working with children in a posture where children are to be taught good citizenship. Mr. Washington's opinion on loss of effectiveness is accepted.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is recommended: That the teaching certificate as a substitute teacher, No. 664911, held by Robert R. Stone be revoked for a period of ten years. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 31st day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practice Commission should grant Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed February 22, 1995, Petitioner requested an initial two-year nonrenewal temporary teaching certificate and a two-year part-time coaching certificate. The application discloses that Petitioner was born July 24, 1960. A question on the form asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic accident (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. The additional information requested on the form, if the "yes" box is checked, provides spaces for the following information: "city where arrested," "State," "Charge(s)," and "Disposition(s)." In response to this question, Petitioner checked the "yes" box and filled in the three spaces provided. Petitioner disclosed that, in East Williston, New York, in 1978, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." (This would mean driver's license because Petitioner answered in the negative the next question on the form, which asks whether he had ever had a teaching certificate revoked or otherwise disciplined in another state.) Petitioner also disclosed that, in Roslyn, New York, in 1979, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." Last, Petitioner disclosed that, in Mineola, New York, in 1986, he was charged with "Disorderly-Conduct" and the disposition was "Plead Guilty/Paid Fine [and] Placed on Probation." On a separate sheet of paper attached to the February 22 application and entitled "Arrest/Revocation Record," Petitioner disclosed: In addition to the records I have provided you, I was arrested several other times around the year 1980, and I don't recall the exact dates and dispositions--they were misdemeanors for disorderly conduct, and the charges were either dismissed or reduced and a fine paid. In signing the application, which is acknowledged by a notary, Petitioner attests that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed March 11, 1994, Petitioner requested only a two-year part-time coaching certificate. This application is identical to the first except in the disclosure of convictions. In the March 11 application, Petitioner disclosed the East Williston and Roslyn offenses, although the years changed to 1979 and 1980, respectively. Instead of a Mineola offense in 1986, Petitioner listed an Old Westbury offense in 1986. The Old Westbury offense was also for disorderly conduct and the disposition was a guilty plea and payment of fine, although the probation was omitted. Petitioner did not disclose on a separate sheet or otherwise the additional material disclosed on the separate sheet attached to the February 22 application. Petitioner has passed the relevant portions of the examination required of teachers and has met the conditions for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate except for issues in connection with his criminal history. By letter dated February 23, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application for a Florida teaching certificate had been denied. The letter refers to an accompanying Notice of Reasons. The Notice of Reasons recites that Petitioner filed an application for a Florida teaching certificate in March 1994. The Notice of Reasons notes that Petitioner disclosed only three of ten criminal convictions and concludes that the nondisclosures and convictions themselves constitute violations of the statutes and rules cited in the Preliminary Statement above. On February 19, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, driving under the influence, and operating a vehicle without a license. This and all other arrests took place in Nassau County, New York. On May 10, 1979, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charges of disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $500 fine, alcohol rehabilitation, and restriction of his driver's license to business and school. On September 27, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and two counts of criminal mischief. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a reduced charge of two counts of disorderly conduct. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $75 restitution payment or 10 days in jail and conditionally discharged him. On November 25, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and driving under the influence. The former charge was dismissed. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, driving under the influence. The court sentenced him to a $200 fine and revocation of his driver's license. On January 12, 1982, Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault. On April 12, 1982, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of harassment. The court deferred disposition and conditionally discharged Petitioner pending payment of $32 restitution. On May 19, 1984, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. On April 1, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charge of attempted criminal mischief. The court unconditionally discharged him. On May 26, 1985, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and resisting arrest. On June 12, 1986, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the charges. The court sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation. On November 5, 1986, Petitioner was arrested and charged with harassment and resisting arrest. On December 1, 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, both charges. The court conditionally released Petitioner. Petitioner is recovering from dependencies on alcohol and drugs. In 1987, he entered a rehabilitation clinic on Pine Island where he underwent a month's treatment. He then entered a halfway house in Ft. Myers for three months. He regularly attends Alcoholic Anonymous meetings and obtains counseling. Prior to obtaining treatment, Petitioner attended St. Johns University and the Berklee College of Music, evidently without obtaining any degrees. Since treatment, Petitioner obtained in 1989 an Associate Arts degree from Edison Community College in Ft. Myers and in 1992 a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Emerson College in Boston with a major in acting and a minor in literature. While in Boston pursuing the BFA degree, Petitioner taught writing to gifted high school students and voluntarily performed for high school students plays that Petitioner had written and produced. He also tutored inner city students in reading. In April 1994, Petitioner obtained a statement of eligibility from Respondent. This allowed him to teach for up to two years, during which time he had to apply for a temporary nonrenewable teaching certificate. In August 1994, Petitioner was employed to teach seventh grade social studies and reading at Cypress Lake Middle School in Lee County. After a month, he was transferred to the special education department where he taught students in the middle-school drop-out prevention program. While at the school, Petitioner served as an assistant coach on the girls' basketball team and the boys' baseball team. The principal of the school terminated Petitioner's contract February 21, 1995, evidently when he learned that Respondent would be denying him a Florida teaching certificate. Petitioner has since been employed as a teacher by a private school in Lee County. Petitioner relied on advice from a well-meaning friend when he filed a second application a couple of weeks after filing the first application. The friend had told Petitioner that he could apply for a coaching certificate without applying on the same application for a two-year temporary teaching certificate. The innocent filing of two separate applications generated confusion for both Petitioner and Respondent. When denying Petitioner's request for a teaching certificate, Respondent inadvertently omitted mention of the first application. Similarly, when filing the second application, Petitioner inadvertently failed to include the separate sheet that he included with the first application. However, Respondent already had the separate sheet from the first application. It would be as disingenuous for Respondent to claim lack of knowledge, as to the second application, of the disclosures contained on the separate sheet attached to the first application as it would be for Petitioner to claim that the denial of the second application is not also intended to be a denial of the first application. The adequacy of the disclosures on the separate sheet is a separate matter. The two applications refer to two of the three 1979 arrests and report sentences of revocation of driver's license. The three 1979 arrests actually resulted in convictions for disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol (February 1979 arrest), disorderly conduct (September 1979 arrest), and driving under the influence (November 1979 arrest). The actual sentences were, respectively: $500 fine, driving restrictions, and alcohol rehabilitation; $75 restitution; and license revocation and $200 fine. The first two disclosures do a fair job of revealing Petitioner's first three convictions, especially given the fact that they took place 15 years ago when Petitioner was 18 and 19 years old. Obviously, one arrest/conviction is missing, but it appears that the court disposed of the second and third arrests at the same time and possibly in a consolidate proceeding. This may account for Petitioner's recollection that the second and third arrests were a single case. Also, the separate sheet addresses omissions. The dates are a little off, but the first arrest was early in 1979, and the consolidated disposition of the second and third arrests was in 1980. As reported by Petitioner, the charges are roughly correct, and the dispositions suggest the seriousness of the offenses. It is hard to tell which conviction the third reported arrest signifies. After the three 1979 arrests, there were four more convictions for which Petitioner had to account. To his credit, Petitioner identified 1986 as the year of the arrest, so as not to suggest that his criminal problems were further behind him than they really were. Although none of the actual arrests or convictions is for disorderly conduct, which is what Petitioner reported on the application forms, all four of the convictions could be fairly described as disorderly conduct. The reported and actual dispositions do not preclude the possibility that Petitioner was identifying any of the four arrests. Thus, Petitioner was probably disclosing the November 1986 arrest on the application forms, and he did a reasonably complete job of doing so. The disclosure question is therefore whether the separate sheet adequately accounts for the convictions arising out of the 1982, 1984, and 1985 arrests. These arrests took place "around the year 1980," as Petitioner reported on the separate sheet. "Disorderly conduct," as stated on the separate sheet, roughly describes the nature of the offenses, although less so the nature of the arrests, which is what Petitioner claims on the separate sheet to be describing. In fact, Petitioner paid restitution of $32 once, was unconditionally discharged once, and was placed on probation once. The reported fine in each case serves as reasonable disclosure, at least where no jail time is involved. On balance, Petitioner's disclosures did more than place Respondent on inquiry notice. The disclosures were reasonably accurate and detailed. They gave a fair picture of the kind of trouble that Petitioner got into at that point in his life. Respondent's case is based on Petitioner's unfitness to teach based on his alleged dishonesty in the application process and his past criminal behavior. Once the question of dishonesty in the application process is resolved in favor of Petitioner, the remaining focus is on his behavior 9-15 years ago when he was 18-26 years old. The number of arrests and convictions is troubling. But the dispositions do not suggest offenses of extreme gravity. Petitioner is now 35 years old. He has rehabilitated himself in terms of intoxicants, as well as educationally. For many years, he has demonstrated a clear commitment to teaching and evidently is skilled in the profession. He has served his communities well and seeks to continue to do so as a teacher in Florida. Given the nature of the offenses, their age, and the age of Petitioner at the time he committed the offenses, there is no basis in the record to find that Petitioner is morally unfit to teach.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Education Practice Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner's February 1994 application for a Florida teaching and coaching certificate. ENTERED on October 6, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 6, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19-22: adopted or adopted in substance. 23-27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Attorney Jerry L. Lovelace 909 SE 47th Terrace, Suite 201 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Ronald G. Stowers Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in conduct involving gross immorality and/or moral turpitude which seriously reduced her effectiveness as an instructional employee as alleged, in violation of Subsections 231.28(1)(c) and (f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 584942, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, covering the area of substitute teacher, elementary and secondary levels. Said certificate is valid through June 30, 1990. At all times material hereto, Respondent Debra Alcorn-Howerter, was listed as a substitute teacher in the Polk County School District. On July 20, 1988, Respondent entered MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, and went into the Noncommissioned Officers Club (NCO), which is a lounge/bar that serves alcoholic beverages. Upon her arrival at the NCO club, Respondent was in the company of her minor daughter, G.H., who was, at the time, approximately nine years of age. Respondent was advised by the NCO Club's night manager, Edmond Bates, that it was against military policy to have a minor in an area where alcoholic beverages were served. Bates allowed Respondent to take G.H. into an area adjacent to the bar that was closed at the time. Respondent moved in that area with G.H. for the remainder of the evening. Respondent was allowed to purchase approximately two or three alcoholic beverages over the course of the evening while at the club although she could not carry G.H. into areas where alcoholic beverages were being served. While in the club, Respondent was joined by an airman who remained with her until she left the club. They engaged in affectionate conduct in front of G.H. including hugging and kissing. Over the course of the evening, Bates observed Respondent acting emotionally upset, crying and the couple argued in G.H.'s presence. The NCO Club closed at 11:00 p.m. and Bates had to ask Respondent and G.H. to leave the club when she did not leave with the other patrons. Respondent still did not leave and at approximately 11:15 p.m., Bates again ordered Respondent to leave and she started crying. Respondent was escorted outside the club whereupon she started crying and fell to the floor. Respondent had to be picked up by an unidentified male patron who carried her to the parking lot. Respondent later collapsed in the parking lot area around the Club and initiated an altercation while others, including patrons from the club, were attempting to calm and persuade her to leave the area peacefully. G.H. was escorted back into the club by a female employee so that she would not witness Respondent's incoherent and hysterical behavior. Respondent was physically violent and struck a patron from the club who was attempting to assist her. She was likewise verbally abusive to all those around her and yelled at one patron to "get the f away" [from her]. Respondent finally had to be physically restrained to prevent her from further attacking patrons and injuring herself. Respondent was engaging in self destructive behavior including striking her head against the concrete in the parking lot. Bates had to summon the security police as well as emergency medical personnel to the scene due to Respondent's conduct. Although Respondent consummed approximately three drinks while in the NCO club lounge, she did not appear intoxicated nor was her speech slurred. Respondent is a small petite woman, approximately 4'11" tall and weighs under 100 pounds. Upon the arrival of the security police, Respondent continued to react violently requiring four-point body restraints. Respondent was taken to the Emergency Room at MacDill by ambulance in restraints where she continued to react in an abusive and violent manner, both physically and verbally. Respondent remained in the Emergency Room at MacDill for approximately four hours. During that time, she never calmed down or became rational. Respondent was physically abusive to those who attempted to administer treatment to her and she spit at the Emergency Room personnel. It became necessary for other patients to be removed from the area where Respondent was being treated based on her disruptive conduct. Dr. Stein, a physician at MacDill, evaluated Respondent and executed the necessary paperwork to transfer her to Tampa General Hospital for psychiatric evaluation pursuant to the statutory provisions of the Baker Act (Chapter 394, Florida Statutes). Prior to Respondent's departure to Tampa General Hospital, Raymond E. Hook, Jr., the shift supervisor in the Emergency Room, inventoried Respondent's personal effects. Hook's inventory of Respondent's purse revealed a bottle of assorted pills which could not be identified and he threw them away. Hook also found a portable red ashtray in her purse containing several partially burned marijuana cigarettes and a misdemeanor amount of a substance that resembled marijuana. A field test and subsequent laboratory analysis of the substance resulted in a positive marijuana identification. G.H. was housed at MacDill while Respondent was being admitted to the psychiatric unit of Tampa General. Kevin C. Ambler, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and Prosecutor at MacDill, received and reviewed the charges filed against Respondent. As a result of his review of the facts and the lab analysis of the substance found in Respondent's purse, Captain Ambler filed a complaint charging Respondent with misdemeanor possession of marijuana. During the pendency of the criminal case, Respondent's criminal defense attorney raised an insanity defense and Captain Ambler determined, based on that defense and the fact that the charge was a misdemeanor offense, it was not worth the government's time and effort to proceed with the case. Captain Ambler moved to dismiss the charges without prejudice. The motion to dismiss was granted. However, as a condition of dismissal, Respondent was ordered not to re-enter MacDill for a period of one year except for approved medical assistance. Should Respondent violate that condition, she faces reactivation of the criminal charges with sanctions of a possible $500.00 fine and imprisonment for not more than six months, or a combination thereof. During February 1988, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) received a child abuse report alleging that Respondent abused G.H. Gwendolyn McKenzie, a child protective investigator (CPI) was assigned the case and conducted an investigation. CPI McKenzie found that G.H. was emotionally and physically abused by Respondent after discovering that she engaged in a repeated pattern of abusive conduct including gagging the child, tying her hands to the bed and engaging in excessive corporal punishment by repeatedly striking her with a belt. McKenzie's investigation revealed that Respondent gave G.H. hot sauce to eat and forced her to drink liquid detergent as a means of discipline. G.H. suffered verbal and emotional abuse at Respondent's hands. CPI McKenzie also observed final stages of bruising over G.H.'s body which Respondent inflicted to discipline G.H. Respondent's mother, Lois Pitts-Alcorn also observed that Respondent committed excessive physical and mental abuse to G.H. She tried on numerous occasions to stop Respondent from abusing G.H. without success. She therefore reported Respondent to HRS for committing physical and mental abuse to G.H. for G.H.'s protection. Additionally, Pitts-Alcorn observed that Respondent took G.H. out at night while she attended bars and left her alone (unsupervised) in the car for extended periods of time. On March 6, 1988, HRS filed a petition in juvenile court in Polk County, Florida, alleging that Respondent physically and emotionally abused G.H. As a result of that petition, G.H. was adjudicated a dependent child and she was removed from Respondent's custody and placed with her grandmother. Based on Respondent's conduct at the hearing on the dependency petition, the judge ordered a psychological evaluation of Respondent. Pursuant to that evaluation, Respondent was found to be psychotic, her prognosis was very poor; and Respondent represented a threat to G.H. both physically and emotionally and should not regain custody. CPI McKenzie recommended, during the dependency hearing, that Respondent receive in-depth counseling and that G.H. likewise receive counseling to recover from the abuse she suffered at the hands of Respondent. Respondent has a history of drug and alcohol abuse as well as violent and explosive conduct which manifested itself during her parenting of G.H. and her employment with the Polk County School Board during 1988-89. Respondent, while employed as a substitute teacher on two separate occasions, at separate schools in Polk County, struck a child in her classroom. Respondent's conduct posed a danger to her student's well-being. Respondent was removed from the list of approved substitute teachers by the School Board of Polk County, Florida, based on assistant superintendent Don R. Cox' examination of complaints and an investigation of such complaints by the Polk County School Board. Likewise, Cox received reports from Respondent's colleagues complaining of Respondent's violent and abusive conduct while employed as a substitute teacher in Polk County. Respondent will not be considered for further employment by Polk County, Florida, based on their determination that Respondent poses dangerous and erratic behavior to those in her classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that: Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for a period of five (5) years. Respondent undergo psychiatric and drug treatment and demonstrate proof of adequate rehabilitation under conditions in accordance with the standards and procedures for recertification of teachers by the Education Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 26th day of September, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this case, Respondent, Bruce M. Williams, held Florida teacher certificate number 414669 authorizing him to serve as a substitute teacher. On March 21, 1984, after a trial by bury in the County Court of Alachua County, Florida, on Case No. 83-4274-MM-A , Respondent was found guilty of the offense of trespass after warning. On April 30, 1984, the Judge of the County Court entered a Judgement of Guilt and placed the Respondent on one year's probation with the stipulation that, among other things, he not go onto the University of Florida campus unless his probation officer gave him prior permission. This judicial determination of guilt. It was the culmination of a series of events involving the Respondent and his repeated entrances onto property owned by the University for which he was repeatedly warned and directed not to return. Respondent contends that he had legitimate reasons to be on the University property each of the times in question and contests the use of these reports branding them a violation of his rights. He overlooks the fact that the conviction came after several instances of unauthorized entrance and that the conviction was based on proven violations. Nonetheless, it appears that on December 30, 1982, Respondent was observed by Kenneth E. Solomon, an investigator with the University police department, in the parking lot of Diamond Village, a University married students' housing area not open to the public. Mr. Solomon attempted to identify the Respondent who was at first reluctant to identify himself but who finally agreed and indicated that his wife was inside doing their laundry. Since this is an area reserved for university students and their families, Mr. Solomon issued a warning to Respondent not to trespass on University property and thereafter filled out and filed a report of the incident. Thereafter, on March 15, 1983, Keith B. Reddick, who was at that time an officer with the University police was called to University Hospital (Shands), where he was met by a Mrs. Fugate and a guard who had Respondent in custody. Mrs. Fugate advised at that time that Respondent had previously been at the hospital on March 7 with no legitimate reason for being in the area. On that occasion, when asked why he was there, Respondent indicated he had been given permission to be there by a member of the medical school faculty, Dr. Cruz. Dr. Cruz categorically denies ever having given Respondent permission to be where he was. In fact, she met him only once when he stopped her and asked her about the possibility of a job with the hospital. At that time she told him there were none available except for fellowships for which an applicant had to be a physician already. Nonetheless, he gave her a resume and she believes he indicated he was involved in research. With this one exception, she has had no contact with him and never gave him authority to work with patients in her department or be there for any reason. On this latter occasion, when asked what he was doing there, Respondent replied that he had become lost while looking for a laboratory. He also said he was looking for a doctor friend whose name he could not remember and as a chemistry major, was working on his thesis. On this occasion, Officer Reddick took Respondent to the police station, showed him a map of the campus, told him where he could and could not go on the campus by pointing to the map areas, and told him not to return again to the university unless on official business or for public functions. The following day, on March 16, 1983, Respondent was observed in the Shands Hospital cafeteria by Officer Rogers of the University police. When asked for his identification and reason for being there, Respondent indicated he had paid a bill in the laboratory, so Rogers let him go. When Rogers checked the story out, however, he found that the bill which was alleged to have been for unauthorized use of the hospital copying machine, had in reality been paid three hours before the Respondent was contacted. Rogers again saw Respondent on March 29, 1983 in the hub area of the University book store on campus. Rogers had been notified by Reddick that Respondent was on campus and when he had approached the Respondent, Respondent walked off and into the book store. Rogers and three other officers contacted Respondent in the book store where Respondent indicated he had met with a Mrs. Greene, a University affirmative actions officer and upon receiving that explanation, the officers let him go. Respondent was again identified on July 6, 1983, by officer Edward Miles who observed him in an off-limits gynecological area on the 4th floor of the University hospital. When Miles arrived at the scene, a contract security officer was talking with Respondent. This officer had seen Respondent in the area and had asked for identification in response to which request, Respondent showed a student identification card which was no longer valid since Respondent was no longer a student. Asked what business he had in this particular area, Respondent indicated he was looking for work but when, after 30 minutes, he could not verify this story, Officer Miles placed Respondent under arrest and took him to campus police headquarters. From all of the above, it is clear that though Respondent may have felt he had a legitimate basis for being on the campus and, in fact, may have had when he went to speak with Mrs. Green and went to pay the bill at the hospital, he stretched these occasions into several unauthorized occasions even after he had been warned with full knowledge that his presence on the campus was not authorized. The conviction in County Court was not contested at the time and on the basis of the above evidence, appears to have been warranted. On July 8, 1983, an arrest warrant was issued out of the Circuit Court for the 8th Judicial Circuit in Alachua County alleging sexual battery in violation of Section 794.011, Florida Statutes. This warrant contained allegations that Respondent had committed a sexual battery against his 9-year- old stepdaughter. However, Respondent was tried on a reduced charge of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and at his trial he entered a plea of no contest. Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years probation the terms of which required him to undergo mental health counseling among other requirements. Respondent continues to deny his commission of the offenses to which he pleaded no contest at the trial. However, in a statement he made at the time of his arrest, he admitted several factors which contradict that. He admitted that he had a very physical relationship with his stepdaughter; that he appeared nude in front of her many times; and that he would be in bed with her laying on top of him while both were nude with the child's mother there as well. He also admitted having French kissed his stepdaughter (she indicates he taught her how to do this) but denies having any sexual intercourse with her. Respondent contends that these charges are all a plot to deprive him of the close relationship with his family, instituted by someone unnamed and unidentified. The fact remains that Respondent is delinquent in his probation and has made little progress in the required mental health counseling because of his continued belief that he has done nothing wrong but is the victim of this conspiratorial plot. Sometime in or around February 1984, Respondent entered the restaurant owned and operated by Mrs. Vlahopous, in Gainesville, and asked to speak with her daughter, Alex, who apparently had come to the blood center at which he worked. At this point Respondent identified himself as "Dr. Bruce. When she asked him for his office address and phone number since Alex was not there, he said he didn't have an office, but he wrote his name and phone number on one of her cards for her. After Mrs. Vlahopous thought about this over night, she went to the blood bank where Respondent had said he worked and asked for Dr. Williams. At this point she was told by blood bank personnel that Williams was not a doctor, had been fired, and would be rejected if he came there again. Be that as it may, Sharron A. Sturdevant, an official of the blood bank where Respondent had been working, does recall that at times Respondent was referred to as Dr. Bruce at the center. This was, however, only a term of affection or friendliness and was not in any way intended to authorize him to hold himself out to the public as a doctor. Respondent did work for the City of Gainesville in a conservation project in May and June of 1984 but he was terminated because he had not listed his full police record on the application form. This termination was a matter of necessity under city personnel policies which required termination of anyone who intentionally falsified an application form. It had nothing to do with Respondent's performance or anything that took place while he was employed by the city. Mr. John Middleton, Principal of Ft. Clarke Middle School, knew Respondent as a paraprofessional at the alternative school when Mr. Middleton was principal there and Respondent was employed for approximately a month and a half. While Respondent was working at the alternative school he was working as aide to another teacher. He was apparently unable to accept the fact, however, that when a teacher and a paraprofessional (aide) are in the same classroom, it is the teacher who always is in charge. Respondent was discharged from his employment at the alternative school because of an incident where it was alleged he had usurped the authority of and changed the orders of the teacher for whom he was working, in front of the class. The investigation report, which Mr. Middleton received from the teacher and students who observed the incident indicated that the Respondent was loud and boisterous at the time of the incident. Since these students at the alternative school were emotionally handicapped to start with, a fact which Respondent knew, his misconduct was even more serious than it would have been in a normal situation. These students need calm more than noise. In the situation here, Respondent's actions served only to upset them. Mr. Middleton had observed that prior to this incident, Respondent's dealings with the students aggravated rather than helped them. As a result, this incident was only one factor in the decision to terminate Respondent from employment and after the incident took place, Mr. Middleton wrote an unsatisfactory performance report on the Respondent. Based on his personal observation of the Respondent, and what he now knows of Respondent's criminal record, Mr. Middleton is convinced that a teacher with this record could not be effective in the classroom. His effectiveness would be definitely reduced by his misconduct and his conduct would not set a positive example for students. In his opinion, students should not be exposed to anyone with criminal convictions. These sentiments are reinforced by Mr. Wilford A. Griffin, a career service specialist with the Alachua County School Board, who first met Respondent when Respondent left Newberry High School seeking a place in the Alachua County system. Respondent had been terminated at Newberry High School because of some problem with his certification which had nothing to do with performance or misconduct. After the alternative school termination referenced above, Respondent was placed at Eastside High School but was terminated there because of his difficulties with teachers similar to those he had at the alternative school. As an aide, he disagreed openly with teachers in the classroom and in this case, the teacher complained that he would not follow directions and would not do what the teacher wanted done. In all cases, Mr. Griffin counseled with the Respondent about the problem. Respondent obviously felt that the complaining teacher was demeaning him. He felt that he was being helpful and had been rebuffed. Based on his experience with this Respondent, Mr. Griffin would never again try to place him within the school system. Considering Respondent's record in and out of the classroom, Mr. Griffin could not recommend Respondent for employment in the school system. He believes Respondent could not be an effective teacher because of his inability to understand the ramifications of his actions. This does not even consider the convictions which merely aggravate the situation even more. There is no evidence to counter these professional opinions of Respondent's fitness to teach and they are accepted and adopted as fact.
