The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 27, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: General Findings Respondent, Robert A. Pringle, Jr., holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 720759, covering the areas of mathematics and physical education, which is valid through June 30, 2005. Mr. Pringle has a bachelor's degree in education from Maryville College in Maryville, Tennessee. Mr. Pringle played baseball at Maryville College for five years and coached baseball for two semesters at the college. In 1993, immediately after graduating from Maryville College, Mr. Pringle was employed as a mathematics and physical education teacher at Riverdale High School ("Riverdale") in the Lee County School District (the "District"). Mr. Pringle's employment as a teacher at Riverdale has continued uninterrupted since 1993. For the past eight years, Mr. Pringle has served as Riverdale's head baseball coach. He has been Riverdale's golf coach since 2000. Mr. Pringle has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against his license. The precipitating event for the allegations in this case was the varsity baseball tryout in January 2002. During Mr. Pringle's tenure as head coach, the Riverdale baseball team had progressed from a perennial losing program to a contender for the state championship in Class 3A. Competition was fierce for the 16 available spots on the team. In some years, as many as 100 boys would try out for the team. In January 2002, 38 players participated in the three-day tryout. Mr. Pringle testified that, though the number of players trying out was lower than in some previous seasons, the quality of the players was quite high, and he knew that the cuts would be hard to make. There were 25 players trying out who had played for the Riverdale varsity or junior varsity teams, in the autumn "wooden bat" league, or for local summer or AAU teams. In 2001, there had been many complaints from the disappointed parents of players who failed to make the cut. Before the 2002 tryouts, Mr. Pringle warned the Riverdale administrators to expect another round of complaints, because he fully expected that some good players would be cut. The varsity tryouts were conducted from Monday, January 14, through Wednesday, January 16, 2002. Players were allowed to choose the positions for which they wanted to be considered. At the tryouts, the coaches assessed each player on the basis of the "five tools" of baseball: hitting for average; hitting for power; running speed; arm strength; and fielding ability. The five tools are the accepted standard for rating baseball players. Running speed was measured via a timed 60-yard dash. Arm strength was measured by timing a throw from 120 feet away for infielders and 220 feet away for outfielders, commencing from the point at which the ball touched the fielder's glove to the point at which the ball touched the receiver's glove. Two coaches would time each dash or throw to ensure accuracy. Fielding was assessed by coaches on a one-to-five scale. One coach would hit to the fielders while two others stood to the side observing. Hitting and pitching were also graded on a one-to-five scale, with several coaches observing and comparing notes to arrive at a consensus rating. The Riverdale coaches conducting the tryouts included Mr. Pringle, assistant varsity coach Justin Cook, and junior varsity coach Cliff Trosterud. They were assisted at the tryout by Tommy Watkins, Jason Guy, and Ryan Carter, all of whom play professional baseball at the minor league level, as well as Casey Brock, a former college player who assists with the junior varsity pitchers at Riverdale. Mr. Pringle posted the results of the tryouts on the door of his classroom on the morning of Thursday, January 17, 2002. Among the players who did not make the varsity team were twin brothers Willard and Chris Truckenmiller, Curtis Rine, and Tyler Caruthers. All of these boys were juniors who had played junior varsity baseball the previous year, though mostly in a backup capacity. Mr. Pringle testified that all of these boys had the ability to play high school baseball, but that the talent level on the 2002 Riverdale team was extraordinarily high and they were simply not good enough to make that team. During a change of classes on the morning of January 17, 2002, Curtis Rine entered Mr. Pringle's classroom at Riverdale. Curtis was very upset at not making the cut. He yelled at Mr. Pringle that he did not need to be on his team, that he could transfer to Bishop Verot High School (a private Catholic school in Fort Myers) and play baseball for them. Mr. Pringle did not report this incident because Curtis did not use profanity or otherwise do anything that merited discipline; he was "just a kid . . . upset that he was cut from the baseball team." On the evening of January 17, 2002, Mr. Pringle conducted varsity practice at the Riverdale baseball field. Chris Stevens, a deputy with the Lee County Sheriff's Department assigned as Riverdale's school resource officer, was in the parking lot outside the baseball field. Richard Shafer, Riverdale's principal, had informed Deputy Stevens that there were parents disgruntled about the baseball cuts and asked Deputy Stevens to stay near the baseball field to make sure Mr. Pringle was safe. Deputy Stevens noticed Kim Caruthers, the mother of Tyler Caruthers, in the parking lot with Tyler's father. Deputy Stevens approached Mr. Pringle on the baseball field and told him that Ms. Caruthers was apparently waiting to talk with him. Mr. Pringle told Deputy Stevens that he would talk to her and attempt to explain the situation regarding the baseball cuts. Mr. Pringle testified that as soon as he came near her, Ms. Caruthers began yelling and "calling me every name in the book" in a profane harangue. She said that "I hurt her son and now she was going to hurt me." Deputy Stevens concurred that Ms. Caruthers was very angry and became more agitated as the conversation went on, until she "start[ed] to boil" and repeatedly threatened that Mr. Pringle was "going to go down." Deputy Stevens told Ms. Caruthers more than once that she needed to calm down. Deputy Stevens testified that Mr. Pringle maintained a calm, professional demeanor throughout Ms. Caruthers' rant and tried repeatedly to explain the tryout process to her. After about ten minutes, Ms. Caruthers began to walk away from Mr. Pringle, then turned around and spat at Mr. Pringle. The spit landed on Mr. Pringle's shoe. Deputy Stevens told Ms. Caruthers to leave.2 Deputy Stevens told Mr. Pringle that the spitting could be construed as battery and that he had the right to press charges. At the time, Mr. Pringle saw no need to press charges. Mr. Shafer, the Riverdale principal, testified that Ms. Caruthers had been generous to the school. Among other donations, she had offered $35,000 to support the baseball program. On January 17, 2002, the same date as her confrontation with Mr. Pringle, Ms. Caruthers showed up at a school open house and told Mr. Shafer that she would not give the money to Riverdale and would take her money to a school that wanted her son. Mr. Pringle testified that matters with Ms. Caruthers did not end on the evening of January 17, 2002. Over the next three weeks, she repeatedly made threatening phone calls. She would come to the baseball field and yell at Mr. Pringle. She came into the school and shouted at him in the hallways. She threatened to circulate flyers labeling Mr. Pringle a "pervert" and a "rapist." Tiring of the harassment, Mr. Pringle filed a complaint for misdemeanor battery against Ms. Caruthers on February 6, 2002. He testified that he hoped that pressing charges would lead to entry of a restraining order that would keep Ms. Caruthers away from him. Eventually, the state attorney declined to prosecute the matter. On February 18, 2002, Tom and Mary Rine, the parents of Curtis Rine, met with Mr. Pringle, Mr. Shafer, Riverdale athletic director Boyd Gruhn, and assistant principal Don Trelease. Both Mr. Shafer and Mr. Trelease recalled that the gist of the meeting involved the Rines' contention that their son should be on the varsity baseball team. Mr. Shafer told the Rines that he had seen the scores on the cut list, looked at the quality of the people who judged the players, and concluded that the tryout had been conducted fairly and competently. At this point, the Rines launched into a series of personal allegations against Mr. Pringle. Their chief accusation concerned a story their son Curtis had told them about a bus trip to a baseball game in Miami the previous season. They alleged that on the trip back from Miami, Mr. Pringle and the other coaches went around the bus asking the players if they wanted to accompany them to "Lookers," a strip club in Fort Myers. The Rines also alleged that Mr. Pringle "always" had a dip in his mouth at games and practices,3 and that he freely used profanity in the presence of his players. Mr. Shafer asked the Rines why they would want their son to play on a team where such inappropriate behavior was occurring. The Rines responded that Mr. Pringle was a successful coach. Ms. Rine testified that at this meeting, Mr. Pringle admitted that he chewed tobacco on the field, but never when there was a student around. If he was on the field on the weekend, or during the school day when no students were present, he would use tobacco, but would take it out if anyone else approached. Ms. Rine also testified that Mr. Pringle admitted to using improper language with students, including the term "blow job." Mr. Pringle testified that he did not admit to using tobacco on the baseball field. He did admit to using tobacco away from the school and stated that his life away from the school was his own business unless he did something to embarrass Riverdale. Mr. Pringle testified that he did admit to using the term "blow job" once in a conversation with his players and expressed regret that he did not employ the term "oral sex" or some other more clinical term. Mr. Pringle explained that late in the 2000 baseball season, five Riverdale athletes, including one member of the baseball team, were facing charges for having received oral sex from an underaged female. Later, there was coverage of the matter in the local newspapers and on television news, but when the charges first arose, neither Mr. Pringle nor his players knew anything other than that the player did not show up for practice and that rumors were flying around the school. Mr. Pringle was called into the principal's office and the matter was explained to him. He then met with his players to explain the situation and gauge the team's reaction. He told his players that no decision had been made whether the player would be expelled from school or even suspended from the baseball team, and he wanted to ensure that the other players would react appropriately should their teammate later show up to play. It was a delicate situation, and Mr. Pringle wanted to be sure his players understood the facts. He used the term "blow job" in explaining what happened, because he thought that was a term the players would understand. At the meeting with the Rines, he conceded that it was a poor choice of words. Mr. Trelease confirmed Mr. Pringle's version of the discussion regarding tobacco. Mr. Pringle stated that he was a tobacco user, but he leaves his tobacco in the car and never has it on his person when he is at school. Mr. Trelease did not recall the details of the profanity discussion because it was such a minor part of the overall meeting. He stated that the Rines spent most of the meeting talking about their allegations of misbehavior on the bus trip back from Miami. Mr. Pringle's version of the discussion at the meeting with the Rines is credited. There is no essential conflict between his version and that of Ms. Rine as to the profanity discussion. They both recalled Mr. Pringle's admitting to using the term "blow job." Ms. Rine simply leapt to the conclusion that this constituted a broader admission than Mr. Pringle intended. As to the tobacco discussion, Mr. Pringle's version is supported by the credible testimony of Mr. Trelease. On Tuesday, January 28, 2002, a group of parents including Terry and Dani Truckenmiller, Mary Rine, Kim Caruthers, and the father of Sean Fox (a 2002 Riverdale graduate who had played golf for Mr. Pringle and who had failed to make the varsity baseball team as a junior) met with Mr. Shafer and Doug Whittaker, the director of curriculum for the District. Mr. Shafer testified that these parents voiced allegations that Mr. Pringle constantly used tobacco on school property, used profanity in the presence of students, and indulged in sexual innuendo with and about female students. Mr. Shafer stated that it was clear to him these parents not only wanted Mr. Pringle fired, but wanted his teaching certificate revoked. On January 29, 2002, the Truckenmillers filed a written complaint with the District. Mr. Pringle was immediately suspended from his coaching duties, though not his teaching duties, and the District commenced an investigation into the parents' allegations. Bill Shoap, the District's coordinator of personnel services, conducted the investigation. In his investigative report, Mr. Shoap framed the issues as follows: The allegations are as follows: Whether Robert Pringle ever used tobacco products on school district property during baseball practice and game times; whether he ever used profanity in front of team members; and whether he ever communicated sexual innuendo towards students. Mr. Shoap described the investigation as follows: A total of forty-nine [sic] witness statements were received regarding this investigation. Approximately 27 concerned parents, past co-workers and community members submitted letters of support for Robert Pringle, describing him as a positive role model and dedicated coach, as well as an effective teacher. Each of the 16 members of the Riverdale Varsity Baseball team (acting as witnesses) signed a letter which specifically refutes the three allegations being made against Mr. Pringle. This investigation also takes into account additional information provided by those who have worked near or along the side of Mr. Pringle, as well as those who have made the allegations . . . . Mr. Shoap submitted his investigative report to the District on February 11, 2002. On February 12, 2002, a pre-determination conference was held to allow Mr. Pringle to respond to the allegations. John Hennebery, the District's coordinator for professional standards presided over the conference, which was also attended by the District's staff attorney and a recording secretary. Mr. Pringle denied every allegation. He admitted that he does use dip, but stated that he has never done so on school grounds or at any school function, including baseball practices and games. He stated that on occasion he might have muttered the word "damn" or "hell" to a fellow coach in the dugout and that a player conceivably could have overheard, but that he had never otherwise used profanity in front of students. After reviewing the investigative report and considering Mr. Pringle's statements, Mr. Hennebery determined that there was no probable cause to proceed further in the matter and that no disciplinary action should be taken against Mr. Pringle. Mr. Hennebery testified that the allegations simply could not be substantiated. He noted that Florida High School Athletic Association ("FHSAA") rules prohibit chewing tobacco, and that no one had ever been ejected from a Riverdale baseball game for that offense. He also noted that Mr. Pringle had been accused of "cussing out" the entire team and offering trips to a strip club to a charter bus full of students, yet only a few students, none of whom included current members of the baseball team, and no coaches claimed to have witnessed these acts. In sum, Mr. Hennebery concluded that the witnesses supporting Mr. Pringle were more credible than his accusers. Mr. Pringle's suspension was lifted on February 14, 2002. At about the same time, someone filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Practices Services of the Department, which assigned Shellie White to investigate on behalf of the Department. It is noted that there was confusion at the hearing as to who filed the complaint with the Department and dispute as to the manner in which Ms. White conducted her investigation. Mr. Pringle alleged that Ms. White purposely neglected to interview any witnesses possessing exculpatory information. This allegation was lent some support by the testimony of Jason Scott, a social studies teacher at Riverdale. Mr. Scott stated that Ms. White commenced an interview with him, then stopped it after five minutes and never contacted him again. It is also noted that the Department chose not to elicit testimony from Ms. White or anyone else involved in its investigation of Mr. Pringle and chose not to clarify the question as to who filed the complaint against Mr. Pringle.4 On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its finding of probable cause and the Administrative Complaint described in the Preliminary Statement above. Terry Truckenmiller Terry Truckenmiller is the father of the twins, Willard and Chris, who were cut from the varsity team in January 2002. Of all the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Department, Mr. Truckenmiller was the most vociferous accuser. He was also the least believable. For the sake of orderly presentation, Mr. Truckenmiller's testimony is treated separately at the outset, so that the Findings of Fact in Sections III through VI below may deal with those witnesses possessing some level of credibility. In a statement provided to Ms. White, the Department's investigator, Mr. Truckenmiller wrote: In the 5 years I have known Mr. Pringle it is comman [sic] knowledge from students, staff & parents that he chews tabacco [sic] & swears every moment at school. It is comman [sic] knowledge of his sexual conduct and actions with minor girls. He has taken his players to "strip clubs" many times and supplied them with alcohol on a weekly basis. I repeat this is not an allegation-- it is FACT. Mr. Shafer (the Principle)[sic] knew of this and probably many more, that he has "sweeped [sic] under the rug." This all started when a friend of Mr. Pringle who was the wrestling coach here at Riverdale asked my son if he was having sex with his girl-friend [sic] & did she like to swallow. With her brother on the team the info got back to her mom and she brought it to Mr. Shafer's attention and the word was put around school that this family was trouble-makers. This was done from the staff at Riverdale. When this was brought forward my sons were starting QB & running back in football, starting catcher (1 son) & starting shortstop (other son). It also maybe [sic] noted that Mr. Pringle picked & told me how great my boys are & would be for Riverdale-- they would start & play full-time over the boys that are now on the team playing. He would tell us how much "better" the boys were than the others. Why did this change? I coached in high school for football, baseball and took softball teams to the state finals. I know all these kids & their talents, since I've been coaching in Lee County for over 25 years. I also know my boys are not the best on the team, but they were chosen by another high school coach who took the best 15 boys in the whole county to the national finals! Top 15 in county, but not top 15 in their local school? There must be a reason-- there is [sic] you come forward and your family gets dumped on by the staff at school. My boys had teachers come up to them and tell them to watch their backs the staff said they will get them. The "good ole boy" network at Riverdale starts with Mr. Shafer and Mr. Gruhn the athletic director, the assistant principles [sic] and athletic coaches and staff hide and alter records to please their need. Were [sic] also told if we did not go forward with our complaints that our boys grades would be "fixed" to suit us. 40 yr. old men do not ask high school kids if they "swallow", are they "easy to lay", what positions they like, who and when they have "slept with". This investigation has been in the hands of administrators for 2 yrs., we have been continualy [sic] lied too [sic] & decieved [sic] by them. What Mr. Pringle has done is wrong! If he were not a teacher he would be in prison. Our kids need role models that know right from wrong. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. May the Lord be with you always. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller stood by everything in the above statement. Thus, Mr. Truckenmiller swore that: Mr. Pringle chewed tobacco and swore continually at school; Mr. Pringle took students to strip clubs; Mr. Pringle provided alcohol to students every week; Mr. Pringle made lewd remarks to female students and possibly even had sexual relations with them; and the entire Riverdale administrative staff, from Mr. Shafer down, was made aware of Mr. Pringle's actions and conspired to cover up his activities, going so far as to offer bribes in the way of altered grades to the Truckenmillers in exchange for their silence. The statement also implies, in an echo of the Rines' meeting with Mr. Shafer, that Mr. Truckenmiller nonetheless wanted his sons to play varsity baseball on Mr. Pringle's team. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller testified that, unlike Mr. Pringle, "I don't believe in abusing children . . . If a man wants to take kids to strip clubs and talk sexual innuendo with kids and ask them some of the things that he asks them, it's just totally inappropriate. You do not go up to a 16 year old girl and ask her if she swallows." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he had witnessed Mr. Pringle "curse and swear" hundreds of times at practices and games. He stated that it was "a continuous thing," that Mr. Pringle cursed, swore, and degraded players every three minutes. Mr. Pringle used the words "shit," "piss," "damn," "hell," and "God damn," among others. He used the word "fuck" "numerous, numerous, numerous times." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he saw Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco "basically every day for three years." Mr. Truckenmiller stated that he heard Mr. Pringle ask about a girl "swallowing" during a baseball practice with the entire team present. No other witness recalled this incident, and, when pressed during cross-examination, Mr. Truckenmiller could not name anyone else present who might confirm his story. Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he has heard 70 to 80 different people talk about the "fact" that Mr. Pringle takes students to strip clubs. He also heard "the boys" discussing the fact that Mr. Pringle supplied them with alcoholic beverages. No other witness confirmed these "facts." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that it was Mr. Shafer, the principal of Riverdale, who offered to "fix" his sons' grades in exchange for dropping his complaint. At the hearing, Mr. Shafer was shown Mr. Truckenmiller's written statement. Mr. Shafer credibly denied the allegation that he covered up anything regarding this matter and was visibly offended that such allegations were made against him. Mr. Shafer testified that none of the accusations against Mr. Pringle came forward until after the 2002 varsity baseball cuts. The administration spread nothing about the Truckenmillers being "troublemakers" and no one "dumped" on that family. He absolutely denied that anyone at Riverdale altered records or made any sort of offer to "fix" the Truckenmiller boys' grades. Mr. Shafer did recall that Ms. Caruthers had made such an offer to him, i.e., she would drop her complaint if her son were placed on the varsity baseball team and that he declined even to discuss the matter with her. In a letter dated January 18, 2002, Ms. Caruthers alleged that her son was cut from the baseball team in retaliation for an alleged incident between Tyler Caruthers and Dr. Christine Dollinger, an assistant principal at Riverdale. The allegations themselves are irrelevant and so absurd on their face that they do not merit discussion here. However, the story culminated in a scene in which Dr. Dollinger begged Ms. Caruthers not to report the incident and offered to change Tyler's grade in Spanish class in exchange for Ms. Caruthers' silence. Ms. Dollinger credibly testified at the hearing that Ms. Caruthers' letter was "offensive" and "full of lies" and that no such incident ever occurred. While no direct link was established, the similarity between Ms. Caruthers' story and that of Mr. Truckenmiller is notable enough to suggest that the former may have inspired the latter. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller adamantly denied ever coordinating with Ms. Caruthers or any other parents regarding the complaints against Mr. Pringle. However, Mary Rine admitted attending such a meeting with the Truckenmillers. She denied that Mr. Pringle was the subject of the meeting, but conceded that "Bob's name probably did come up" in connection with a discussion about the laxity of the Riverdale administration in "taking care of problems when they had them." Mr. Truckenmiller also denied contacting Sean Fox about his testimony in this proceeding and claimed not to know if his wife or sons had done so. Sean Fox testified that the Truckenmillers persistently phoned and e-mailed him, both at home and while he was away at college in North Carolina in the Fall of 2002. Mr. Fox stated: "They wanted to know what I knew, kind of as their inside man, if you want to say that, since I played around [Mr. Pringle] and with him for golf and baseball, and wanted to know anything I knew." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that neither he nor his wife had ever caused any trouble or conflict while their sons played Little League baseball. Several witnesses testified to the contrary. Fred Burson, a former junior varsity baseball coach at Riverdale, a ten-year district administrator for Little League, and a witness for the Department, testified that the Truckenmillers have a "long, storied history of causing trouble." He did not know Mr. Truckenmiller well, but has known Mrs. Truckenmiller for a long time, and stated that she has caused trouble at every level of baseball in which her children have participated. Mr. Burson testified that he would never be a part of anything the Truckenmillers were involved in. Justin Cook, the assistant varsity baseball coach at Riverdale, coached both Truckenmiller boys in Little League. He testified that Mr. and Mrs. Truckenmiller complained to him about their sons' positions, then took their complaint to the Little League officials when they were dissatisfied with his response. Fred Barker is the parent of a Riverdale varsity baseball player and a coach in the autumn "wooden bat league." He has coached both Truckenmiller boys. He testified that the Truckenmillers perpetually complained about the coaching if their children did not play where and when the Truckenmillers thought was proper. Elizabeth Parrish was player agent for the Little League, and her husband was the president of the Little League during the years when the Truckenmiller children played at that level. She testified that Mr. Truckenmiller was required to step down as an assistant coach in the Little League for telling a player he would "whip his ass" if the player didn't do as he was told. Diane Byrus' son, Greg, played one year of junior varsity and three years of varsity baseball for Mr. Pringle at Riverdale, and he was a contemporary of the Truckenmillers throughout their youth's baseball careers. Ms. Byrus testified that in 2001, when Greg was playing catcher for the varsity squad, the Truckenmillers told her that Greg was no good and that Mr. Pringle should make their son the starting catcher. Ms. Byrus had observed both Mr. and Mrs. Truckenmiller coach in the Little League and stated that she would not let either of them coach her son because of the way they treated the children. Mr. Truckenmiller was "very obnoxious" on the field, cursing in front of the players, even saying the word "fuck" while coaching teenagers. Mrs. Truckenmiller was belligerent and constantly belittled other peoples' children. Ms. Byrus did not want her children to be around the Truckenmillers. The above findings are sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Truckenmiller was a wholly unreliable witness, and his testimony has been disregarded as the basis for any finding of fact in this case. In his witness statement, Mr. Truckenmiller gathered every available scrap of hearsay and rumor about Mr. Pringle, magnified it, and presented it as "fact." For example, rumors that Mr. Pringle once suggested a trip to a strip club (discussed in Section V, supra) became, in Mr. Truckenmiller's telling, the "fact" that Mr. Pringle regularly smuggled underaged high school students into such places. Other accusations, such as Mr. Pringle's giving alcohol to students, were not even alleged by any other witness. To the Department's credit, its Administrative Complaint did not include Mr. Truckenmiller's wilder accusations regarding strip club attendance and providing alcohol to players, or his implication that Mr. Pringle may have molested high school girls. However, the Department knew or should have known that much, if not all, of Mr. Truckenmiller's testimony was fabricated, yet it chose to give him free rein to retell these stories as a witness for the Department in this case. Including Mr. Truckenmiller's inflammatory testimony in its case suggests that the Department engaged in this proceeding for reasons other than arriving at the objective truth of the matters at issue. Use of Tobacco The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "chewed tobacco at baseball practice, at baseball games, on trips to games and/or at school; allowed his players (students) to do the same . . . and/or provided chewing tobacco for students despite the fact that there was a rule for athletes at the school that they could be dismissed from the team for possession of tobacco." The Department called several witnesses who stated they had seen Mr. Pringle using dip on the baseball field. Fred Burson was the junior varsity baseball coach at Riverdale under Mr. Pringle from 1998 through 2000. In an April 4, 2002, letter to the Department's investigator, Shellie White, Mr. Burson wrote: "I have seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco on the field during practice and games." However, Mr. Burson's testimony at the hearing was much more equivocal. He testified that he never actually saw Mr. Pringle put tobacco into his mouth. Mr. Burson had seen the can of dip in Mr. Pringle's car, saw a bulge in Mr. Pringle's mouth, and assumed that it was dip. He never saw Mr. Pringle carrying the can of dip in his pocket and could not recall ever seeing Mr. Pringle spit tobacco juice. Mr. Burson was not sure if any students were ever present during those times he thought Mr. Pringle had dip in his mouth, which appears to conflict with his written statement that Mr. Pringle used tobacco during baseball games. Mr. Burson never saw Mr. Pringle offer dip to a student; to the contrary, Mr. Burson testified that Mr. Pringle discouraged his players from using tobacco. Despite the fact that he was called by the Department, Mr. Burson was plainly a reluctant witness. He stated that he "resent[ed] being here" because this case was a matter of "sour grapes" and a waste of time and money. Mr. Burson testified he was never offended by anything that Mr. Pringle did and never saw Mr. Pringle do anything in the presence of parents, students, or teachers that would embarrass Riverdale. Sean Fox graduated from Riverdale in 2002 and had played junior varsity baseball and varsity golf. His witness statement to Ms. White, dated May 7, 2002, stated as follows regarding tobacco: All of the alligations [sic] against Coach Pringle are true. I have witnessed with my own two eyes, everything dealing with chewing tobacco and profanity. I witnessed him telling another teammate that he did have chewing tobacco with him and that he could have some that it was "over on top of the crate." He has some of my friends hooked on chewing tobacco thanks to him sharing it. I have had him this past year for a golf coach and he did the exact same things on the golf course. On a golf trip to Clewiston, he was chewing tobacco in the van spitting it out in a 20 oz. bottle of Coke right in front of us. His chewing tobacco is an everyday thing for him at Riverdale. At the hearing, Mr. Fox's testimony was far less assured than was his witness statement. He continued to maintain that someone at practice had blurted out a request for tobacco, and that Mr. Pringle had indicated he had some on a crate or on the dugout bench. Mr. Fox could not recall who had asked for the tobacco, though he was "pretty sure" it was a student. He agreed that his recollection of the event was "pretty hazy." Mr. Fox admitted having no basis for alleging that Mr. Pringle had hooked his friends on tobacco. Rather than "an everyday thing," Mr. Pringle's tobacco use was "every now and then at practice." In his direct testimony, Mr. Fox stated that he had seen Mr. Pringle put tobacco in his mouth "maybe once or twice." However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he never actually saw Mr. Pringle put tobacco in his mouth and never saw him spit tobacco juice, except on the Clewiston golf trip. As to the Clewiston incident, Mr. Fox admitted that he "can't honestly say" that he saw Mr. Pringle spit tobacco juice into a Coke bottle. He saw the motion of the bottle to Mr. Pringle's mouth and assumed he was spitting tobacco juice. Curtis Rine, one of the players cut from the 2002 Riverdale baseball team, testified that he once saw Mr. Pringle openly dipping tobacco in his math class, and that Mr. Pringle openly dipped tobacco on the baseball field, both at practices and at games. He testified that Mr. Pringle allowed players to use tobacco, and they would all have it in their mouths, "pretty much" at every practice and every game. The players openly used and spat tobacco at games, in front of parents, school officials, and the umpires, who did nothing about it. Curtis Rine also testified that on a bus trip home from an away baseball game, two players were dipping tobacco in the back of the bus. They swallowed the tobacco, became sick, and hung their heads out of the bus window to throw up. Curtis Rine testified that Mr. Pringle laughed when he saw the two boys throwing up. No one else associated with the Riverdale baseball team, players or coaches, either in their written statements or their live testimony, claimed to have ever witnessed players hanging out of a bus window and throwing up. Assistant baseball coach Justin Cook pointed out that the Riverdale team rides a charter bus to away games and that the windows of such a bus cannot be opened by the passengers. Mr. Pringle also denied that anyone ever threw up on the bus and noted that the bus driver would have reported such an incident had it happened. No other witness ever claimed to have seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco in the classroom. As Mr. Hennebery testified, had Mr. Pringle openly used tobacco during a baseball game, he would have been ejected. Mr. Pringle was never ejected from a Riverdale baseball game. Any player using tobacco in a game would have been ejected from that game and suspended from playing baseball for two weeks. No Riverdale player was ever ejected for tobacco use under Mr. Pringle. Mr. Pringle strongly and credibly denied allowing any player to use tobacco under any circumstances. Curtis Rine's testimony on these points cannot be credited. Mary Rine, Curtis' mother, also testified that she witnessed Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco at Riverdale baseball games. She testified that he continuously spat tobacco juice throughout the games, even while standing in the third base coach's box in full view of the umpires. She also stated that on five or six different occasions at the baseball field, she saw Mr. Pringle with dip in his mouth at the concession stand. Mr. Pringle testified that he never went to the concession stand with dip in his mouth. Amy Cafaro-Dillon's son, John Cafaro, played junior varsity baseball at Riverdale in 2001. He tried out for the varsity team in 2002, but did not survive the cut. John Cafaro played golf on the Riverdale varsity team coached by Mr. Pringle. Ms. Cafaro-Dillon testified that she has spent a great deal of time around Mr. Pringle because of her son's participation in baseball and golf. When her son was on the junior varsity team, she helped run the concession stand at baseball games. She attended every practice. Ms. Cafaro-Dillon testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle use dip on school grounds. Elizabeth Parrish's son, Robby, played four years of varsity baseball at Riverdale for Mr. Pringle and graduated in 2000. Ms. Parrish "more or less" ran the concession stand for the four years her son played baseball at Riverdale. She attended every baseball game her son played in at Riverdale and continued attending some of the games in 2001 and 2002. Ms. Parrish testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle using tobacco. The only thing she ever saw Mr. Pringle spit was sunflower seeds. Justin Cook teaches business at Riverdale and has spent three seasons as assistant varsity baseball coach. He spends hours with Mr. Pringle every day during baseball season and sits less than a foot from Mr. Pringle during games. Mr. Cook confirmed that he has seen Mr. Pringle use Copenhagen dip when he is away from school, such as on a fishing trip. However, Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Pringle has never used dip at any school-related function, including baseball games and practices, and in fact, leaves the can of dip locked in his truck when he is at school. As did Mr. Hennebery, Mr. Cook pointed out that tobacco use at baseball games violates state and school rules and that officials will eject a coach or player caught with tobacco. Jason Scott has taught social studies at Riverdale for four years, and has served as assistant golf coach under Mr. Pringle for the past two seasons. He has also attended several baseball games as a spectator. Mr. Scott testified that he has never seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco products in front of students. Fred Barker's son, Brian, played three years of varsity baseball under Mr. Pringle. Fred Barker has assisted Mr. Pringle in running the autumn "wooden bat" baseball league. He attended nearly every baseball game, home and away, during his son's career at Riverdale. Mr. Barker testified that he had no idea Mr. Pringle used tobacco until these allegations arose after the 2002 cuts. Brian Barker testified that he knows what dip looks like in the user's mouth because his father used dip for years, but that he had never seen Mr. Pringle use dip. Brian also stated that he had never seen any of his fellow players use dip, in contrast to the testimony of Curtis Rine. James Simmons has two sons who played varsity baseball at Riverdale under Mr. Pringle: Justin played four years of varsity baseball and graduated in 2000; and Joshua played two years of junior varsity, two years of varsity, and graduated in 2002. Mr. Simmons attended every Riverdale baseball game, home and away, when his sons were on the team. Between 1998 and 2001, Mr. Simmons attended nearly every baseball practice. Mr. Simmons testified that he never saw Mr. Pringle use tobacco. Greg Byrus played three years of varsity baseball at Riverdale, graduating in 2003. He also played on the golf team for two years. Mr. Byrus testified that he has used dip for about a year and knew two other Riverdale players who used dip. However, he stated that none of the three players ever used dip at a practice or a game because it was not allowed. Mr. Byrus testified that he had once seen Mr. Pringle use dip at a fishing tournament, but that he had never seen Mr. Pringle use it during a school-related function. In response to Mr. Byrus' testimony, Mr. Pringle testified that he was unaware that Greg Byrus used dip. Mr. Pringle stated that he has never seen a student using tobacco products while that student was a member of the baseball team. He has seen former players smoking or dipping tobacco products after graduation. Diane Byrus is the mother of Greg Byrus. She is the athletic secretary at Riverdale and reports to Boyd Gruhn, the school's athletic director. She attended all but two games during Greg's four years at Riverdale and sat in a lawn chair at the fence near the Riverdale dugout, no more than five or six feet from Mr. Pringle. Ms. Byrus testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle use tobacco at a school activity, though she has seen him use it in social activities away from school. Richard Shafer, the principal of Riverdale for six years, testified that when he first came to the school, he had a concern about several coaches using tobacco. In 1999, he "heard something" about Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco on the field. He had a discussion with Mr. Pringle and William Hoke, then the athletic director about the matter. Mr. Pringle denied using tobacco on the field, and that was the end of the matter. Mr. Shafer heard no complaints about Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco until after the 2002 baseball cuts. Mr. Shafer has never seen Mr. Pringle with tobacco in his mouth. Mr. Hoke, the athletic director at Riverdale during the 1998-1999 school year, testified that when word got out in the community that he was going to Riverdale, he began hearing things about profanity and tobacco use among the coaching staff. People relayed such concerns to him because they knew of his activity in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and of his strong opposition to cursing and tobacco use. At the start of the school year, Mr. Hoke called a general meeting of the coaching staff to remind them of the rules. Mr. Hoke stated that if he ever discussed tobacco use or profanity individually with Mr. Pringle, it would have been at the "tail end" of a meeting on another subject and would have been a mere reiteration of the statements made in the general meeting. Mr. Pringle did not recall an individual meeting with Mr. Hoke about the subject of tobacco and profanity, though he did recall that Mr. Hoke "hit those topics hard" in the general meeting. Mr. Hoke testified that he watched the coaching staff "like a hawk" for objectionable behavior, and that he never witnessed Mr. Pringle using profanity or tobacco products during his tenure as athletic director. In his own defense, Mr. Pringle testified that he does use Copenhagen, a dip. He started using dip during his last year of college. Mr. Pringle fished in tournaments while in college and still fishes recreationally. He likes to put a dip in his mouth when he is out on the water fishing. He has a dip at night before he goes to bed, and occasionally when playing golf. However, when he is at school, the dip container is either locked in his truck or left at home. As a possible explanation for Sean Fox' claim that he saw a container of tobacco in the dugout, Mr. Pringle noted that the Riverdale baseball field is used by the community and by college teams. He quite often finds tobacco products, beer bottles, and other refuse at the field after outsiders have used it. Mr. Pringle flatly denied ever having offered tobacco to a student. He stated that he would never allow players to use tobacco products on the field and that he has never seen a current Riverdale player use tobacco. Mr. Pringle is a member of the FHSAA and of the Florida Athletic Coaches Association. Both associations prohibit profanity, tobacco, and alcohol at any athletic event. In high school baseball, the rules are enforced by the umpires. A player ejected for using tobacco or profanity is not allowed to play in another game for two weeks. Prior to the 2002 season, a coach ejected for tobacco or profanity was required to leave the school grounds and serve a one-game suspension. Mr. Pringle testified that the rule was strengthened in 2002 and now provides the same two-week penalty for coaches as for players. Mr. Pringle testified that in his ten years at Riverdale, no coach or player has been ejected from a baseball game or even warned by the umpires regarding tobacco use or profanity. Mr. Pringle stated that he runs a strict program. Players are not permitted to argue with or "show up" the umpires, or to throw bats or helmets. The same strict rules apply to practices as to games. Mr. Pringle testified that he has high goals for the Riverdale baseball program, and "there's no way I would allow myself or a player to jeopardize our goals" by using tobacco on the field. Mr. Pringle testified that he did use tobacco in front of Mr. Burson, when the coaches would go out for dinner after practices or especially after tryouts, to review the cut lists. Mr. Pringle stated that he will occasionally dip tobacco after dinner and likely did so on those occasions with Mr. Burson and the other coaches. Mr. Pringle recalled the golf trip to Clewiston, but denied using tobacco on that trip. He also denied ever using tobacco in the classroom. Mr. Pringle stated that he is an inveterate chewer of sunflower seeds and has chewed those on golf trips, bus trips, and even in the classroom when he is not actively teaching. If he is indoors or in a car, he spits the sunflower shells into a container. Mr. Pringle chews sunflower seeds at baseball practices and games. The assistant coach, Mr. Cook, confirmed that the coaches and some players chew sunflower seeds "all the time" during practices and games. Ms. Parrish testified that Mr. Pringle usually bought sunflower seeds from the concession stand before games. Mr. Pringle makes his own beef jerky, which he chews at practices and games. Mr. Pringle also chews gum. Any of those items could be mistaken, at a distance, for dip tobacco, particularly by someone who knows that Mr. Pringle does use dip on occasion. In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Pringle ever chewed tobacco at baseball practice, at baseball games, on trips to games, or at school. The Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Pringle ever provided tobacco to his players or allowed his players to use tobacco in his presence. Swearing The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "used profanity and/or demeaning language in front of students, including but not limited to words to the following effect: asking them what the hell they were thinking; telling them they were uncoachable motherfuckers; telling them they were worthless pieces of shit, sorry asses and/or fucking losers; and/or asking a student how he could be 17 years old and only be in the 9th grade." No evidence was presented that Mr. Pringle asked a student "how he could be 17 years old and only be in the 9th grade." No evidence was presented that Mr. Pringle called his players "uncoachable motherfuckers," "sorry asses" or "worthless pieces of shit." Thus, these allegations are deemed abandoned. The Department called several witnesses who claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle use profanity in front of students. In his May 7, 2002, statement to Ms. White, Sean Fox wrote: Profanity with him is an everyday thing. On the golf course, baseball field, anywhere outside of his classroom, every other word out of his mouth is profanity. On a couple of occasions in the classroom talking to him during golf season, in a quiet manner, he has used profanity in those little conversations. At the hearing, Mr. Fox testified that his written description was "pretty much accurate." Mr. Fox stated that to his knowledge this swearing occurred only in front of the athletes, not other students. Mr. Pringle would say "damn" and "hell" if the players did something wrong. Mr. Fox stated that Mr. Pringle said "fuck" once or twice in his presence. Willard Truckenmiller testified that he only heard Mr. Pringle curse a couple of times, after games. "Shit" and "damn" were the only words he could clearly recall Mr. Pringle using. He stated that Mr. Pringle might have said "hell" a couple of times, but he expressly denied ever hearing Mr. Pringle say the word "fuck." Curtis Rine testified that Mr. Pringle used profanity in front of the baseball players, either when joking around or when something happened in a game that made him mad. Mr. Pringle used "probably almost every single" curse word, including "hell," "shit," "fuck," "bitch," and "assholes." Curtis Rine stated that Mr. Pringle once called the entire team out onto the field, berated them for fooling around and not doing their jobs during the previous day's game, and called them "fucking losers." Mary Rine's older son, Tommy, played varsity baseball for Mr. Pringle in 2000 and 2001. Ms. Rine testified that Tommy would come home complaining about the swearing that occurred on the baseball field. She stated that in 2001, she wrote a letter to Mr. Shafer to complain about a variety of things, including the cursing and use of tobacco on the baseball field. Her husband delivered the letter to Ms. Dollinger, who told Mr. Rine that she would investigate the matters raised in the letter. The Rines did not retain a copy of the letter. At the hearing, Ms. Dollinger testified that she purged her files when she changed jobs a year later, and that the Rines' letter must have been destroyed at that time. She could not remember the exact substance of the Rines' complaint. She did recall bringing four baseball players into her office separately to discuss the allegations made by the Rines about Mr. Pringle and recalled being satisfied that there was no truth to the allegations. She then met with Mr. Pringle to discuss the allegations and her findings and to caution him that there were parents on the lookout for misbehavior on the baseball field. Ms. Rine coached cross-country at Riverdale for six years. While running with her team across the baseball field one day, she stated that she heard Mr. Pringle yelling at the players participating in an off-season conditioning program, "What the hell were you thinking about?" Ms. Rine conceded that the players were in the dugout and that she could not see into the dugout from her position, but she was certain that she recognized Mr. Pringle's voice. Ms. Rine testified that Mr. Pringle would swear at baseball games if the game was going badly or a player made a bad play. She recalled hearing him say "shit," "damn," and "hell," though she could remember no particular instance of his swearing aside from the incident with her cross-country team. Fred Burson testified that he has heard Mr. Pringle say the word "fuck," but only under his breath in frustration. Mr. Burson could not say whether any student heard the word. He testified that this was not typical language for Mr. Pringle, but that, like anyone else, Mr. Pringle would occasionally become frustrated and say something he shouldn't. In three years of working with Mr. Pringle, Mr. Burson never heard Mr. Pringle curse at a student or direct such language at any other person. As noted above, Mr. Hoke watched the coaches "like a hawk" during his tenure as athletic director and never heard Mr. Pringle use profanity. Justin Cook, the assistant varsity baseball coach for the last three years, testified that he has heard Mr. Pringle swear a few times when they have been fishing together, but never when performing his professional duties. Mr. Pringle has used the word "hell" two or three times in game conversations with Mr. Cook. During games, Mr. Cook and Mr. Pringle sit very close together in folding chairs outside the dugout, and are not near the players. Mr. Cook stated that he did not believe the players could hear these conversations. Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Pringle has said to him, "What the hell is going on right now?" However, Mr. Pringle has never said that to the players. Mr. Cook also recalled Mr. Pringle meeting with him in the right field corner before a game, 200 feet from the dugout where the players were sitting and saying, "How in the hell are we going to beat this team today?" Mr. Cook has never heard Mr. Pringle shout a curse word. Jason Scott, the teacher who assists Mr. Pringle with the golf team, testified that Mr. Pringle's behavior has always been purely professional. He has heard Mr. Pringle curse while playing golf with a group of adults, but has never heard Mr. Pringle utter a curse in the presence of a student. Brian Barker, who played baseball for four years under Mr. Pringle, testified that he never heard Mr. Pringle use any vulgar or sexually explicit language. The worst thing Mr. Pringle might have said was "damn," and Mr. Barker could not say for certain whether Mr. Pringle had said that. He stated that Mr. Pringle "gets on to you when you do something wrong," but never says anything to put down or demean his players. Mr. Barker testified, "[Y]ou can't really get nothing done when somebody is cussing at you . . . Why would he cuss at us to get us to work harder for him? I mean, it just don't make any sense." Greg Byrus, who played three years of varsity baseball under Mr. Pringle, testified that Mr. Pringle did not say anything that he considered cursing or profanity. He stated that Mr. Pringle would occasionally use the word "damn" or "hell" when something went wrong on the field. Mr. Byrus did not consider "damn" or "hell" to be curse words. He stated that Mr. Pringle did not shout the words; only the players sitting on the bench could hear them. Mr. Byrus expressly denied that Mr. Pringle had ever called the players "losers" or otherwise demeaned the players. Diane Byrus, Greg's mother, stated that she did consider "damn" and "hell" to be curse words, but that she never heard Mr. Pringle utter even those terms. From where she sat at the baseball games, she could hear the players talking in the dugout and was certain she could have heard Mr. Pringle cursing had he done so. Ms. Byrus stated that, in her position as athletic secretary, she would have been obliged to report to the athletic director any misbehavior by Mr. Pringle. She never saw any such misbehavior. Mark Ryan and Fred Barker both testified that they had never heard Mr. Pringle utter a profanity. James Simmons testified, "I've heard him holler at them, but he didn't cuss them." The assistant principals, Don Trelease and Christine Dollinger, both testified that they had never heard Mr. Pringle utter a profanity at a baseball game. In his own defense, Mr. Pringle testified that he has never used profanity in a game situation or at practice, and had certainly never shouted profanity on the field or in the dugout. He conceded that he has softly said "damn" or "hell" to a coach sitting next to him. He denied ever turning to a student and saying, "What the hell were you thinking?" or anything like that. He noted that use of profanity is a cause for ejection from baseball games and that neither he nor any of his players had ever been cautioned or ejected for using profanity. He also noted that Riverdale plays 15 home games every year, with an average attendance of 100 people, yet no one complained about his alleged foul language or tobacco use until after the 2002 cuts. Mr. Pringle stated that he probably had used profanity in the presence of Mr. Burson, but only away from school and never when students were present. Mr. Pringle and Mr. Burson would exchange jokes that included ribald language, all the way up to the word "fuck." In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pringle used profanity and/or demeaning language in front of students. The only thing clearly and convincingly demonstrated is that Mr. Pringle would occasionally mutter an oath to the coach seated next to him. Of the student witnesses, only Curtis Rine claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle berate players with profanity, including calling the entire team "fucking losers." The Department's other two student witnesses, Willard Truckenmiller and Sean Fox, recalled no such berating of players, though they claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle utter curse words. Greg Byrus and Brian Barker denied hearing Mr. Pringle use profanity in front of the players, as did assistant coach Jason Scott. Mr. Byrus did recall Mr. Pringle occasionally saying "damn" or "hell." Fred Burson, who recalled hearing Mr. Pringle use the word "fuck" on the field, testified that he said the word under his breath. Of all the witnesses not directly involved with the baseball team, only Mary Rine claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle use profanity on the baseball field. Other adults who spent as much or more time with the baseball team as did Ms. Rine testified that they never heard Mr. Pringle use profanity. The weight of the credible evidence favors Mr. Pringle. At most, the evidence establishes only that some players may have overheard Mr. Pringle say the word "damn" or "hell" to a coach seated next to him at the edge of the dugout. No credible evidence established that Mr. Pringle ever directed such language at students, or that he ever used language that any reasonable person would consider demeaning to his baseball players. Sexual Innuendo The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "told coarse jokes and/or made inappropriate sexual comments in front of students, including but not limited to, comments about the following: blowjobs; lap dances; getting a piece of ass; asking a student how he would like to fuck the hell out of a certain female; asking a female student if her black eye was due to her boyfriend's penis having hit her eye while she was giving him oral sex; asking male students about their sexual relationships with their girlfriends; and/or discussing how much 'head' a student had received." In his May 7, 2002, statement to Ms. White, Sean Fox wrote the following: As far as sexual comments & gestures, he has set a world record in that department. He has made numerous sexually related comments to one of my good friends, Melissa Land. She has told me that he said "Damn, you look good in those shorts," and "If you ever need help raising a grade, I'm sure we can make a trade." Melissa didn't even have him for a teacher, so how could he help her raise her grade in another class? Melissa Nunez, Jackie Whitlock are two other cheerleaders I'm almost certain he has made sexually-referred [sic] comments to and probably even sexual contact with. On road trips with golf & baseball I have heard him make comments about the girls saying "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?" "Just let me know, I can make it happen." Every day he has a different sexual comment about a cheerleader. I have asked other cheerleaders (who request to remain anonymous) that Pringle has asked them to have sexual fun & sexual intercourse. He has done everything he has been accused of and denied everything during baseball season to keep his coaching job. He should not be a coach, nor a teacher before some more serious [sic] happens (i.e. rape, mollesting [sic]) He thinks that since he is a teacher, he can get away with this easier. He's not at this high school to teach, he's here to take advantage of girls that are 17 & 18 years old. Someone needs to get rid of him & out of this school before rape or mollesting [sic] occurs & the school board and school really get into a situation I'm sure they don't want to be in. Lee County School Board did a horrible job investigating him before. As a student, this scares me knowing a creep, a pervert like him is on the loose getting away scot- free. At the hearing, Mr. Fox considerably softened those portions of his statement that he did not expressly disavow. Mr. Pringle's actual comments about girls were "maybe not that extreme" when compared to those in Mr. Fox' written statement. Mr. Pringle would "just say something about how good a girl would look or how maybe the way she acted." Mr. Pringle's comments were "maybe not necessarily" about cheerleaders, but about some other unnamed girls. At the hearing, Mr. Fox could recall no particular statements Mr. Pringle made about girls. When questioned about the "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?" comment, Mr. Fox stated: I don't remember the whole "let me know" thing, "I can make it happen," but I'm sure once or twice-- I can't remember specifically, but the first statement would be true at some point. Mr. Fox testified that he wrote his statement "probably out of pure anger at the time and frustration" over being dragged into this matter at a time he was preparing for graduation and going through family problems. Graduation was supposed to be a good time, but this controversy was roiling the school and Mr. Fox was being pulled into it. He stated that, if he could, he would take back the accusations that Mr. Pringle was a "creep" and a "pervert." He testified at the hearing that Mr. Pringle was a good coach and a good role model for students. Mr. Fox admitted that, of all the girls named or referenced in his statement, Melissa Land was the only one he actually spoke with about these matters. His other allegations were based on the girls' "reputations and rumors that I have heard about them, and stuff like that." He admitted having no personal knowledge as to the truth of any of the allegations in his statement regarding Mr. Pringle and female students. Sean Fox never saw Mr. Pringle make any inappropriate comment to any female student. In a written statement to Ms. White dated April 3, 2002, Willard Truckenmiller alleged that Mr. Pringle talked to players about having sex with their girlfriends and whether the girls were "easy." He also wrote about a cheerleader, later identified as Melissa Land, who came to school with a black eye. Willard Truckenmiller alleged that Mr. Pringle asked Ms. Land "if her boyfriend miss [sic] her mouth and hit her in the eye." He alleged that Ms. Land did not come forward because she was threatened with being kicked off the cheerleading squad if she did. At the hearing, Willard Truckenmiller testified that Mr. Pringle made no sexual comments in his presence. As to Melissa Land, he disclaimed any personal knowledge of the incident, stating that he only knew what Ms. Land told him. For reasons set forth below, it is far more likely that Willard Truckenmiller's information about the incident came from Curtis Rine, the "boyfriend" referenced in the statement, than from Melissa Land. Curtis Rine testified that he was dating Melissa Land at the time of the incident. Melissa had received a black eye during a cheerleading practice. Mr. Rine testified that Melissa told him that she saw Mr. Pringle in the hallway, and that Mr. Pringle asked her, "What happened to your eye? Did your boyfriend, you know, miss your mouth and hit you in the eye with his dick?" Mr. Rine testified that this made him angry but that he did not report Mr. Pringle. Ms. Land testified that she did not know Mr. Pringle very well but that she would walk past his classroom and say hello every day during the change of classes. On the day in question, Mr. Pringle was standing outside his classroom with Mark Ryan, another teacher. Ms. Land recalled that Curtis Rine was with her as she walked past Mr. Pringle and Mr. Ryan. Mr. Pringle saw her black eye and "said something like, 'What were you doing with your boyfriend?'" Ms. Land testified that she did not take the remark as referencing sex. She simply took it as a joke and laughed, "blew it off." Later, however, Curtis Rine told her that he thought Mr. Pringle was making some kind of sexual remark. Mr. Ryan recalled the incident. He knew Melissa Land as a former student of his. She walked past Mr. Pringle and him during change of classes, and they noticed she had a black eye. Mr. Pringle said something like, "What happened to you?" This was in the context of a brief, lighthearted conversation about whether cheerleading is a "sport," a running joke in the hallways of Riverdale. The entire conversation lasted no more than twenty seconds. When asked directly whether Mr. Pringle made any kind of sexual remark to Melissa Land, Mr. Ryan testified: Absolutely not. I mean, I have been a teacher for 15 years in Lee County, and any remark of a sexual nature would be something that would be imprinted in my memory. And no. I mean, nothing like that has ever happened. You know, I mean, this conversation, if it’s a conversation that becomes something out of the normal teacher- student, in passing, joking type of conversation, you would remember that. Absolutely not. That would be something that... it would just... it would absolutely stick. Mr. Pringle testified that he and Mr. Ryan were standing in the hallway when Melissa Land came walking by. Curtis Rine was not with Ms. Land. Mr. Pringle asked Ms. Land what happened to her eye, and she explained that another girl accidentally hit her during cheerleading practice. Mr. Pringle jokingly asked how she could get hurt in cheerleading, since it was not a sport. At the hearing, Mr. Pringle explained that this was a running joke at the school because Riverdale's cheerleading team is highly competitive and nationally ranked, yet receives no money from the school's athletic budget. Melissa Land laughed, and that was the end of the conversation. It is clear from the testimony of all involved that the sexual content of this incident derived from the mind of Curtis Rine, not from anything Mr. Pringle said to Melissa Land. Any fair-minded investigation could only have led to the conclusion that this allegation was, if not utterly devoid of merit, then certainly one that could not be proven by clear and convincing evidence when no one who was actually present recalled Mr. Pringle saying anything like what was alleged. The fact that such a vile and improvable allegation was included in the Administrative Complaint again raises questions as to the Department's intent in bringing this case against Mr. Pringle. In his written statement to Ms. White dated April 3, 2002, Curtis Rine wrote: Now about the strip clubs and sexual coments [sic]. One night we had a baseball game in Miami and on the way home, there were a couple of us in the front of the bus and [Mr. Pringle] asked if we were gonna go to Lookers with him (strip club) and we said no. I also heard him ask Matt Howerton how many blow jobs has he got now. At the hearing, Curtis Rine stood by the text of his statement, though he noted that he believed Mr. Pringle was joking about taking the boys to a strip club. Matt Howerton was another player on the Riverdale baseball team. It was well known, at least among the baseball players, that Matt's older sister was a dancer at "Lookers," the strip club allegedly mentioned by Mr. Pringle. Curtis Rine stated that Matt laughed when Mr. Pringle suggested they go there. Brian Barker was one of the Riverdale players on the charter bus to the Miami game. He never heard Mr. Pringle make a comment about going to Lookers or any strip club, on that trip or at any other time. Mr. Barker stated, "I definitely would recall something like that, yeah." Greg Byrus was another Riverdale player who rode the bus to the Miami game. He never heard Mr. Pringle say anything about going to Lookers, though he qualified his statement by noting that he was in the back of the bus and Mr. Pringle was sitting in the front. Assistant coach Justin Cook sat next to Mr. Pringle on the bus coming back from Miami. Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Pringle never said anything about going to Lookers and has never made any comment of the kind to students in Mr. Cook's presence. Mr. Pringle testified that he never made any comment about going to Lookers. He stated that he would never make such a comment, if only because it was a "very touchy subject" due to the fact that Matt Howerton's sister worked at the club. Other kids gave Matt "a hard time" about it, in a teasing manner. Mr. Pringle did not approve of the teasing and disallowed it on the baseball field. Mr. Trelease testified that the Lookers allegation was raised by the Rines at their meeting with him, Mr. Shafer, Boyd Gruhn, and Mr. Pringle on February 18, 2002. Mr. Trelease stated that when the school's administration investigated the matter, it could find no substantiation for the allegation from any player on the bus. Thus, on the record produced at the hearing, Curtis Rine is the sole witness to Mr. Pringle's alleged invitation to a bus full of students and coaches to join him at a strip club. This allegation has not been proven. Other sexual comments were attributed to Mr. Pringle by Sean Fox, Willard Truckenmiller and Curtis Rine: asking "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?"; asking whether certain girls were "easy"; asking how often they had sex with their boyfriends; and asking a student how many blow jobs he'd had. Mr. Pringle denied ever making any such comments. No other coach ever heard him make such comments. Brian Barker and Greg Byrus denied ever hearing Mr. Pringle make such comments. The District's investigation concluded there was no reason to give credence to these allegations. Mr. Trelease noted that no such allegations had ever surfaced against Mr. Pringle until the 2002 baseball cuts were made. Mr. Hennebery noted that even after the allegations against Mr. Pringle had reached the District level, the charges of sexual innuendo did not come up until the investigation was nearly complete, as a sort of afterthought. In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pringle told coarse jokes and/or made inappropriate sexual comments in front of students. Conclusions The Department produced not a single disinterested witness to support any of the allegations brought against Mr. Pringle. In some cases, this would not be of overriding significance. However, in this case, the accusations regarding Mr. Pringle alleged that his behavior was open and notorious. He cursed freely and often, in front of the entire baseball team and any parents who happened to be in the vicinity. He chewed tobacco at Riverdale baseball games, in full view of the fans, school officials, and umpires. He offered to take a bus load of minors to a strip club. Yet the only persons who witnessed these acts were those who had been cut from his baseball team or their parents. To give credence to these allegations, one must be prepared to believe that the entire Riverdale baseball team, their parents, several Riverdale teachers and all of its administrators, and the Lee County School District either lied or acted in bad faith to protect Mr. Pringle. The undersigned was not persuaded that such a conspiracy existed and is at a loss to understand how the Department could have been so persuaded. The testimony of two of the Department's own witnesses, William Hoke and Melissa Land, tended to support Mr. Pringle's version of events. Department witness Fred Burson testified that this case was "a waste of time," and could not say whether any student ever witnessed Mr. Pringle's tobacco chewing and cursing. Mr. Pringle testified that he had indeed cursed and dipped tobacco in Mr. Burson's presence, but never in the presence of a student. Sean Fox, author of some of the most sordid accusations against Mr. Pringle, retracted the bulk of them on the witness stand. He now regretted the vitriol of his written statement and testified that Mr. Pringle was a good coach and a good role model, though in January 2002, he had told teacher Jason Scott that he was not trying out for baseball "because I hate Pringle." The Rines and the Truckenmillers carried clear grudges against Mr. Pringle because of the 2002 baseball cuts. The Rines' dissatisfaction with Mr. Pringle actually dated back to their elder son Tommy's experiences on the Riverdale baseball team, having nothing to do with cursing or tobacco use. The parents believed that Tommy had the potential to pitch at the University of Florida. Mr. Pringle and his assistants did not share that opinion. The Rines were angry that Tommy pitched only sporadically for Riverdale and that the coaches would not risk their own credibility by recommending Tommy to college and professional scouts. As Curtis Rine put it, Mr. Pringle had "screwed over" Tommy, and his parents believed that Mr. Pringle was going to "screw me over, too." The local newspaper and television stations ran stories on the allegations against Mr. Pringle while the District was conducting its investigation. John Hennebery and Bill Shoap both testified that the District has a strict confidentiality rule regarding ongoing investigations, and both testified that the District was not the source for these stories. Mr. Pringle credibly testified that a television reporter indicated to him that the sources for the story were Mary Rine, Kim Caruthers, and one of the Truckenmillers, all of whom sought to create a public scandal that would lead to Mr. Pringle's dismissal. When the news was released that the District had cleared Mr. Pringle of the charges against him, Tom Rine, the father of Curtis and Tommy, flew into an obscenity-laced tirade against Mr. Pringle in the presence of two female Riverdale students who were visiting the Rine home. In front of these girls, Mr. Rine threatened violence against Mr. Pringle in explicit terms. Mr. Rine's behavior was so extreme and threatening that one of the girls reported the matter to Deputy Stevens, who filed an incident report and let it be known that Mr. Rine should stay away from the Riverdale campus. Mary Rine testified that her husband assured her that he did not engage in this tirade. Both of the female Riverdale students testified that he did. The Department listed Mr. Rine as a witness, but elected not to call him. These facts are recited not to further discredit the Department, but to point out that the Department knew or should have known of these facts before it elected to proceed against Mr. Pringle, or at least before this matter ever reached the point of a formal hearing. As far as Riverdale High School and the Lee County School District were concerned, this matter was concluded on February 14, 2002. For reasons not apparent to the undersigned, the Department of Education elected to revive these charges and extend Mr. Pringle's ordeal for an additional year and a half. The Department did not come close to carrying its burden in this case. Moreover, the Department should have known that it could not carry its burden long before this case came on for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2003.
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 8., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Uncontested Facts by the Parties Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 1046827, covering the area of Biology, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent to this matter, Respondent was employed as a Biology teacher at Miami Palmetto Senior High School (“MPHS”) in the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent knew A.T. was a student at MPHS during the 2015-2016 school year and had tried out for the school’s lacrosse team in late January 2016. Respondent sent a text message to A.T. on December 19, 2016, stating, “How are you?” Respondent sent and exchanged text messages with A.T. in March 2017. Respondent met and engaged in sexual intercourse with A.T. in late March 2017. Respondent resigned from his employment with Miami-Dade County Schools on May 3, 2017, citing “personal reasons.” Additional Findings of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold Florida educator certificates, and are alleged to have violated provisions of section 1012.795. Respondent is a highly effective educator who, over the course of his ten-year career, has earned the respect of his former principal and science department head, as well as parents and students with whom he has come in contact. The allegations of misconduct in this case have not altered the high professional regard in which Respondent is held by Principal Victoria Dobbs; Science Department Head Pamela Shlachtman; parent and lacrosse team booster club president Nicola Rousseau; and former student, lacrosse player, and the daughter of Nicola Rousseau, Samantha Rousseau. Each of these witnesses testified that their knowledge, observations, and experience working with Respondent led them to believe that he never would have had any type of relationship with a woman he believed to be a high school student. Each of these witnesses testified that, to the best of their knowledge, they had never seen or heard reports of any inappropriate conduct between Respondent and a student. Principal Dobbs bragged in a letter about Respondent and the support of his peers in voting him Science Teacher of the Year. She testified that in her 12 years of service at MPHS, the last three of which she was principal, she had no concerns with Respondent regarding inappropriate relationships with students. To the contrary, she recalled him as a very good teacher, who participated in many school activities and field trips. He also served as coach for the girls’ lacrosse team. Principal Dobbs further testified that she was never informed that Respondent had been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a student at her school. She was only made aware of a request by the school district for Respondent’s computer. She testified that if she had believed Respondent had an intimate relationship with a high school student, she would not have employed him. Ms. Shlachtman has been employed at MPHS since 2001 and has been a teacher since 1984. She affirmed her previously written statement supporting Respondent, and testified she had participated in the hiring and selection of Respondent ten years previously as a marine biology teacher. She stated that he had “the soul of an educator.” As a member of Ms. Shlachtman’s staff, Respondent had chaperoned multiple field trips, including extended travel with students and staff for the Enviro Team, and to state and national competitions in Montana and Toronto, Canada. Having seen Respondent react with both male and female students on seven- and ten-day trips, she never had a concern or received a complaint. She also knew girls on the lacrosse team and had never heard a concern reported from there. She noted that Respondent had the opportunity to be alone with students on multiple occasions, and no concerns or inappropriate behavior was ever reported. She would rehire Respondent on her staff again, if given the opportunity. Ms. Rousseau, the mother of three daughters who trained with Respondent at his CrossFit gym, also served as president of the girls’ lacrosse team booster club. She affirmed her previous letter of support for Respondent and testified about her commitment to Respondent as a trainer for her three daughters at his gym, which she said would continue. Additionally, Samantha Rousseau, Nicola’s daughter, and a full-time student at the University of Florida, confirmed her support for Respondent. While a student at MPHS, she had served as assistant captain of the girls’ lacrosse team during her senior year (2014), while Respondent was the team coach. She had known Respondent since she was a sophomore student in his Television Production class; she had traveled with Respondent to Los Angeles as part of his class; and had ridden numerous times on the team bus with Respondent. She testified that she believed Respondent would not have been involved with A.T. had he known she was a high school student. Respondent first encountered A.T. during MPHS lacrosse tryouts in late January 2016. A.T. was a junior at that time. Respondent had no further contact with A.T. until he sent her a December 12, 2016, text stating, “Hi! How was your weekend? You missed out on Saturday morning [referring to a workout designed for lacrosse players at CrossFit gym].” A.T., still a student at MPHS at the time of this text message, never replied to it. On March 15, 2017, Respondent sent another text message to A.T., stating, “Hey, what’s up? How have you been?” The remaining text messages sent by Respondent to A.T. were undated, but were sent between March 15 and their sexual encounter in late March. The text messages were sexually graphic. The messages sent by Respondent included explicit photographs, and while those sent by A.T. had explicit photographs, they were removed to protect her privacy. A.T. was a student at MPHS through December 2016. On January 12, 2017, the Miami-Dade School District conducted a conference to formulate an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for A.T. She was placed in a hospital/homebound program at that time and graduated from the virtual school in June 2017. She did not attend college during this time. Respondent never denied the one-time sexual encounter he had with A.T. On the day when the encounter took place, March 19, 2017, A.T. texted Respondent and asked if she could see him that night. A.T. was driven by a friend to Briar Bay Park where she met Respondent, who was already there and waiting for her in his car. She had sexual intercourse with him in his car. After their liaison, Respondent drove her home. A.T. and Respondent had no contact after that time. A great deal of testimony was elicited about whether Respondent texted or phoned A.T. and discussed her status as a student in March 2017. At different times during the investigation into the sexual encounter between A.T. and Respondent, he said he texted, instant messaged, or telephoned A.T. about her school. Respondent believed her to be taking courses at Miami Dade College (“MDC”) during the spring semester of 2017. In fact, she was a student at Brucie Ball Education Center (“Brucie Ball”), a virtual school where she took online courses to complete her high school education, graduating in June 2017. Respondent consistently believed, at the time of his interview by Detective Ochoa, during his deposition, and at hearing, that A.T. was in college and testified he was never told she was at Brucie Ball. A.T.’s memory is less clear. She testified she could not recall telling Respondent she was taking college courses, but there is no doubt she was enrolled at Brucie Ball during her final semester of high school and not at MDC. She remembers that she received a social media invite from Respondent to attend his CrossFit boot camp in December 2016. She recalls communicating back and forth via social media after that time, especially when Respondent texted her about missing her at boot camp. She and Respondent testified to multiple additional conversations via social media or texting, but many of those were not produced as evidence. When a three-month gap between their messaging occurred, Respondent testified that A.T. told him she had been backpacking in Africa with friends and, according to what he recalled she told him, she was taking courses at MDC. She did not recall having told him she was taking courses at MDC, but “guessed he knew” she was still a high school student because the previous year she had been a junior at MPHS. “It never came up,” she testified. While she could not recall having told Respondent she had been to Africa and was taking courses at MDC, A.T. testified she recalled many more text messages between Respondent and her that were not printed from her phone and introduced into evidence at hearing. According to A.T., she had not talked to Respondent about her upcoming 18th birthday on March 2, 2017. Yet, she invited him to the celebration at a club called “Do Not Sit on the Couch.” She also shared with him that she and her friends often visited another club called “Little Hoolies,” and invited Respondent to join them. Both of these clubs serve alcohol and are for adults over 21. Respondent did not join them at either club. A.T. did not recall any of these conversations at hearing. A.T. declined to be interviewed by Petitioner’s Professional Practices Services investigator. At hearing, she could not recall a request to be interviewed. Respondent assumed A.T. was older than 18 when they met at the park for sex, since he believed her to be taking classes at MDC; she hung out with her friends at two adult clubs; and she brought alcohol, a vapor pen, and THC oils with her when they met in the park. He did not believe this to be typical high school behavior. Respondent also believed A.T.’s absence from social media for three months before they had their encounter at the park was explained by her telling him she had been backpacking in Africa where he assumed she did not have readily available access to the Internet. He also believes this supported his understanding that A.T. was in college at that point, since three months of backpacking does not usually occur as part of a high school experience. Respondent consistently testified, from his statements to law enforcement to his appearance at hearing, that had he known A.T. was still a high school student, regardless of whether she was at the school where he taught, he would have never had an intimate relationship with her. Moreover, law enforcement never asked Respondent for his phone at the time of the investigation. After he learned A.T. had been a high school student in March 2017, when they had their one-time sexual relationship, on May 3 of that year he resigned his position as a teacher at MPHS for “personal reasons,” based upon advice he received from union representatives and an investigator, and to spare embarrassment to his school, colleagues, and family. At the time A.T. had entered into an IEP with Miami- Dade, her school was listed as South Miami Senior High School, not MPHS. This explains why Respondent never saw her again at MPHS in her final semester. There was no evidence presented that Respondent knew A.T. had not graduated from MPHS or that she had enrolled in either South Miami High School or Brucie Ball when she did not return to MPHS for the spring semester of 2017. Respondent’s assertion that he was unaware of A.T., an 18-year-old, still being in high school at the time of their March 2017 encounter, along with his cooperation with the investigation and admission at all times pertinent to it that he had a sexual relationship with A.T., renders his testimony more credible than A.T.’s concerning what Respondent knew about her status as a student. No evidence was produced that Respondent ever had an improper relationship with A.T. while she was under the age of 18. A.T.’s lack of candor and lack of cooperation with Detective Ochoa, the investigator on the case, as well as her incomplete memory of the various text messages with Respondent bring into question her truth and veracity when testifying against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner's, Orange County School Board, suspension without pay of Razzi Lee Smith from his position of classroom teacher is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing briefs and memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During times material to the allocations herein, Respondent, Razzi Lee Smith, was employed by the Petitioner, School Board of Orange County, Florida, as a classroom teacher at Rock Lake Elementary School. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay from his position as a teacher pending a hearing. Respondent requested a hearing pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 120.57(1) and 231.36, Florida Statutes (1979). The charges upon which the suspension is based are, in summary fashion, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office. The specific charges are based upon the following grounds: On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent twice refused a lawful and reasonable order of his Principal. On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent threatened his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent evidenced in the presence of others, a continuing belligerent and hostile attitude towards his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent failed to follow the established written procedures for calling in if he was to be late or not present. 5. On September 2, 19, 22, 24 and 25, 1980, Respondent failed to report to the school by 8:00 o'clock a.m. as required in the Faculty Handbook. Additionally, Respondent was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty based upon the following grounds: On August 29, 1980, Respondent was absent from his assigned work location at Rock Lake Elementary School. On September 12, 1980, Respondent took sick leave for one half day claiming that he was too sick to finish the school day at Rock Lake Elementary School but later attended a football game in Tampa, Florida. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave claiming to be too sick to teach at Rock Lake Elementary School but attended football practice at Jones High School as a coach. On September 26, 1980, Respondent provided the Superintendent with a false oral statement, to wit, that he did not leave to go to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, until approximately 7:00 o'clock p.m., arriving at the game around half time at 8:30 p.m., when in fact Ice left to go to the game with the Jones High School football team. Lois Begley has been the acting principal at Rock Lake Elementary School since approximately February, 1980. Upon assuming the duties of acting principal, Ms. Begley immediately advised teachers at Rock Lake to report for work at 8:00 o'clock a.m. and leave at 3:30 p.m. Petitioner has a policy whereby teachers who find it necessary to be absent must report such intentions by 6:30 a.m. by notifying either Ms. Begley or an office employee at Rock Lake, Caroline Johnson. Respondent was advised of this policy; was warned of his breach of said policy on two occasions during February and March of 1980, and admitted that he was aware of the policy. (Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5) Ms. Begley stressed the need to know of a teacher's intended absence prior to 7:00 o'clock a.m. in order to recruit a substitute teacher. Subsequent to March, 1980, Respondent was again advised of Petitioner's policy respecting timely reporting for duty at Rock Lake Elementary School. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6) During a faculty meeting held during the afternoon of the last day of preplanning, August 29, 1980, Ms. Begley observed that Respondent was not present. She inquired of Respondent's whereabouts and was advised by an office employee that Respondent had called and reported that he was experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley observed Respondent at Jones High School later that same afternoon. During the last week of August, 1980, Respondent advised Ms. Begley that he had been leaving Rock Lake approximately one hour early each day during the preplanning week to assume coaching duties at Jones High and that this was cleared prior to Ms. Begley's tenure as acting principal at Rock Lake. Ms. Begley reluctantly agreed to Respondent's early departure during that school year, however, she made clear to Respondent that he would be expected to teach a full day the following year. Respondent and Ms. Begley made an agreement whereby he would report to work one half hour early, i.e., at 7:30 a.m., in order to make up for one half of the time lost due to his early departure from Rock Lake to coach at Jones High School. Respondent failed to report for duty at 7:30 a.m. as was his agreement with Ms. Begley. September 2, 1980, was the first school day for students at Rock Lake. Respondent reported for work at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980, and several students were observed milling around in the hallways attempting to find Respondent to enter their homeroom class. Respondent called the office at Rock Lake at approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 2, and advised that he was again experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley offered to assist Respondent in getting a ride to school. Within minutes, Ms. Begley had located a ride for Respondent. Ms. Begley called to so advise Respondent, whereupon Respondent told Ms. Begley that he had found a ride. As stated, Respondent reported for duty at 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980. Ms. Begley counselled Respondent regarding his claimed transportation problems again and stressed the reasons for her need to be alerted when he would be reporting late for work. Respondent generally discussed his problems with Ms. Begley on September 12, indicating that he was encountering personal problems that he did not care to divulge and that there were rumors about him being circulated around the school amongst other faculty members. Ms. Begley later discussed the problem regarding that fact that he had failed to make up 150 of the 300 minutes that he owed the School due to his early departure to coach at Jones High Sclcool during the week of preplanning. Ms. Begley did not take disciplinary action against Respondent due to his lateness in reporting for duty on the first day of school. Respondent requested the services of a substitute teacher to "fill in" for him during the afternoon of September 12, 1980, because he was ill. Respondent initially refused to divulge to school officials the nature of his illness. He attended and coached a football game between Jones High School and a local high school in Tampa that night. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. As late as 8:30 a.m. on that day, several students were unable to get in class and Respondent failed to call to advise Ms. Begley or the designated official that he would report for work late. When questioned as to the reason for his tardiness by Ms. Begley, Respondent replied that he had earlier advised her that he was having transportation problems. Ms. Begley again counselled Respondent regarding his continued tardiness in reporting to work. At that time, he was also directed not to use school supplies to photocopy football plays for use at Jones High School without proper authorization. On September 19, office aides, Ann Green and W. Oliver, work situs was in the immediate area where Respondent was counselled by Ms. Begley and were in earshot of the conversations. Respondent balked and became vocal about being counselled by Ms. Begley for reporting late. Ms. Begley reported the incident to Dr. Skaggs, Superintendent in charge of employee relations and Ron Blocker, Area Superintendent, who serves as a liaison between the superintendent and individual school principals. During the conference with Ms. Begley on September 19, Respondent voiced displeasure about the working conditions at Rock Lake and expressed a desire to transfer when Ms. Begley reported what she termed to be threatening remarks by Respondent to Dr. Skaggs. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. and was summoned for a conference with Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. During the conference, Respondent expressed disagreement or displeasure regarding the atmosphere in which he was being questioned and indicated that he preferred to leave. Respondent was warned of the consequences that might flow from his acts and conduct which could include either disciplinary action by way of a suspension or a failure to be reappointed for another term should he not heed the advice and warnings given him by his Principal, Ms. Begley. 2/ On September 22, 1980, Respondent reported for duty at approximately 8:14 a.m. Respondent did not call to advise Ms. Begley or the other designated official. Ms. Begley spoke to Respondent about his reporting tardy at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 22, 1980. Present during the conference were Respondent, Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. Respondent was invited to offer and explanation or statement with reference to his continued pattern of reporting for duty late, however, he refused to make any verbal response. Ms. Begley reduced the oral reprimand to writing and delivered it to Respondent who failed to accept or verify that he was issued a reprimand. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave and, therefore, did not report for work at Rock Lake. On that same day, however, Ms. Begley observed respondent at the football field at Jones High School between the hours of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. working with a small group of football players. On the following day, September 24, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:07 a.m. Ms. Begley summoned Respondent to a conference, explaining to him at the outset of the possible consequences that might result from the conference. Given the gravity of the possible consequences, Ms. Begley inquired if Respondent cared to bring a witness or other representatives to be present with him during the conference. During the conference, Ms. Begley advised Respondent that she regreted having to give him a written reprimand but that his acts and conduct gave her no alternative. A copy of a reprimand was then given Respondent which he refused to sign acknowledging acceptance (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that written reprimands respecting lateness or failure to report for work be documented by a letter to that effect (Petitioner's exhibits Nos. 8 and 9). Ms. Begley, then, during the conference, asked Respondent if she could be of any further assistance to him, whereupon, Respondent in a hostile manner advised that he did not need or want any assistance and began pointing his finger at Ms. Begley telling her to "leave him alone." Respondent was told by Ms. Begley that that kind of conduct (vocal and belligerent outbursts) could result in disciplinary action to him. Ms. Begley inquired of Respondent what type leave he took on September 23, 1980, whereupon, Respondent advised that he went to see a doctor. Ms. Begley then asked Respondent to provide her with a doctor's statement to document that claim. Respondent never provided Ms. Begley with a medical excuse for his absence as requested. Ms. Begley considered that Respondent's demeanor and mannerism during the conference of September 24, 1980, constituted a threat based on the tone of his voice and the message, i.e., "quit messing with me. Stop bothering me--I'll do more than threaten you" (when Ms. Begley asked Respondent if he was threatening her). She also considered that Respondent's failure to signify acceptance of the reprimand constituted a compromise of her authority. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, pages 22, 23). Respondent later discussed the decision to discipline Respondent and ultimately decided to recommend his dismissal to Superintendent Skaggs and Area Superintendent Blocker during the evening of September 25, 1980. The possibility of a transfer was considered by Ms. Begley but rejected inasmuch as she was of the opinion that a transfer would not serve any useful purpose in correcting the problems evidenced by Respondent's erratic work habits. Ms. Begley considered that her attempt to reprimand Respondent was ineffective and incomplete based on his refusal to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the reprimand plus the combination of the insubordinate attitude displayed by him in the presence of his peers, his neglect of duty and tardiness in reporting for work, when combined, warranted a recommendation to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed as opposed to a transfer or some other lesser form of reprimand or discipline. Ron Blocker, the area administrator and liaison between the Superintendent and the Principal were summoned to Rock Lake Elementary School to assist Ms. Begley in what was once thought to be a possible teacher resignation. During the conference on September 24, 1980, Administrator Blocker advised Respondent that his failure to sign for receipt of a written reprimand could have grave disciplinary consequences in view of the gravity of the charges and Respondent's hostile conduct as manifested throughout the conference. Administrator Blocker recalled the forceful tone used by Respondent in telling Ms. Begley that he was "doing more than threatening her." Administrator Blocker also recalled Respondent's refusal to advise Begley of the reason for his absence the day prior to the conference indicating instead that she would know at the end of the work day. During the conference, Administrator Blocker recalled that he twice cautioned Respondent that his (Respondent's) refusal to follow an administrative directive may be interpreted as "gross insubordination" which could lead to possible termination or failure to be reappointed (as a teacher) the following school year. Calvin Perry is Director of Drivers Education and is the head football coach at Jones High School. As head football coach, Coach Perry is familiar with the duties of Respondent, a paid assistant coach assigned to coach the defensive team at Jones High School. Coach Perry confirmed that Respondent was present at the September 12, 1980, game in Tampa indicating that Respondent was present during the pre-warm ups and was present throughout the entire game. Coach Perry credibly testified that Respondent was present for football practice on September 23, 1980, having reported at the start of practice at approximately 3:00 p.m. and remained throughout the practice session which lasted until approxiately 5:15 p.m. However, Coach Perry also acknowledged that Respondent indicated that Respondent was ill at the game in Tampa. James L. Schott, Petitioner's Superintendent was shown copies of the letters sent to Respondent bearing the dates September 26, and October 4, 1980, respecting his suspension of Respondent without pay. Superintendent Schott explained that a conference was called to hear the nature of the charges; to hear both sides; to evaluate the evidence and determine the nature of, if any, recommended penalty he would make to the School Board, prior to making any recommendation based on the subject charges. Superintendent Schott recalled that while Respondent explained that he was ill on September 12, 1980, he was able to attend a football game in Tampa although he arrived during halftime because he was not feeling well and was uncertain as to whether he would attend the game at all. Respondent maintained his "story" to Superintendent Schott about attending the Tampa game during halftime. When Respondent advised Superintendent Schott that he also took sick leave on September 23, 1980, Superintendent Schott reminded Respondent of the similar situation by him on September 12, and, therefore, asked that he bring any documentary evidence of illness that he had so that it could be considered prior to his making any decision on the pending charges against him. Therefore, Superintendent Schott counselled Respondent regarding his failure to follow what he considered to have been lawful and reasonable requests regarding his attendance and timely reporting to work. During the Superintendent's conference with Respondent on September 26, 1980, he determined that Respondent was late approximately 50 minutes on September 19; approximately 14 minutes on September 20th and several minutes late on September 21 and 22. On September 23, respondent was absent for work claiming sick leave. According to Superintendent Schott, Respondent acknowledged that he might have made a threat to Ms. Begley during the conference on September 24, 1980. Superintendent Schott was able to independently determine from an investigation of the charges that Respondent had offered false information regarding his attendance to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, inasmuch as other credible evidence indicated Respondent's presence at that game throughout its entirety. After considerable deliberation, Superintendent Schott determined that termination was the only appropriate remedy that he should recommend to the full School Board to discipline Respondent. In making this decision, Superintendent Schott reflected on the facts that Respondent had obviously been terminated for failure to report to work as assigned and that to transfer Respondent would merely pass the problem to another Administrator to grapple with. Superintendent Schott, after much consideration, made the decision to recommend Respondent's termination without animosity and with much sensitivity to the problem based on the rapport that Respondent appeared to have with the youth and his peers at Rock Lake Elementary School. Superintendent Schott offered that teaching was more by example than by class room actions and that the responsibility of a teacher included getting to work promptly and was more than the usual duties expected once a teacher gets to class such as adding columns, deciphering words, reading etc. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent is a 1975 graduate of South Carolina State College and as stated, has been employed as a sixth grade teacher at Rock lake since the 1979- 80 school year. While so employed, Respondent has been involved in several school related activities outside his normal teaching duties, including Chairman of the Student Council; contact or liaison for Career Education; Chairman of the Safety Patrol; Scout leader and CTA representative. 3/ Respondent admits to not returning for duty on August 29, 1980, as charged. However, he exclaimed that he encountered car trouble enroute to his mother's home for lunch and consequently had to walk a distance of approximately two miles. Respondent also reported late for duty on September 2, due to transportation problems and did not arrive until approximately 8:45 a.m. Respondent also left school on September 12, 1990, at approximately 12:50 p.m. due to illness. Respondent admitted that he attended the game in Tampa on the evening of September 12, 1980. Respondent explains that this was possible because his health improved from the nauseated condition that he had suffered earlier during the day. Respondent rode to the game in Tampa with scouting coaches Smith and Robertson and arrived at the stadium in time for program warm-ups. 4/ Respondent also admitted reporting for work late on September 19 and 22, 1980. Respondent refused to sign a statement acknowledging acceptance of the written reprimand by Ms. Begley on September 24, 1980, based on his claimed "lack of trust" for Ms. Begley. In this regard, however, Respondent admits that Ms. Begley explained to him that signing the statement attached to the reprimand in no way signified agreement with the contents of the reprimand. Respondent claimed to have felt pressured to tell the Superintendent that he left Orlando at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the evening of September 12, 1980, and arrived at the game at halftime but that there was no willful attempt by him to misstate or otherwise misrepresent the facts to Superintendent Schott. The facts do not evidence a basis for Respondent's feeling. In this regard, Respondent admitted that he arrived at the game on September 12, 1980, before it started and remained for the duration of the game. Respondent did not verbally respond to inquiries by Ms. Begley during the conference with Ms. Begley and Area Superintendent Blocker because he considered Ms Begley's inquiry to be a form of harassment and an attempt by her to treat him as a "child." Finally, Respondent considered that by telling Ms. Begley that he was initially experiencing transportation problems excused his reporting requirements when he subsequently reported for work late.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be dismissed as an instructional employee of the Orange County School System. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 541001, covering the areas of Physical Education and Driver's Education. Respondent was employed by the Dixie County School District at Dixie County High School in Cross City, Florida, from the spring of 1983 through late November, 1985. During the period of time Respondent was employed by the Dixie County School Board (Board), he was married to Tina Bailey, with whom he had two children. He was divorced from Tina Bailey in July, 1986. Respondent was employed in the positions of athletic director, head football coach, and also had some duties teaching physical education. During the fall semester of 1985, respondent spent his mornings at Anderson Elementary School and was on the high school campus at Dixie County High School from 11:15 a.m. through the remainder of the day. During the Respondent's fifth hour he taught physical education, and during his sixth period he was involved in being the varsity coach for boys' football. Dixie County High School, which is located in Cross City, is the only public high school in the County. The population of Cross City is 3,000. The position of head football coach at Dixie County High School is a "spotlight figure," a visible position with a great deal of influence or contact with young people. A valid teaching certificate is necessary to hold the position of football coach at a public high school. During the late summer of 1985, Respondent attempted to use his influence as head football coach to intercede and possibly prevent an impasse in the contract negotiation between the teachers and the Board. Respondent's action resulted in members of the football team, and possibly some of their parents, putting pressure on the Superintendent of Schools to call a Board meeting. The student aides assigned to the Physical Education Department for fifth period of the 1985-1986 school year were Mary Cravey and Trina Fletcher. Trina was a senior during the 1985-1986 school year and head cheerleader. She had been a cheerleader since the seventh grade. Due to Trina's head cheerleading responsibilities and being a teacher's aide in the same period Respondent taught physical education, she had more contact than usual with the head football coach in her senior year. During the fall semester of 1985, toward the end of October, School Principal Kenneth Baumer was advised by Cynthia Wells, an English teacher, that Trina was romantically involved with Respondent. Upon Baumer questioning the Respondent and Trina, both denied any improper conduct and there was insufficient evidence to show any improper conduct prior to this date. However, in effort to quiet any rumors, Baumer transferred Trina across campus under the supervisor of her aunt, Cherie Norton. Sometime after Trina was placed under the supervision of her aunt, Trina became attracted to Respondent, and Respondent later became attracted to Trina, and they began to discuss their personal problems with each other. Later on, subsequent to the discussion with Baumer but before Respondent resigned his position, their relationship became more personal and progressed to the point of physical contact such as hugging and kissing on possibly one or two occasions off campus and out of Dixie County. After Respondent resigned in late November, 1985, his relationship with Trina continued, but it was not until after her eighteenth birthday that the relationship progressed to the point of being physical and sexual. Also, they dated more openly after Trina's eighteenth birthday. It was not until Respondent resigned that Trina's parents became fully aware of the relationship. Trina's parents were bitterly opposed to Trina dating or seeing Respondent and, as a result, on her 18th birthday, January 23, 1986, Trina moved in with her Aunt, Cherie Norton. After moving out of her parents' home, Trina received very little financial support from her parents. The relationship between Trina and her parents was very poor during the spring of 1986. Trina did not go to the senior prom, although she did go for pictures, nor did she go on the senior trip. Trina decided against going to these events because she was dating Respondent. There was no evidence that Respondent encouraged Trina not to attend these events. Trina was a straight "A" student which did not change as a result of her relationship with Respondent. Trina had a standing academic scholarship to attend Lake City Junior College. Trina did not attend college, although she was encouraged by Respondent to attend college, and, in fact, offered financial assistance through his uncle. In a small community such as Cross City, rumors, whether true or untrue, affect an individual's reputation and could damage the effectiveness of teachers in a classroom. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher was adversely affected by any rumors before or after he had resigned. Respondent was aware after the discussion with Baumer that getting involved with a female student, particularly while employed by the Board, was inappropriate. There was insufficient evidence that Trina suffered any damaging consequences as a result of her relationship with Respondent, particularly prior to his resignation. Trina was a "loner"; her friends were limited and she did not mix well with her peers. This was true before and after she became involved with Respondent, and there is insufficient evidence to show that Trina was treated any differently by her peers or the public at large in Dixie County after she became involved with Respondent, particularly before his resignation. Although, as a rule, high school students may be sensitive to what is said about them by their classmates, there was insufficient evidence to show that any derogatory remarks were made to or about Trina, directly or "behind her back," concerning her relationship with Respondent that resulted in Trina being embarrassed or hurt, being isolated from, or treated differently by her peers or suffering any damaging consequences. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's relationship adversely affected or seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the Board, notwithstanding the testimony of Principal Baumer and Superintendent Hardin in this regard, particularly their concern about the political implication of any Board member's thinking or theories in recommending Respondent for re-employment as a teacher in Dixie County, Florida. It is clear that there was a strong mutual affection between Respondent and Trina, in spite of the age difference, that lasted for a period approximately 1 1/2 years, long after Respondent had resigned and Trina had graduated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practice Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for conduct constituting "gross immorality" and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of (1) year, subject to reinstatement in accordance with Section 231.28(4)(6), Florida Statutes. It is further Recommended that Petitioner's Final Order dismiss all other charges relating to a violation of Section 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6D-1.006(3)(e) and (h) and Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4782 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-12, respectfully. The first sentence is immaterial. The second sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 14. The first sentence is immaterial. The second sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16.-17. Adopted Findings of Fact 15 and 16, respectively. 18.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 17, respectively. 24.-26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 20 and 22, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Nabors, Giblin, Steffens & Nickerson, P.A. 106 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Bailey, Pro Se Post Office Box 1482 Cross City, Florida 32628 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis J. Fells, has been an employee of the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, since 1975. At all times material hereto, he was a teacher and basketball coach at American Senior High School. On September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown was fifteen years of age, a student at American Senior High School, and a student in Respondent's sixth period physical education class. Monday, September 7, 1981, was Labor Day. Since classes for the 1981- 82 school year had commenced the week prior to Labor Day, American Senior High School was closed on Monday and reopened on Tuesday, September 8, 1981. On September 8, Respondent reported to American Senior High School to carry out his teaching and coaching duties. Since the floor of the gym was being painted, and since the school year had just begun so that not all physical education students had their gym clothes, the physical education classes were held in either the auditorium or the gym as study-halls, and the students wore their regular clothing. Between 9:30 and 10:30 the morning of September 8, Norman Blanco, a volunteer assistant basketball coach, came to American High to talk to Respondent about holding tryouts for the basketball team for the new school year. Since Respondent was with a class, Blanco told Respondent he would return after school to discuss that matter. Both the sixth period classes and the school day ended at 2:15 P.M. Respondent's sixth period physical education class had been held in the auditorium. James Lee, one of Respondent's sixth period students, asked Respondent for a ride home after school, and Respondent agreed to give Lee a ride home. Respondent left the auditorium and went to the main office to sign out and check his mail. He started to walk toward the boys' locker room, but stopped to speak to the art teacher about the eagle emblem to be placed on the gym floor by the art students. He then went to the gym to get the paint for the floor and took the paint to the art teacher's room, where he left it, although the art teacher was no longer there. Respondent then went to the coaches' office, where Blanco was waiting. From past experience, Blanco knows that if he arrives at American High at 2:15, he cannot find a place to park. He usually arrives about fifteen minutes after school lets out so that all the cars are gone and he can park wherever he wishes. On September 8, he arrived at American High at approximately 2:20 P.M. He went to the coaches' office to talk to Respondent. By the conclusion of their ten-to-fifteen minute meeting in the coaches' office, Blanco had talked Respondent into holding tryouts for the basketball team rather than simply using last year's team, as Respondent had intended to do. Blanco left Respondent in the coaches' office at approximately 2:35 P.M. There are two doors in the coaches' office: one opening into a hallway, and one opening into the boys' locker room. During Respondent's meeting with Blanco, the doors were open. After school on September 8 in the hallway outside the coaches' office, band members were going out to the football field, members of the flag corps were assembling for practice, and the cheerleaders were practicing approximately fifteen yards from the door into the coaches' office. In the boys' locker room, members of the cross-country team, the football team, and the soccer team were using their lockers or changing their clothes for practice. Additionally, the coaches' office is not Respondent's private office; rather, it is also used by the cross-country coach, the baseball coach, and the soccer coach, who are also involved with their students, their team members, aides, and managers. Inside the boys' locker room is a small room used for storing basketball equipment. The door to that room is kept locked. There are only three keys for that room: Respondent possessed one, Assistant Coach Jones possessed the second key, and the third key which traditionally was kept in the main office had never been returned after the girls' basketball team borrowed it one night the previous school year. After his meeting with Blanco, Respondent went to the main office, where he left his handwritten announcement concerning tryouts for the basketball team on the public address system. He then saw James Lee out in front of the school, directly in front of the main office. At approximately 2:45, from the main office, Respondent went to his car and left school with James Lee. When Lee arrived at his home, he told his mother that it was 3:00 and that Coach Fells had given him a ride home. After dropping off James Lee, Respondent went to Mr. B's Package Store and Lounge to see A. J. (Arnold) Johnson, one of the owners. Over the Labor Day holiday, Bobby Hunter, Assistant Basketball Coach from Boston College, visited Respondent and left sneakers for A. J. Johnson at Respondent's house. Respondent took the sneakers into Mr. B's and gave them to Johnson, who was waiting for the bank to open at 3:00 so he could transact some business at the bank. Johnson left Mr. B's to go to the bank at approximately 3:05, and when he returned from the bank, Respondent was still there. While Johnson was gone from Mr. B's, Respondent visited with Roscoe Large, the sales representative from Southern Wine and Spirits, and several other persons whom he also knew. After Respondent had been at Mr. B's for approximately thirty minutes, he left and drove to Coconut Grove to pick up his son at the baby-sitter's. On the following day, Respondent went to school and spent a normal day. After he arrived home on Wednesday, his wife told him that someone had been calling on the telephone accusing Respondent of raping Paulette Brown. The next morning, Respondent called the principal of American Senior High, and the principal advised him to stay home. On September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown stayed after school rather than leaving the school grounds when school adjourned for the day at 2:15. Between 2:30 and 2:45, she visited with Agnes Pitts and William Hopkins in the vicinity of the coaches' office and boys' locker room. When Agnes Pitts again saw Paulette Brown, it was approximately 3:00, and Brown was walking toward the front of the school. Brown told Pitts that she was going home. At approximately 3:00, Brown called her father and asked him to pick her up at school. After he picked her up and pursuant to her suggestions, they first picked up fried chicken for dinner and then picked up Paulette's brother when he got out of school at 3:30. Mr. Brown then took Paulette and her brother home and then went to pick up Paulette's mother, Pauline Brown, at 4:00 at her place of employment. Between 5:00 and 6:00 P.M. on September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown called her godsister, April Clark, and told Clark that Respondent had raped her. She also told her story to George Richberg that same evening. She also told her story twice to Jeffrey Clark. During her second relating of the story to Jeffrey Clark, she included mention of a janitor with a key to the boys' locker room. On Wednesday, September 9, Paulette Brown stayed home from school. After taking a nap, she called her boyfriend's sister and told her that Coach Fells had raped her. When the boyfriend's sister threatened to tell someone in a position of authority if Paulette refused to, Paulette told a neighbor, who told Mrs. Brown. Paulette Brown was tested at the Rape Treatment Center on September 9, and the investigators for the police department examined the equipment room on September 12. To gain entry to the room, the police drilled through the deadbolt lock. Five non-mobile sperm were found within Paulette Brown by the Rape Treatment Center. Testing by the Miami-Dade Police Department Crime Lab established that the sperm came from an individual that was an "O-positive secreter." This is the most common blood type. Forty percent of the American population falls in this category. Respondent is a member of this category, that is, Respondent is an "O-positive secreter." The Miami-Dade Police Department's fingerprint experts examined and dusted the equipment room at American Senior High School and found identifiable fingerprints of the Respondent. They found no identifiable fingerprints of Paulette Brown. The parties have stipulated that simply because one touches an object, one does not necessarily leave fingerprints. The sheet, which Paulette Brown claims she lay upon while having sexual intercourse with Respondent, was impounded from the equipment room and examined. Nothing of serological value was found. Respondent, Otis J. Fells, did not commit sexual battery upon Paulette Brown on September 8, 1981, and Respondent, Otis J. Fells, did not engage in any sexual activity with Paulette Brown on September 8, 1981.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of immorality and misconduct in office, as set forth in the Amended Notice of Charges filed in this cause, and reinstating Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County with back pay. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jose E. Martinez, Esquire Leib I Martinez, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200 Ponce de Leon Plaza Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire du Fresne & du Fresne, P.A. 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Leonard M. Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner's actions on December 13, 1994, were in violation of Section 231.17(3)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1997), which requires the holder of a Florida Educator's Certificate to be of good moral character. Whether Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). Whether the Petitioner committed an act which would authorize the Education Practices Commission to revoke his teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17(10)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact On or about September 9, 1997, Petitioner filed an application for Florida Educator's Certificate. Petitioner taught a drop-out prevention class at Cypress Lake High School in Ft. Myers, Florida, for approximately half of the 1997-98 school year. After the Notice of Reasons was issued in February 1998, Petitioner continued to work at Cypress Lake High School. He was transferred to a non-instructional position in the in-school suspension program, where he worked for the remainder of the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner returned to that position for the 1998-99 school year. Both before and after the Notice of Reasons was issued, Petitioner worked as a coach for football and baseball at Cypress Lake High School during the 1997-98 school year, and during the 1998-99 school year. Petitioner has a Bachelors of Arts Degree in English Education from Wright State University in Ohio. He completed the Beginning Teacher Program in Florida while working at Cypress Lake High School. All other requirements for certification have been completed by the Petitioner. After Petitioner applied for his Florida Teachers' Certificate, he was informed by Respondent's investigators that he needed to provide additional information regarding an arrest that had occurred in Key West, Florida, in 1994. Petitioner provided the Respondent's investigators with a letter explaining that he was arrested in Key West on a domestic battery charge involving his girlfriend at that time, Dory Catahan. Petitioner entered into a Pre-trial Intervention agreement with the local State Attorney's office. At the end of his probation term, on or about November 30, 1995, the State Attorney filed a Nolle Prosse dismissing the charges against him. Petitioner has not been convicted of a crime or had adjudication withheld in any jurisdiction in the United States. On or about December 13, 1994, Petitioner came home from work to the apartment he shared with his live-in girlfriend, Catahan. Catahan was angry at Petitioner because a young lady, whose name was either Stephanie or Carolyn, had called the apartment looking for him. Catahan was jealous, and she began yelling and screaming at Petitioner, accusing him of cheating on her. Petitioner tried to ignore her to get her to calm down, but instead Catahan became more enraged, and began pushing and hitting Petitioner. She tried to kick him in the groin area, and he took steps to hold her back, in an attempt to protect himself from being hurt by her attack. One of the steps Petitioner took to protect himself was to hold her arm and try to keep her from kicking him. He also had one hand on her neck area to hold her off as she repeatedly tried to kick him in the groin. On one of her kicks, he caught her foot, and told her, "Stop this or I'll break your damn ankle." Petitioner used that threat to try to get her to stop kicking before she hurt him. He did not do any harm or damage to her ankle, letting go after holding on to it for a minute or so. Catahan became even angrier when he pinned her against the wall to stop her attacks. Petitioner was still trying to get her to calm down. She finally said she was going to call the police. Petitioner dialed the police for her. When the police arrived, Petitioner was arrested and charged with Domestic Battery against Catahan. He spent the night of December 13, 1994, in jail, and was released the following day. Subsequently, Petitioner moved out of the couple's apartment for a few weeks. After a few weeks apart, Petitioner and Catahan resumed their relationship without further incident, until they broke up when he left Key West and moved back to Ohio in 1996. Petitioner felt responsible for Catahan becoming angry at him because he knew she was a jealous and possessive woman. He felt he should not have been trying to "cheat" on her. When he went to court Petitioner was assigned a public defender. His attorney advised him that the State's Attorney was willing to offer him a Pre-Trial Intervention as a disposition of his case, if he was willing to undergo a period of probation, community service, and attend an anger management class. Petitioner accepted the Pre-trial Intervention because he was informed that he would not have any permanent record and would not go to jail. Petitioner's testimony relating to the incident on December 13, 1994, is credible. No witness testified contrary to the version of the events provided by the Petitioner. The evidence failed to prove Petitioner battered his girlfriend or make any threat to do bodily harm to her in an offensive or aggressive way on December 13, 1994. The only touching or threats made by Petitioner to the shoulders and neck of Catahan were defensive in nature, and designed to prevent his girlfriend from harming him. Back in Ohio, Petitioner was a substitute for a short period of time. He then moved to Ft. Myers, Florida, in June of 1997. In August of 1997, Petitioner was hired as a teacher and coach at Cypress Lake High School, in Ft. Myers, Florida. Petitioner had been pursuing a career in teaching since his graduation from college, with a degree in English Education. In fact, when he moved to Key West in 1994, he was trying to find work as a teacher, but the job market was very difficult in Monroe County, and he ended up working in a marina. Petitioner is dedicated to teaching. He wants to make it his career. Petitioner cares about children; he feels he can make a difference. He believes he is a good teacher. His co-workers and peers at Cypress Lake High School have given positive references and reported that Petitioner is a good teacher, with a good demeanor with children, including those students who have difficult discipline problems at school. Two vice-principals at Cypress Lake High School were very supportive of Petitioner. They had positive recommendations about his character, his teaching skills and aptitude, as well as his demeanor around children. Petitioner has been recommended for a permanent teaching position at Cypress Lake. Through the efforts of persons in the administration, Petitioner has stayed on at Cypress Lake in the non-instructional position in the In- School Suspension program. David LaRosa is the Athletic Director at Cypress Lake High School. He hired Petitioner as a football and baseball coach. LaRosa was also the teacher whose class Petitioner took over during the 1997-98 school year. In his dealings with Petitioner, he found him to be very competent, and trustworthy with freshman football players. They are a very special group of athletes which require coaches with special abilities. In spite of his knowledge about Petitioner's arrest in Key West, LaRosa had no misgivings whatsoever about Petitioner's character and abilities as a teacher and coach. Rose Marie Bobbs is a parent of a student that was on Petitioner's football team. She is also an employee at Cypress Lake High School. She was active in the booster program at Cypress Lake and was very comfortable and satisfied with Petitioner's work as a football coach of her child. She had no qualms about having her children in Petitioner's classes or athletic teams. Michael Cooper, a Sergeant with the Sanibel Police Department, with 14 years experience in law enforcement, has known Petitioner since they were coaches together for the Cypress Lake High School freshman football team during the 1997-98 school year. Through his dealings with Petitioner, he found him to be a very honest person, and one who was very caring for his students. Petitioner did not engage in any acts of moral turpitude that should prevent him from teaching in the State of Florida. Petitioner did not engage in any acts that would justify or authorize the Commissioner to deny his teaching certificate. Petitioner is competent and morally fit to teach students in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Education Practices Commission granting the Petitioner a Florida Teacher's Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: David Brooks Kundin, Esquire 906 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock and Williams, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Kathleen Richards, Executive Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether respondent's suspension without pay should be upheld and whether he should be dismissed from employment for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Until his suspension on the strength of allegations like those in the administrative complaint, Ronald Wesley Landen taught horticulture at Rosenwald Junior High School, which operates in Panama City, Florida, under petitioner's aegis. Suzi, who turned 15 in April of 1983, met Mr. Landen as a pupil in one of his classes. She spoke highly of her teacher all year. Mr. and Mrs. Landen took her to Tallahassee to see a play once. Mrs. Landen had not originally planned to make the trip. Mr. Landen worked at the school last summer administering a grant, with moneys from which he hired students, including Suzi, who had graduated in the spring, to assist him in caring for plants. A routine emerged in the summer of 1983. Mr. Landen called for Suzi mornings on his motorcycle. After work, he drove her to the resort on Panama City Beach where Suzi's mother worked, and where he sometimes lingered for long walks on the beach, hand in hand with Suzi. Suzi's mother grew suspicious, but her stepfather wasn't sure anything was amiss. Rifling through Suzi's effects one day, her parents came upon a letter respondent had written her. On lined, blue stationery, respondent, who was born May 20, 1944, had written: To Suzi I love you very much-I am lieing (spelling) here writing this by flashlight. I wanted to tell you-you have made me very-very happy this week-I hope I have made you just as happy. Somethings are working against me-such as like-lights, water-etc but all in all it is working out. I am very happy- just watch out for the bat in the back of the head. I love you-I hope you are feeling better. I don't want you sick. I hate weekends. I can't see you-I can't wait to see you in the morning & I hate to take you home in the afternoon. I want to be able to tell the world how I care about you. I wish you would not worry so much-Wes & Robert will learn to except everything in time. So much worring-is not good for you. I love both of my sons-I love you. They will love you in time. Any way they will be-with us very little. I do want us to do things together-I love you. Well I am going to close now Thank for happenist- (spelling) I love you Ronald Wesley. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Printed script at the top of the stationery proclaims: "Happiness means sharing bright new days, and happy thoughts with a friend." In the lower left corner a bouquet is depicted. The first time Suzi's stepfather saw Mr. Landen after reading this letter, they had a lengthy discussion. Mr. Landen explained, "Well, things just got carried away too far." (T. 20) Suzi's stepfather told Landen to stay away from her, which Landen agreed to do. At her parents' insistence, Suzi quit her job at school. Toward the end of the summer, Suzi and her family moved to Ohio, as they had planned to do for some time. In Ohio, Suzi received mail from school friends in Florida. Her parents noticed Cheryl Lynn's return address, but never spotted respondent's. Nevertheless, an unsigned letter from Landen to Suzi, dated "8/18/83" turned up: Suzi I sure was glad to hear you got to Ohio safe & sound. I prayed for my guardian angle to look out for you. Cheryl Lynn has been up here every day to help me. I am glad. She let me read your letter- hope you did not mine. There is a lot of things I want to say in this but I don't want to get you into trouble. I wrote you a lot of letters in Va. but I can not mail them till I am sure you & you only will get them. I love you & miss you. lots, lots, lots. I will be glad when I get a letter of my own. School will start Monday. 7th graders come tomorrow. They still do not have schedules for them & this is Thursday. I am not ready for school to start. It will be great if you come back in Sept. I hope so. I really don't want to wait till March. In fact I would pay your way here Thanksgiving & Christmas if your Mom would let you come stay with Cheryl Lynn. In fact all you got to do is call. You know what I mean. I can not tell you how much I love you & miss you & want you here with me because I don't really know if you could believe that much. I do hope you write me soon. There are a lot of people pulling for this to work out-we need a chance to work it out. Does your Mom & Dad still hate me? Do you believe it would do any good to talk to them? Suzi I want it to be right. I know it can be right & great. I pray a lot for it to work out. I even pray that your Mom & Dad will understand & let us be together. They must have be young "once" & had a real love-true feeling for each other. I really don't know how much to write. I don't want to get you into trouble. Gosh I wish they understood. Call me- Everybody hear is waiting. They know to get me to the phone as soon as possible. Like I say everybody I know except your Mom & Dad is hoping this work out for us. We are going to have a letter opening party when I get one. Cheryl Lynn-Faye Burles- Melissa Spear's mother. Melissa, Tommy Setliff I mean every body-they all are pulling for us. So write me soon. I love you & miss you----- Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. This was on white stationery, unlined but bordered in grey and featuring a cat, in the lower right corner, holding a teddy bear and a cluster of balloons. This proved the last straw for Suzi's stepfather, who contacted school authorities. The photograph he found did not help, either. On back of a likeness of himself, respondent had inscribed, "To Suzi With all the love one man can have for someone--3+=18, 42--all dreams are worth waiting for. It is & will be rough & tough. I love you Ronald Wesley." In three years she would have attained the age of consent and he would have been a mere 42 years old. Superintendent Holman suspended respondent Landen with pay until the School Board met, voted a suspension without pay, and proposed dismissal. Mr. Holman's testimony that respondent's relationship with Suzi seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee was uncontroverted.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner uphold respondent's suspension without pay. That petitioner dismiss Ronald W. Landen as an employee of the school board. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 19th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire Post Office Box 1579 Panama City, Florida 32401 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pete Holman, Superintendent School District of Bay County, Florida 5205 W. Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32401
