The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent, during the Spring of 1977, supplied beer and marijuana to female students of Seminole Middle School; whether he smoked or permitted them to smoke marijuana in his apartment during this period and whether such conduct constitutes acts violative of Chapter 231.26 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A-4.37 and 6B-1 of the State Board of Education, Florida Administrative Code. Based on the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, including the entire record compiled herein, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the holder of a Graduate Rank III teaching certificate number 318622 and has been employed as a teacher for approximately five years. During school year 1976-1977, he was assigned as a teacher at Seminole Middle School. By letter dated September 2, 1977, from Gus Sakkis, Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, Respondent was advised that he was suspended, without pay, from his duties at Seminole Middle School beginning August 24, 1977, and was further advised that it was the Superintendent's "intention to recommend to the School Board of Pinellas County at their regular meeting of September 28, 1977, that it sustain the suspension and that [Respondent's] contract with the School System be cancelled." Respondent was also advised that he was being charged with misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. As stated, the acts which comprise the alleged misconduct in office by Respondent involve the giving/selling of alcoholic beverages and marijuana, to- wit: beer and marijuana to certain eighth grade students in the Seminole Middle School, Pinellas County, Florida, during the 1976-1977 school year and the summer months of 1977; that the Respondent smoked marijuana in the presence of the same students on several occasions and that Respondent drank beer and/or other alcoholic beverages with the students. To substantiate the allegations contained in the Petition for Revocation of Respondent's Teaching Certificate, the Petitioners presented the testimony of four female students: Stacey Soper, Terri Cotterman, Donna Lombardi and Genine Buckley. Petitioners also presented witnesses Lois Beacham, Douglas McBriarty and Ruth A. McNutt, all employees in the Pinellas County school system. Stacey Soper, a fifteen year old ninth grade student at Seminole Middle School was an eighth grade student during the 1976-1977 school year. She testified that she lived in the same apartment complex as the Respondent and saw him on numerous occasions at the apartment complex, the swimming pool and at football and baseball games. She has smoked marijuana before and drank beer. She recalled having smoked marijuana supplied by Respondent on at least three occasions along with two other students, Terri Cotterman and Genine Buckley. She recalled this incident as having occurred during the Spring of 1977, in addition to one other occasion in which she drank beer with Respondent. She testified that on one occasion she asked Respondent to sell her a "joint" for which she paid seventy-five cents. (She recalled at least one other occasion during the Spring of 1977, when she asked Respondent to give her some "pot." She testified that when the marijuana was smoked, Respondent and two or three other students were engaged in smoking one "joint" at a time. While so doing, she testified that Respondent would close the door to his apartment. Respondent kept marijuana in a plastic bag in a desk drawer in his coffee table. She testified that these smoking sessions lasted from one to one and one half hours. The witness reiterated her familiarity with marijuana and beer as she has drunk beer and smoked marijuana on numerous occasions prior to the subject occasion with Respondent. Terri Cotterman, a fifteen year old ninth grade student at Seminole Middle High School recognized Respondent and noted that Respondent taught her for one week during her seventh grade school year and was her regular English teacher during her eighth grade school year. Cotterman also had smoked marijuana with Genine Buckley (Genine) and Stacey Soper (Stacey) during the Spring of 1977. She testified that she, along with Genine and Stacey, smoked marijuana with Respondent and another former instructor in the school system, a Mr. Asbury, who brought them home after they smoked marijuana at Respondent's apartment. She recalled that on one occasion, after they finished smoking marijuana and was sitting around the apartment, there was a knock on the door and two individuals, later identified as Alvin Philpot and Margaret Croskey, visited Respondent's apartment. She testified that when they entered the apartment, Mr. Asbury advised Respondent that "you'd better get them out of here." They all left and Mr. Asbury drove them home. She specifically recalled that the marijuana had been smoked when Philpot and Croskey came to Respondent's apartment. Witness Soper testified that she asked Respondent to purchase a six- pack of beer for them sometime during the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. She testified that while she remembered Respondent purchasing the beer for them, she failed to recall which brand was purchased or whether the beer was in glass or metal containers. Donna Lombardi, also a student, recalled being in Respondent's apartment complex on approximately two occasions and recalled one time when Respondent bought herself, Terri and Stacey a six-pack of beer (TR. 151). She testified that Respondent was outside washing his car when Donna, Terri and Stacey asked Respondent to buy them some beer. Respondent agreed, purchased the beer and they drank it in Stacey's apartment. Lois Ann Beacham, an Assistant Principal at Seminole Middle School, has known Respondent as a coworker since approximately 1973. Ms. Beacham recalled two conferences in which she had, prior to the subject incidents, warned Respondent of the "hands-off" policy in effect at the school as it related to instructors and preadolescent students. She testified that the first incident stemmed from an occasion in which a student, Wendy Aydlett, cuddled up to Respondent at a table in the library and moved her chair closer to him. This occurred during the months of October thru December, 1976. Another incident occurred during November 1976, when a student whose last name was Vega, rode her bicycle over to Respondent's apartment and her mother later learned of this, became highly upset and brought the matter to the attention of Mrs. McNutt, the head of the eighth grade sub-team. Ms. Beacham and Mrs. McNutt met with Respondent the following day and they discussed the matter. According to Ms. Beacham, Respondent received the advice given him during the conferences in a graceful manner and thanked them for the manner in which the incidents were handled. No similar incidents occurred. Douglas McBriarty, Director of Instructional Personnel for the Pinellas School System, is involved on a day-to-day basis in the handling of teaching problems, hiring, leave problems and investigation and handling of complaints filed against teachers for improper activities or misconduct in office. He has held this position for approximately eight years. Mr. McBriarty became involved in Respondent's case when Mr. Zachary, Principal at Seminole Junior High School, called him and advised that a detective Howe from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department had approached him about statements from three students (Soper, Cotterman and Buckley) which had originated from a diary found by a mother which made references to Respondent having drank beer and smoked marijuana with students. Dr. McBriarty approached Respondent about the allegations and he essentially denied that any of the allegations were true. Dr. McBriarty asked Respondent if he and Mr. Zachary could examine his apartment which Respondent agreed to. They visited Respondent's apartment and found no traces of marijuana or any paraphernalia associated with the smoking of marijuana. Dr. McBriarty testified that he examined a coffee table which was alluded to by the students in their statements and found nothing. Dr. McBriarty voiced his opinion that Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board had been reduced based on the incidents brought about as a result of the School Board's investigation and stated this was reinforced by his talks with parents of the students involved. He testified that at all times Respondent was cooperative and responded to questions asked of him. Prior to Dr. McBriarty asking Respondent if he and the principal could visit his apartment, he (Respondent) had no knowledge that an investigation of him was ongoing. Based on Dr. McBriarty's investigation, he made a recommendation to Dr. Sakkis, Superintendent, that Respondent should be suspended based on acts which in his opinion, amounted to misconduct in office. It was based on this recommendation that Respondent was suspended by the above referenced letter of the School Board dated September 2, 1977, and it was this action which prompted the investigation and Petition for Revocation by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent's Defense At the outset of the Respondent's defense, counsel moved for a dismissal of the charges arguing essentially that, assuming arguendo that the complaint allegations are true, the record was barren of any evidence tending to show that the Respondent's effectiveness had been reduced as per the teaching of BOYETTE v. STATE, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL, 346 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977). Additionally, Respondent's counsel urged that the proof falls short of showing that the alleged acts and/or conduct allegedly engaged in by Respondent as testified to by Petitioners' witnesses, failed to establish any official misconduct within the meaning of Chapter 231.36, Florida Statutes. This Motion was denied based on the undersigned's opinion that the Petitioners had established a prima facie case. The Respondent denied that he had either given or sold beer or marijuana to Seminole Middle School students as alleged or that he engaged in any of the alleged acts complained of herein. Additionally, in support of his position, Respondent offered the testimony of witnesses Alvin Philpot and Margaret Croskey. They denied that they witnessed any marijuana being smoked at the Respondent's apartment when they visited him on the occasion when students Soper, Buckley or Cotterman were present. They also stated that they only witnessed one beer can present in Respondent's apartment and that they did not smell any marijuana in the apartment. Finally, they testified that the students left shortly after they arrived. An analysis of the testimony of witnesses Croskey and Philpot was not at all viewed as contradictory of the testimony of student witnesses Soper, Cotterman, Buckley or Lombardi. As a matter of fact, the student witnesses testified that when witnesses Croskey and Philpot arrived, they had finished smoking the marijuana. Contrasting the testimony of witnesses Soper, Cotterman, Lombardi, Buckley and McBriarty, with that of witnesses Croskey and Philpot (as well as the Respondent) the testimony of the witnesses offered by Petitioners i.e., Soper, Cotterman, Lombardi, Buckley and McBriarty, is more creditable. While there were some minor discrepancies in the student witnesses testimony respecting dates, they all testified without contradiction that they in fact smoked marijuana with Respondent which at times was supplied by him either free or for monetary consideration and that he purchased beer for them. Significantly, all of the students had high regards for the Respondent as an instructor and no ulterior motive was advanced by Respondent which would tend to show that the student witnesses would have any basis to fabricate their testimony. Noteworthy too, is the fact that these factors did not come to light until one of the students' parents learned of the activities by reading her daughter's diary. This hardly resembles a situation where student witnesses are out to "get their teacher." That a public school teacher would permit such a blatant violation of the law [Section 893.13(1)(f), F.S.] to take place under any circumstances is totally incomprehensible and raises serious questions concerning his fitness to continue in a teaching capacity. By such acts and conduct, it is, therefore, concluded that Respondent performed acts constituting misconduct in office as alleged. However, the Petition (Complaint) allegations wherein it is argued that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced by his acts and conduct as set forth hereinabove, presents a more difficult issue. Here, as in Boyette, supra, the second element of the charge, i.e., that Respondent's effectiveness as a school teacher was seriously reduced as a result of the conduct complained of, was based almost entirely by the Petitioners upon the opinion testimony of Dr. McBriarty. While the record clearly reveals that the Respondent's acts and conduct herein were misguided, they fail to demonstrate that he was unfit to continue as a teacher. The testimony of those instructors who had any knowledge of Respondent's abilities indicated that he is a competent teacher and that he had not been seriously disciplined in the past. Under these circumstances, I, accordingly, find that the Petitioners failed to establish that necessary quantum of proof to support the allegations that the Respondent's effectiveness as a school teacher was reduced as a result of the conduct complained of herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board's, suspension of Respondent without pay be sustained for a period of two years. Additionally, it is further recommended that the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, place the Respondent's teaching certificate under suspension from the date of the Pinellas County School Board's letter initially suspending him thru the 1978-79 school year. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue here is whether the Superintendent has shown "good and sufficient reasons" for recommending that Mr. Udell be returned to annual contract status as a teacher employed by the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact For fourteen years, Mr. Udell has been employed by the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher. He is presently assigned as an auto-mechanics instructor at Hamilton High School. He has held a continuing contract for the last seven years. The principal of Hamilton High School has been Mr. Maurice Hammond for the last two years. It appears that he is less indulgent of rule violations than was the former school principal, Mr. William Edwards. Mr. Hammond has cracked down on activities such as student card playing which at one time were tolerated by the former administration. This has been at least a partial cause of friction between the old teachers like Mr. Udell and the new principal. It is the school policy that if a student is absent for more than nine days in a nine-week grading period, he will receive a sixty-five or lower grade for that period. With respect to the grade of Tim Holland, a student of Mr. Udell's for the 1979-1980 school year, Mr. Udell did not follow that policy. The policy was known to him through the teachers' handbook which he received at the beginning at the school year. In Mr. Hammond's opinion, Tim Holland would not have graduated if it has not been for Mr. Udell's violation of the nine-day rule. Tim Holland missed a total of seventy-five days of the 1979-1980 academic year. According to Hamilton High School policy, each student must receive nine grades during each nine-week grading period. Mr. Udell has not complied with that policy. During the last complete school year, his students received on the average only three grades. Hamilton High School students who are seniors and have a class grade average of ninety-five or above are exempt from quarter examinations. During the 1979-1980 year, on at least one occasion, Mr. Udell exempted from quarter exams several senior students who had less that a ninety-five average. The teachers of Hamilton High School compute the grades for their assigned students. In the 1979-1980 year, Mr. Udell had one of his students compute grades for him. The result was numerous computation errors, all in favor of the students. For instance, Leonard Phillips had a seventy-four for the first grading period and an eighty for the second period yet he received an average grade of eighty for the whole semester. Jack Alford received a sixty the first period, a sixty-four for the second period and an average of seventy for the semester. For the first semester of 1979-1980 alone, at least sixteen of Mr. Udell's forty-nine students received incorrect grades. Prior to Mr. Hammond's administration at Hamilton High School, there were occasions when students were allowed to play cards during class periods. On April 2, 1979, during a visit to Mr. Udell's classroom, Mr. Hammond observed numerous students playing cards in the third and fourth periods. Halter in the afternoon when the principal spoke with Mr. Udell about the indent, he responded that card playing occurred in other parts of the campus and "the best thing to do was to give me that oil [needed to operate an engine]." This response is typical of Mr. Udell's attitude when deficiencies in his teaching have been pointed out to him. He attempts to rationalize them by shifting repairability onto others. He explained his grading errors by complaining about not having a student assistant or a planning period; yet, with only three grades per student for the whole year, it would take little time for him to accurately compute the grades himself. In one instance, on January 14, 1980, Mr. Udell left an inadequate lessor plan for a substitute teacher. The plan which was for three classes for two periods stated in its entirety (spelling etc. as on original): 1-14-80 Auto Class 1-2 P. Class Basic Tune-up on six cyl. engine Practice on training unit that is on roll cabinit tools are in top drawer in roll cabinit Check training unit with sun scope This is for all classes one group work on engine one on training unit, then change over. Udell A 30-gallon drum of cleaning solvent was sent to Mr. Udell's auto mechanic shop without a purchase order being first submitted. This is contrary to the purchase procedure established at Hamilton High School. It resulted, however, because the salesman sent the solvent before he had Mr. Udell's approval. Mr. Udell was therefore not at fault for there not being a purchase order prior to the delivery of the goods. Evidence was presented which shows that Mr. Udell adequately handles many of the instructional aspects of his teaching responsibilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida, enter a final order pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, returning Mr. Lawrence Udell to an annual contract of employment as a member of the instructional staff, effective from the beginning of the 1980-1981 school year. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 7th day of January 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as an instructor at Chipola Junior College for alleged misconduct in office, incompetency, willful neglect of duties, and drunkenness, as set forth in the Complaint Recommending Dismissal, dated July 31, 1981. This proceeding commenced with the issuance of a Complaint Recommending Dismissal by the Interim President of Chipola Junior College alleging that Respondent James T. Sims, an instructor, should he dismissed for misconduct in office, incompetency, willful neglect of duty, and drunkenness. Respondent filed a petition for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on August 13, 1981. The matter thereafter was referred to this Division for the appointment of a Hearing Officer. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. Richard E. Morley, Interim President of Chipola Junior College; Dean James A. Lewis, Dean of Academic Studies; and Alice J. Story, Chairman of the Division of Natural Science and Mathematics. Respondent testified in his own behalf, and submitted the testimony of Dr. Jack Golden, Director of the Alcoholism Treatment Program at Capital Medical Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Four exhibits were received into evidence. The memorandum brief of Petitioner, and Respondent's memorandum have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unwarranted in fact or law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent James T. Sims has been an instructor at Chipola Junior College, Marianna, Florida, since 1959. In 1962, he entered into a continuing contract with the Beard of Public Instruction of Jackson County, Florida to continue in the capacity of a teacher at the college. At some undisclosed date, responsibility for the college became vested in a Board of Trustees at which time existing continuing contracts with the county Board of Public Instruction were apparently honored by the Board of Trustees without execution of new contracts. (Testimony of Respondent, Morley, Exhibit 1) Respondent's personnel file reflects that he was the subject of a number of memoranda from his supervisors commencing in 1975, concerning late or non-attendance of faculty meetings, early dismissal of classes, award of high grades to students who did not attend class, and unexcused absences. A "confidential" letter from Joiner Sims, Chairman, Division of Natural Science and Mathematics at the college, to Respondent, dated October 17, 1977, expressed concern over a "serious personal problem" that Respondent had had for several years which Sims had offered to help him solve, but stated that if he were found under the influence of alcohol on campus in the future, he would recommend Respondent's dismissal or return to annual contract. A memorandum from Chairman Joiner Sims to Respondent in March, 1978, recited that Respondent had been absent from classes on two occasions during the semester without advance notification. In September, 1979, President Raymond M. Deming met with Respondent, Dean of Academic Studies James A. Lewis, and Miss Josephine Story, then Chairman of the Division of Natural Science and Mathematics. A memorandum in Respondent's personnel file, dated September 10, 1979, of President Deming, reflects that during this conference Dean Lewis advised Respondent to quit drinking with the assistance of medicine, and that Respondent acknowledged that he liked to drink and had done quite a bit of drinking, but denied doing so on the college campus. The college officials offered to do anything they could to aid Respondent and he expressed appreciation for their consideration. (Testimony of Lewis, Story, Exhibit 1) A further memorandum from Dean Lewis to Miss Story on November 19, 1979, reviewed his concern about complaints from members of the community about Respondent's behavior off campus and his lessened effectiveness as an instructor over the past several months as a result of his "alcoholic problem," such as dismissing class early and absences from his office during office hours. By the memorandum, Dean Lewis requested that Miss Story direct Respondent to meet assigned classes for the full period, observe posted office hours, adhere to college rules, and insure that he understood that an immediate and permanent change in his performance was expected. Accordingly, by memorandum of November 20, 1979 to Respondent, Miss Story reviewed student complaints she had received concerning Respondent's late arrival at classes, assigning problems with little or no explanation, dismissing classes early, and coming to school sometimes smelling of alcohol. Miss Story had frequently failed to find Respondent in his office during office hours and she also noted this in her memorandum. The memorandum therefore directed Respondent specifically to cure the stated deficiencies. The memorandum had been preceded by a conference with Respondent on November 19th at which time Miss Story had reviewed Respondent's shortcomings, offered suggestions for improvement, and told him that if he found it impossible to abide by the conditions she had stated in her memorandum of November 20th, she would recommend that he be given the option of taking a semester's leave of absence to seek professional help. At the conference, Respondent assured her that he would take appropriate action to prevent further complaints. (Testimony of Story, Exhibit 1) Respondent's personnel file reflects that the President of the college Student Government Association wrote to President Deming on November 29, 1979, stating that Respondent had come to class several times unable to properly teach because of his "current problem of alcoholism" which prevented him from doing his job, that it was common knowledge to the students and faculty that he had a severe alcohol problem, and that his reputation would hurt the college greatly. In a letter to Miss Story dated December 12, 1979, Respondent denied the allegations. (Exhibit 1) In a letter dated December 17, 1979, President Deming informed Respondent that his image at the college and in the community should be a subject of great concern and that it may become necessary to request that Respondent submit himself to a physical examination if deemed necessary, and that if he ever came on the campus under the influence of alcohol he would be removed from the classroom and "immediate action would be taken." In another memorandum from Miss Story to Respondent dated June 3, 1980, she noted that although he had made a real effort toward improvement during the spring semester she had observed that several of his summer session classes had been dismissed before the end of the period, and cautioned him about maintaining class schedules. She explained the contents of her memorandum to Respondent in a conference on June 23rd and confirmed this with a memorandum dated June 25, 1980. In a further memorandum dated July 1, 1980, Dean Lewis reviewed past memoranda concerning Respondent that were contained in the latter's personnel file, and noted that "a pattern has developed that appears to be growing progressively worse." (Testimony of Story, Lewis, Exhibit 1) On March 31, 1981, Dean Lewis went to talk with Respondent during scheduled office hours but found that he had dismissed a class early and had not returned to his office. After searching around the campus, Lewis went to Respondent's home and, after no one answered his knocks at the door, went inside fearing that Respondent might be ill. He found Respondent watching television with a drink of some kind in his hand. Respondent told Lewis that he had gone home to take his medicine. Based on this incident, Dean Lewis sent a memorandum to President Deming with a copy to Respondent recommending that Respondent be given the opportunity to take off both 1981 summer sessions and the fall semester to seek professional help "with his problems" and that if he did not elect to do so, that either dismissal or some lesser action be taken against him. President Deming reprimanded Respondent in a letter dated April 10, 1981, wherein he again reviewed Respondent's past actions as reflected in memoranda in his file, restated the requirements that had previously been placed upon him as to his conduct, and stated that even one deviation from any of those directives would result in an immediate suspension and recommendation of dismissal. Respondent, by letter to President Deming, dated April 23rd defended his actions on March 31 by stating that he had been ill and attached copies of prescriptions for medicine issued on March 24 and 26 for throat pain. He claimed that he was only drinking a glass of water when Dean Lewis arrived at his home, and that his only dereliction was in failing to notify anyone that he was leaving the campus. (Testimony of Lewis, Exhibit 1) In another incident that occurred on June 15, 1981, during registration for the summer session, at which time Respondent was supposed to be counselling students, Dean Lewis observed that Respondent could not walk straight and did not appear rational. He appeared to be either sick or under the influence of alcohol, but Lewis could not smell anything on his breath. He felt that Respondent was in no condition to counsel students and carry out his duties. (Testimony of Lewis, Exhibit 1) On July 27, Miss Story recommended to Dean Lewis that Respondent be relieved of his teaching duties, and Lewis recommended to Dr. Morley, the Interim President, that Respondent be removed as a member of the faculty. Interim President Morley thereafter had a conference with Respondent at which he gave him the opportunity to resign or face dismissal action. Respondent declined to resign, and the Complaint Recommending Dismissal was issued by Morley on July 31, 1981. (Testimony of Morley, Lewis, Story, Exhibit 1) Miss Story and Respondent have philosophical differences regarding grading practices. Respondent uniformly gave high grades to his students and Miss Story felt that this was not in keeping with standard college practices. Respondent consistently received satisfactory evaluations of his performance regardless of his deficiencies, and both Dean Lewis and Miss Story justified this as an effort to encourage him to improve his performance. Neither questioned his knowledge of subject matter or teaching ability, but are of the opinion that his cumulative record establishes that his instructional ability has been impaired and he is a detriment to the institution. (Testimony of Lewis, Story, Exhibit 1) Respondent received treatment in the Alcoholism Treatment Program at Capital Medical Center, Tallahassee, Florida, in late August, 1981, for the program period of 28 days. The program involves psychotherapy which assists one suffering from the disease of alcoholism to regain his "self-concept," and learn about the addiction process and the person's own value and belief system. After the inpatient phase, the individual becomes involved in an aftercare program which includes a weekly meeting with counselors at the Medical Center, participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, and regular use of "Antabuse" to prevent lapses from abstention. A year is the normal recovery period. Since his discharge from Capital Medical Center in September, 1981, Respondent has been involved with the aftercare program. He has missed several of the meetings and on at least one occasion failed to take his Antabuse, became intoxicated, and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Marianna on October 21, 1981. Dr. Jack Golden, the Director of the Alcoholism Treatment Program, finds that it is not unusual for someone in Respondent's situation to not follow up completely with the aftercare treatment, or to experience at least one period of drinking during the first year of recovery. About 95 percent of his cases, including that of Respondent, involve the "denial process" for varying periods in which the individual cannot make sound judgments and refuses to recognize that he has a problem with alcohol. The disease, which has been recognized as treatable, is biological in nature in which the chemical system of a patient reacts differently to the drug of alcohol than does that of normal individuals. In most cases, persons will not seek assistance unless some crisis arises, or they are placed under coercion of some sort. In Respondent's case, the fact that he was being considered for dismissal prompted him to seek assistance. The treatment program has been experiencing about a 90 percent success rate if an individual remains in the program for one year with a six-months follow-up period thereafter. Although public intoxication has been decriminalized and alcoholism primarily placed in the health care system, it does not serve as an excuse for criminal activities. A state policy adopted in 1973 applicable to Career Service employees provides for termination of employment of persons suffering from alcoholism only if they refuse to seek treatment. (Testimony of Golden, Respondent) Respondent conceded at the hearing that he is an alcoholic and that he had committed himself to treatment which has benefited him to the point where he believes he can resume his normal career after successful completion of the treatment program. He admitted that he had dismissed classes early at various times and failed to keep proper office hours. However, he denied that he had ever been under the influence of alcohol while on the college campus and, in fact, had not consumed any alcohol for approximately six (6) months prior to the filing of the instant charges against him. He admitted that there was truth to the various other complaints that had been made against him over the years, but that some had been exaggerated to some extent. He did not take any initiative to reguest a leave of absence to seek treatment during the lengthy period because he was in what had been described as the "denial stage" of alcoholism. He produced a doctor's statement to the effect that he had had episodes of acute syncope, bradycardia, hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, and fluid retention. The statement reflected that his "intermittent confusion, unstable gait and extreme weakness at times have probably been directly related to his electrolyte imbalance." Respondent also submitted a number of letters from various individuals, including students, attesting to his excellence as a mathematics instructor and to their lack of knowledge as to any problems with alcohol while on campus. (Testimony of Respondent, Exhibit 3, Composite Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That the Board of Trustees of Chipola Junior College dismiss Respondent, James T. Sims, from his employment as an instructor for incompetency and willful neglect of duty pursuant to Rule 6A-14.411(6), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Wayne Grant, Esquire 209 North Jefferson Street Post Office Box 209 Marianna, Florida 32446 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John E. Roberts, Esquire Post Office Box 854 Marianna, Florida 32446
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had good cause to reject the Escambia County School Superintendent's nomination of Petitioner to be principal of Woodham High School, and, if not, what relief should be granted to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Pensacola High School (PHS) is located in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. It is an inner city school of approximately 2000 students with a diverse population. Petitioner was appointed principal at PHS for the 1994- 1995 school year by Dr. Bill Malloy, the former Superintendent of Escambia County Schools. Petitioner served in that capacity until Superintendent Malloy transferred him in March of 1996 to the position of Director of Student Transfers. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy requiring principals to report incidents of suspected child abuse immediately to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)(currently the Department of Children and Families.) Another policy required principals to immediately report bomb threats to the district office and to proceed with the evacuation of the school property as instructed. Before school began in the fall of 1995, Petitioner assigned Kevin Sanders to be the teacher in charge of the In School Suspension (ISS) class. Petitioner made this assignment because Mr. Sanders previously had developed and successfully operated a similar class at PHS. The school district approved the plan at PHS for an ISS unit as designed by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders also served as a weight training coach at PHS. He was not the only teacher/coach to run an ISS program for Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year. At least three other schools had coaches running their respective ISS programs in the fall of 1995. There is no persuasive evidence that the assignment of a coach to be in charge of an ISS class was in direct contravention of the Superintendent's instructions. No one ever told Petitioner that the Superintendent did not want a coach-like person in charge of the ISS class. Mr. Sanders wanted to work in the weight room at the stadium during the last period of the school day. Petitioner told Mr. Sanders that he could work in the weight room, provided he found someone to supervise his ISS class during that period. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Sanders had permission from Petitioner to take his ISS students to the stadium and leave them unattended in the bleachers. On October 16, 1995, a fifteen-year-old female student skipped school. The police returned the female student to PHS. As a consequence of her actions, the female student was temporarily assigned to the ISS class taught by Mr. Sanders. Normally, the female student attended a class for special students in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. She functioned academically on a third or fourth grade level. On October 17, 1995, Ms. Sanders took his ISS class to the stadium and told them to sit in the bleachers. He then went to the weight room leaving the class unsupervised. The female student went into one of the restrooms in the stadium. She performed fellatio on a number of male students, primarily football players, in the presence of many other students. In the fall of 1995, PHS had several deans who served the general student population. Richard Sousa was the dean of students for ESE participants. He also served as the crisis teacher for the total student population at PHS. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa saw a group of students outside the dean's office. When he investigated, Mr. Sousa found the female student sitting in a chair with her hands on her head. After Mr. Sousa closed the door to the deans' office, the female student stated that other students were falsely accusing her of performing oral sex with some boys. Mr. Sousa then took the female student to an ESE self-contained classroom so that she would not be harassed. Next, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother and reported the facts as he understood them. The mother told Mr. Sousa that her daughter was not sexually active. Mr. Sousa asked the mother to pick up her daughter from school because the child was visibly upset. Later that day, Mr. Sousa reported to Petitioner that he had heard a rumor about sexual activity occurring in the stadium, on the fifty-yard line, or on the practice field. Mr. Sousa told Petitioner that other students were teasing the female student who denied being involved in any sexual behavior. After receiving this report, Petitioner directed Assistant Principal Leo Carvalis to contact Coach David Wilson, the head football coach. Petitioner instructed Coach Wilson and Mr. Sousa to investigate the rumor regarding the sexual activity. Coach Wilson talked to the football team that afternoon. The team assured him that they knew nothing of any sexual incident in the stadium, the football field, or the practice field. Coach Wilson and Petitioner discussed the situation again later that day. Petitioner told Coach Wilson to continue to listen to what was going on among the students, to ask questions, and to make his findings known. Petitioner gave other members of his staff and faculty the same instructions. Petitioner wanted to determine whether there was any truth to the rumor about the sexual incident. He wanted to discipline any students involved, including football players. However, Petitioner did not want to accuse any student, including the alleged victim, of inappropriate behavior until he had more facts. At the end of the day on October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa did not believe that the sexual incident had occurred. He knew that special education students are often harassed, ostracized and picked on. Mr. Sousa thought the teasing would blow over and the female student could be returned to her regular classroom. Mr. Sousa expressed this opinion to Petitioner. For the rest of the week, Mr. Sousa took lunch to the female student in the ESE self-contained classroom because other students teased and pointed fingers at her. Mr. Sousa had to walk to the bus with the female student for the same reason. Nevertheless, Mr. Sousa continued to believe the rumor was false. His disbelief was based in part on the female student's persistent denials. Additionally, it was not uncommon for a rumor such as the one at issue here to prove to be unfounded. The next week, the female student requested that she be permitted to return to her regular ESE classes because she believed the teasing was over. Mr. Sousa granted the female student's request; however, after a couple of class periods, Mr. Sousa returned her to the self-contained classroom because even the special education students were saying things about her. Amanda Williams and Naomi Ferguson were guidance counselors at PHS during the fall of 1995. On October 26, 1995, Ms. Ferguson indicated to PHS Assistant Principal Sarah Armstrong that Petitioner knew about the sexual incident involving some of the football players. According to Ms. Ferguson, Petitioner was trying to cover up the situation because the football team was doing well. Later that day, Petitioner held a meeting in his office with Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Williams, Mr. Sousa, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Carvalis. During the meeting, Ms. Armstrong advised Petitioner that Ms. Williams had information from a male student (an informant) confirming the sexual incident but would not reveal her source because of confidentiality concerns. Petitioner asked Ms. Williams to speak with him in private. During their private conversation Ms. Williams revealed that an informant had given her information about a second male student who was involved in the sexual incident at the stadium. Ms. Williams gave Petitioner the names of both students. When he and Ms. Williams returned to the meeting, Petitioner stated, "I believe something must have happened. This is a credible witness." He also stated, "To hell with the football team. If these players can get away with this now, what will they think they can get away with in the future?" For the first time, Petitioner began to suspect that the sexual incident was factual and not an unfounded rumor. Ms. Ferguson revealed additional information about the female student at the meeting on October 26, 1995. Ms. Ferguson stated that the female student's mother intended to send her daughter to live with an uncle in Tampa, Florida. The female student did not want to make this move. The female student told Ms. Ferguson that the uncle had sexually molested her in the past. Ms. Armstrong stated that someone needed to call HRS to report the suspected sexual abuse by a family member. The group decided that HRS should also look into the allegations of sexual activity at the school. Petitioner instructed Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. He asked her to wait just long enough for someone to advise the female student's mother that an investigation was pending. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner ever intended to cover up the sexual incident. Likewise, he did not unreasonably delay his staff from reporting their suspicions to HRS. On October 26, 1995, Petitioner mistakenly understood that cases of suspected child abuse had to be reported to HRS within 24 hours instead of immediately. The last instructions he gave in the meeting on October 26, 1995, was to remind Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. She made that call on October 27, 1995. The female student was isolated from the general student population in the self-contained ESE classroom at PHS. Therefore, Mr. Sousa recommended at the meeting on October 26, 1995, that the school conduct an Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting to review the female student's placement. He believed that the female student should be transferred to another school so that she could attend classes with the general population. After receiving Petitioner's authorization, Mr. Sousa contacted the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) district staff to arrange for an IEP meeting. Mr. Sousa also called the female student's mother on October 27, 1995, to advise her of his recommendation. On October 27, 1995, Petitioner talked to the male student who, according to Ms. Williams' informant, participated in the sexual incident at the stadium. The male student confirmed that the sexual incident occurred in the stadium. However, there is no evidence that the student admitted his personal involvement in the sexual activity to Petitioner at that time. The police investigation later revealed that the male student was one of the students who had participated in the sexual incident. At the IEP meeting on October 31, 1995, the entire IEP team, including ESE teachers from PHS and Woodham High School (WHS), ESE district staff, and the female student and her mother, discussed the reasons for changing the student's placement to WHS. Everyone on the IEP team, except the female student, believed that she should be transferred to a new school environment with peers who did not know her. The female student begged her mother not to permit the transfer. However, the parent agreed that the transfer was in her daughter's best interest and offered to provide transportation. On November 1, 1995 or November 2, 1995, the female student was supposed to enroll at WHS. Instead, she returned to PHS. Mr. Sousa called the mother to pick up her daughter and take her to WHS. On November 3, 1995, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother. She stated that everything was all right with her daughter at WHS. On Monday, November 6, 1995, the female student's mother called Mr. Sousa because her daughter had run away from home. The mother wanted Mr. Sousa to be on the lookout for her daughter. During the conversation, the mother stated for the first time that the rumors about the sexual incident might be true because, despite her daughter's denials, it had been confirmed by one of her daughter's friends. Mr. Sousa informed Petitioner about the suspicions of the female student's mother. Petitioner then directed Coach Wilson to talk with the football team again. No one on the team would admit their involvement in the sexual incident. Petitioner also told the deans and the assistant principals to see if they could determine what had happened and who was involved. The efforts of the faculty and staff to verify the rumors were unsuccessful. On November 9, 1995, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Ferguson suggesting that he was responsible for trying to cover up the sexual incident. He also received a call from Special Assistant to the School Superintendent Jerry Watson, stating that he had heard "bad things" were going on at PHS. Petitioner called a meeting with the appropriate PHS staff to discuss information about the alleged sexual incident. They reviewed information furnished by the male students and the female student's mother. During this meeting, Petitioner expressed his concern that someone in the group was acting unprofessionally by leaking confidential information about students to persons outside of PHS. Petitioner advised the group that he would try to transfer anyone who breached the students' confidentially. Petitioner did not make these comments to threaten or intimidate his staff and faculty or to cover up the sexual episode. After the meeting on November 9, 1995, Petitioner took Ms. Ferguson's letter to the district office where he met with Sherman Robinson, Deputy School Superintendent. Petitioner told Mr. Robinson about the facts leading up to the receipt of the letter. Mr. Robinson told Petitioner to contact Joe Hammons, the Superintendent's attorney, for advice as to the appropriate action. Petitioner then made an appointment with Mr. Hammons for Monday, November 13, 1995, because Friday, November 10, 1995, was a holiday. On November 13, 1995, Mr. Hammons met with Petitioner. At this meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Hammons what he knew concerning the sexual incident. Mr. Hammons then scheduled a meeting for November 14, 1995, with Petitioner, Mr. Robinson, and two members from the school district's risk management department. At the meeting on November 14, 1995, the group determined that information available from the male students and the female student's mother, justified contacting the Pensacola Police Department. Upon leaving that meeting, Petitioner contacted Sergeant Potts at the police department. The deans at PHS generally handled all disciplinary problems until they determined that a crime had been or might have been committed. At that point, the staff involved the school resource officer. In this case Petitioner relied on his staff to investigate the rumors of the sexual incident and did not involve the school resource officer. Until November 1995, Petitioner was not aware that, if the rumors of the sexual incident proved true, a crime had been committed. Shortly thereafter, Dusty Cutler of the Pensacola Police Department was assigned to investigate the sexual incident at PHS. On November 15, 1995, Officer Cutler talked to the female student who continued to deny all allegations. The female student did not admit to being involved in the sexual incident for several weeks after Officer Cutler began her investigation. Pursuant to Petitioner's suggestion, Officer Cutler also talked to the male student identified by Ms. Williams' informant as one of the participants in the sexual incident. The female student's mother told Officer Cutler that she did not want a police investigation. The mother became upset with the way Officer Cutler was talking to her. Petitioner complained to Lieutenant Knowles of the Pensacola Police Department about Officer Cutler's "abusive" behavior to the mother of the female student. From that time forward, Officer Cutler never spoke to Petitioner even though she spent six months investigating the sexual incident on a daily basis. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner interfered with Officer Cutler's investigation or failed to cooperate with her in any way. Officer Cutler reported the sexual incident to HRS. The agency gave her the same response they had given Ms. Ferguson, i.e., HRS would not investigate or follow the case because the sexual activity was not a rape and a family member was not involved. After Officer Cutler was assigned to the case, Petitioner was instructed by the school district to do nothing further until the police investigation was concluded. The Grand Jury released its Amended Report on Pensacola High School on April 15, 1996. The report indicted several male students involved in the sexual incident. Petitioner did not have an opportunity to discipline the students because he was not working at PHS at that time. In the spring of 1996, a number of middle school and high schools in the Pensacola area received bomb threats over the telephone. PHS received bomb threats on at least three occasions. The school evacuated to the adjoining football stadium on one occasion, to the fairgrounds on another occasion, and to Pensacola Junior College on a third occasion. On March 29, 1996, about 7:00 a.m., a school secretary, received a bomb threat call at PHS. Mr. Sousa received a second bomb threat call at PHS around 7:15 or 7:30. On both occasions the caller's voice was a raspy, young man's voice. The school secretary and Mr. Sousa recognized the voice of the caller as a young man in one of the self-contained classrooms. The student had created problems in the past. Each time he behaved improperly, the student would use his raspy voice. Mr. Sousa reported the first bomb threat to Mr. Carvalis. Mr. Carvalis called Petitioner at his home. Petitioner was not at school because he was not feeling well because he had been at the emergency room much of the night before. Petitioner instructed Mr. Carvalis to initiate a search. The search included a sweep of the stadium in case the school had to evacuate to that area. Petitioner advised Mr. Carvalis that he was on his way to the school. When Petitioner arrived at PHS, Mr. Carvalis informed him of the second threatening call. The staff again assured Petitioner that they knew the caller's identity, and that both calls had been made by the same student. The student was not at school. Therefore, Petitioner directed Mr. Sousa and the resource officer, Max Cramer, to go to the student's home and request the student's parent to bring the student to school. In the meantime, a third call was received from the same caller. Next, Petitioner phoned Deputy Superintendent Sherman Robinson. Petitioner explained to Mr. Robinson about the bomb threat and the school's discovery of the identity of the caller. Jones believed from his discussion with Mr. Robinson that his handling of the situation and his decision not to evacuate the school had the tacit approval, if not the explicit permission, of the district office. Petitioner believed Mr. Robinson concurred in his decision not to evacuate. The student with the raspy voice and his parent subsequently arrived at the school. After questioning the student, Petitioner believed the student was the caller. Petitioner decided to continue the search of the school without evacuating it. Petitioner directed Mr. Carvalis and the maintenance men to divide into teams and sweep the campus using the techniques taught by a handler of a bomb sniffing dog after previous threats. On one occasion a bomb sniffing dog and his handler came to PHS from Eglin Air Force Base in Ft. Walton. The PHS campus was so large that the dog got tired and refused to work about half way through the search. On that occasion, the search continued in the same manner employed by Petitioner on March 29, 1996. During the search on March 29, 1996, seven different groups looked for anything that was out of place. All of the deans had assigned areas where they searched trash bins, open lockers, and open classrooms. Later in the school day, Mr. Carvalis reported that the entire campus, including the portables, had been swept and nothing found. Petitioner does not dispute that he did not follow the Superintendent's policy regarding bomb threats on the day in question. Petitioner believed that he knew the identity of the caller. He also was concerned about the disruption that the bomb threats were causing to the academic programs at PHS. The students in the gifted program were preparing to take their advanced placement tests. The students in the International Baccalaureate program were studying for their exams. Additionally, March 29, 1996 was the last chance for some students to take the high school competency test before graduation. Superintendent Malloy was particularly concerned that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school. The previous day he had reiterated his policy of evacuation to all principals. However, Petitioner did not attend the meeting; one of Petitioner's assistant principals attended that meeting in his absence. On March 30, 1996, Superintendent Malloy placed Petitioner on administrative leave with pay, pending an investigation of his failure to evacuate PHS after a bomb threat. Superintendent Malloy subsequently assigned Petitioner to his current position as Director of Student Transfers. On June 3, 1996, Superintendent Malloy issued a letter reprimanding Petitioner for the following reasons: (1) failing to ensure that the ISS class had appropriate supervision; (2) failing to follow up on information regarding sexual activity in the stadium in a timely manner; and (3) failing to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. In November of 1996, Jim May was elected Escambia County School Superintendent. On or about June 10, 1997, the Commissioner of Education, Frank T. Brogan, filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner in Education Practices Commission (EPC) Case Number 956-1609-B. This complaint alleged that Petitioner failed in his responsibilities to ensure that all students under his charge were properly supervised. The complaint also alleged that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. On June 24, 1997, Superintendent May nominated Petitioner to be principal of WHS. At the time of the nomination, Superintendent May was aware of the relevant facts concerning the PHS sex incident and bomb threat incident. Additionally, he had been in contact with counsel for the Florida Department of Education regarding EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. Respondent rejected Petitioner's nomination to be principal of WHS. On a 3 to 2 vote, Respondent found good cause to reject the nomination based on the following: Among the reasons articulated by the three Board Members who voted against the nomination were, in addition to the reasons presented by the other speakers, Mr. Jones' unsatisfactory past performance of his duties when he served as Principal of Pensacola High School (which events were the subject of a grand jury report and are the subject of an administrative complaint by the Commissioner of Education now pending before the Education Practice Commission proceeding, . . . his lack of subsequent training to improve his skills in the areas in which his poor performance resulted in his 1996 removal as Principal of Pensacola High School, and his apparent violation of certain of the principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, in addition to gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty in connection with the Pensacola High School incidents. In sum the three Board Members who voted against the nomination felt that Mr. Jones is presently unqualified to be a Principal. After Respondent rejected his nomination, Petitioner told Superintendent May that it was unfair to the students of WHS to make them wait for a principal. On July 22, 1997, Superintendent May nominated another person to be principal at WHS. On or about November 6, 1997, the Florida Department of Education decided that it would withdraw its probable cause determination against Petitioner and enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with him. The department requested the Education Practices Commission to close EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. On or about March 9, 1998, Superintendent May advised the Florida Department of Education that Petitioner had performed his assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner during the period of January 10, 1997 and March 1, 1997. Petitioner had fully complied with all district and state rules and regulations. On or about March 26, 1998, Education Commissioner Brogan determined that there was no probable cause to suspend or revoke Petitioner's teacher's certificate. Petitioner was released from his Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the department. Petitioner holds the proper state certification for a high school principal. Except for the two incidents in question, Petitioner's performance at PHS was exemplary. Under his leadership, the school population was stable and well under control. Petitioner created an atmosphere at PHS where high quality performance on the part of a number of students was recognized, encouraged, and supported by the faculty and staff. Petitioner had an excellent relationship with students, teachers, and the PHS Advisory Council. Petitioner genuinely cared for the health, safety and welfare of the students at PHS. He was concerned more about the feelings and self-esteem of the students than with winning academic and athletic competitions, and he did not make accusatory judgments about his students until he had the necessary facts and proof to support those accusations.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order finding that there is no good cause to reject Superintendent May's nomination of Petitioner to be principal at WHS, promoting him to that position, and awarding him any back pay to which he may be entitled. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of October, 1998.
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 The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment be terminated based on his misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, from the beginning of the 1998-1999 school year until April 26, 2001, was employed by the Board as assistant principal in charge of the Ninth Grade Center at Flagler-Palm Coast High School (Flagler). Prior to the 1998- 1999 school year, he was employed by the Board as a teacher and as Dean of Students. Respondent's employment was pursuant to a contract between Respondent and the Board which provided for employment from July 1, 1999 until June 30, 2001. On Sunday, November 12, 2000, Respondent attended a football game in Jacksonville, Florida, with a friend. He departed the stadium area in the late afternoon and traveled to Daytona Beach. By 9:30 p.m., on November 12, 2001, he was in his Honda automobile with his friend, occupying the right travel lane of U.S. 92, about four miles west of Interstate 95. His automobile was motionless and oriented west toward Deland. U.S. 92 is a high-speed, four-lane highway, with a divided median. The speed limit in the portion of the road occupied by Respondent's automobile is 65 miles per hour. It is located in Volusia County, which is the county immediately south of Flagler County. Deputy Mike Burton, of the Volusia County Sheriff's Office, was proceeding west on U.S. 92 when, at 9:30 p.m., he observed Respondent's Honda. He observed that Respondent's vehicle presented a hazard to Respondent and others. It appeared to Deputy Burton that the occupants of the Honda were unconscious. He attempted to communicate with the occupants by hailing them through the use of his patrol vehicle's loudspeaker. He failed to rouse the occupants of Respondent's Honda. Deputy Burton then positioned his patrol vehicle behind Respondent's automobile and turned on his blue emergency lights so that oncoming traffic could be warned of the hazard posed by Respondent's automobile. Because the two occupants of Respondent's Honda appeared to be unconscious, Deputy Burton feared that they might be experiencing a medical problem. He called his dispatcher who summoned a rescue squad. Deputy Burton knocked on the window of Respondent's Honda. Respondent woke up, and upon being told to move his car to the side of the road, pulled on to the shoulder, and fell again into a state of unconsciousness. Sergeant Cook of the Volusia County Sheriff's Office arrived on the scene and he and Deputy Burton were eventually able to arouse Respondent. Deputy Burton observed Respondent to be unsteady on his feet and observed that his eyes were glassy. Opened and unopened beer cans were found inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle and many unopened beer cans were found in the trunk. Sergeant Cook also found a bottle of prescription medicine which contained Effexor. Deputy Burton observed Sergeant Cook administer a field sobriety test. Based on all of his observations of Respondent, Deputy Burton determined that Respondent's faculties were impaired, although he did not have an opinion as to whether the impairment was the result of alcohol ingestion. Sergeant Cook, subsequent to the administration of field sobriety tests, was of the opinion that Respondent's faculties were impaired due to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. He arrested Respondent. In a search incident to the arrest a brass-colored pipe, about three inches long, was found in Respondent's right front pants pocket. There was a dark-colored residue with an odor of burnt marijuana in the bowl of the pipe. Sergeant Cook performed a field test on the residue which was positive for marijuana. Based on his observations, his field test, and his training and experience, Sergeant Cook concluded that the pipe constituted drug paraphernalia. Respondent stated to Sergeant Cook, upon questioning, that the pipe was not his. A videotape of Respondent was made immediately subsequent to his arrest after Respondent was transported to a Volusia County Sheriff's facility. The videotape was received into evidence. In the videotape Respondent admits to consuming alcoholic beverages during the afternoon and evening of the day he was arrested. Respondent revealed in the videotape that he had been prescribed Effexor by his doctor to alleviate symptoms of depression. During the course of the videotape, Respondent answered questions in a slow, monotone voice which contrasted sharply with his articulate testimony at the hearing. As part of Respondent's nolo contendre plea to the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol he admitted that he drove under the influence of alcohol to the extent his normal faculties were impaired. He was adjudicated guilty in the County Court of Volusia County of driving under the influence of alcohol. Lawrence Richard Hunsinger is the principal of Flagler and is Respondent's immediate supervisor. He related that one of the primary missions at Flagler was character education. Educational programs addressing illegal drugs and alcohol abuse are a major facet of that mission. The hazards of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is emphasized in the character education program. Principal Hunsinger related that the Ninth Grade Center was somewhat autonomous in relation to the high school as a whole and stated that Respondent acted as a quasi-principal. Student discipline is one of the most important jobs entrusted to Respondent and he was expected to be a positive role model. It was important to Principal Hunsinger that he be able to trust Respondent. Respondent telephoned Principal Hunsinger the day after Respondent's arrest and told him, among other things, that he found the marijuana pipe on the high school grounds and that he intended to use it as a training aid for the students. The arrest of Respondent generated unfavorable newspaper articles in the local area and in the Flagler student newspaper. The arrest upset and disappointed many of the students at Flagler. The incident caused a derogation of respect for Respondent among the students. Robert Nocella is the dean of students for the Ninth Grade Center. Respondent was his supervisor. He believes that the dean of students and the assistant principal must be role models. It is Mr. Nocella's opinion that Respondent's effectiveness as a role model has been derogated by the incident of November 12, 2000. Dr. Robert D. Williams is Superintendent of Schools for Flagler County. He received a telephone call from Respondent the afternoon of the day following Respondent's arrest. Respondent told him that he had found the marijuana pipe at the Jaguars football game in Jacksonville. Respondent expressed remorse for the events that had transpired. Respondent denied using marijuana. Dr. Williams had a subsequent conversation with Respondent on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, in Dr. Williams' office. During that time, Respondent again denied using marijuana on November 12, 2000. Dr. Williams had another conversation with Respondent on Friday, November 17, 2000, in Dr. Williams' office. At that time Respondent told Dr. Williams that the marijuana pipe was used for demonstration purposes in the classroom. Dr. Williams opined that Respondent's conduct was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. He further opined that Respondent's actions brought the school district and the high school into public disgrace and tarnished his reputation as well as the reputation of the school district and high school. Dr. Williams has discussed this matter with persons in the community and the incident resulted in negative effects on the school system. Two parents asked that punishment administered to their children be rescinded based on the behavior of Respondent. There have been numerous recent unfortunate events involving members of the Flagler staff which have occurred in the school district. These include a teacher stalking someone, a teacher kicking a student, a teacher striking a student, and a teacher downloading pornography on a school computer. These events involved teachers, rather than administrators, and they were dissimilar from Respondent's conduct. The evidence established that, on November 12, 2000, Respondent was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and that he was in possession of drug paraphernalia. While serving as assistant principal in charge of the Ninth Grade Center Respondent proved to be an effective administrator who fairly meted out discipline. Until the incident of November 12, 2000, he was respected and admired by both students and teachers. He was very concerned about the welfare of his students. Subsequent to the incident there were numerous persons who wanted him to be reinstated. He currently works in marine construction and his employer stated that he is a hard-working and reliable employee.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered terminating the employment of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 19th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Salmon, Esquire 204 West University Avenue Suite 8 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 Robert D. Williams, Superintendent School District of Flagler County Post Office Box 755 3039 Highway 100, East Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent, Stephen Lauster (Mr. Lauster or Respondent), violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and (2)(a)5.; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher in the School District and has been since 1990. He holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 664969, covering the areas of educational leadership and music, which is valid through June 30, 2021. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education. The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. During the period relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a music teacher at the Middle School in the School District. Respondent’s annual professional evaluations for the relevant periods show scores considered “effective” and “highly effective.” Despite this, Respondent has an extensive disciplinary history with the School District, which is set forth below. On or about March 17, 2006, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from his then-principal, Frank Zencuch. On or about March 27, 2009, Respondent received a warning of unsatisfactory behavior from Principal Zencuch. On or about April 2, 2009, Respondent submitted a rebuttal to the March 27, 2009, written warning. On or about May 13, 2009, a Grievance Procedure Level II hearing was held to determine whether the letter of reprimand should be removed from Respondent’s personnel file. The grievance was denied by a School District representative and the letter of reprimand remained in Respondent’s file. On or about December 12, 2013, Respondent’s then-principal, Margaret Jackson, completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning his language/conduct toward students. On or about February 7, 2014, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning insubordination. On or about April 24, 2014, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning his language/conduct toward students. On or about March 30, 2018, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning his language/conduct toward students. On or about April 5, 2018, Respondent submitted a rebuttal to the March 30, 2018, conference summary. The Bus Incident on May 28, 2018 On May 28, 2018, Respondent was on his way home from school and was driving behind a school bus, which had left the Middle School ahead of him. Respondent was driving a large sports utility vehicle which allowed him to see into the rear window of the bus he followed. Respondent noticed students on the bus leaving their seats and moving around. Respondent contacted the School District’s transportation center to report the actions of the students on the bus. Respondent testified that after making his complaint to the transportation center, he saw no change in the actions of the students on the bus, who continued to leave their seats. Respondent continued to follow the bus until it made its first stop in a private gated community. Student M.O. lived in the gated community and got off at this stop to go home. At the time of the incident, M.O. was eleven years old. Her mother, K.O., waited in the community parking lot to pick M.O. up from school. When the bus stopped, Respondent pulled his car alongside the bus, exited his vehicle, and hurriedly approached the bus. M.O. disembarked the bus and walked towards her mother’s car. Respondent stood in front of the opened door of the bus and began to yell at the bus driver. Respondent then beckoned M.O. back to the bus. Respondent angrily yelled at M.O., telling her that the next day, “you come to the band room straight to the band office. If I have to come and find you it’ll be worse than what you are going to already get.” Seeing this transpire, K.O. approached Respondent to inquire about what was happening and why he was yelling at her daughter. K.O. asked Respondent who he was. Respondent told K.O. that the bus and M.O. were “in violation” and that M.O. was required to report to him in the morning. Respondent then continued to yell at the bus driver. He demanded the driver send another student to him—a student he claimed he witnessed standing in the bus’s aisles while it was being driven. K.O. touched Respondent’s arm from behind, to gain his attention. Respondent yelled at K.O. that she should not touch him. They engaged in a verbal exchange that was transcribed by a court reporter during K.O.’s. deposition: Respondent: Get your hands off me. Don’t ever touch me. I am doing what I’m supposed to do. K.O.: (Unintelligible.) Respondent: Lady, it’s fixing to get a lot worse. K.O.: What did you say to me? Respondent: I said, “Lady, it’s going to get worse.” Respondent scolded the bus driver for what he considered to be the driver’s inaction. He threatened all of the students on the bus with a “referral.” K.O. remained at the bus stop until the bus left. M.O. was upset and embarrassed by the incident. She did not know Respondent personally; she only knew that he was the school’s band director. The other students witnessed Respondent yelling at M.O. and K.O., which added to M.O.’s embarrassment. Later that evening, when K.O. arrived at home, she emailed Edward Laudise, the assistant principal of the Middle School, regarding the incident. The next day, Respondent reported to the Middle School, where he was told by Principal Jackson that he was not allowed to have any contact with M.O. On or about July 31, 2018, the School District’s Director of Human Resources recommended that Respondent be terminated based on the bus incident. The School District’s Superintendent joined in the recommendation for termination. However, on or about August 21, 2018, the School District suspended Respondent for a period of five days, without pay, instead. Thereafter, Respondent was the subject of several other disciplinary actions, unrelated to the bus incident. On or about August 27, 2018, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent’s language/conduct toward students, co-workers, and parents, and his poor attendance and tardiness. On or about May 7, 2019, Principal Jackson held a meeting with Respondent to discuss allegations that Respondent told students, among other things, that “they would be the first generation of young people to die before their parents,” and that they “sound like they have stage 4 cancer.” On or about May 28, 2019, Respondent received a letter of reprimand and recommendation for a four-day suspension from the School District Director of Human Resources. On or about May 29, 2019, Respondent received a letter of reprimand and four-day suspension from the School District Superintendent. In September 2019, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the School District, through which the four-day suspension was reduced to two days. The P.E. Incident on January 30, 2020 A.H. and L.H. are students who attend the Middle School. On the date of the hearing, which was held approximately six months after the incident, A.H. and L.H. were 13 years old. On or about January 30, 2020, A.H. and L.H. were participating in physical education (PE) class. Melea Morgan was the PE teacher. A.H. and L.H. left PE class to go to the restroom. There is conflicting testimony as to the amount of time A.H. and L.H. spent in the bathroom, but the amount of time is irrelevant. After leaving the restroom, the students walked towards a water fountain. Respondent contacted Ms. Morgan to let her know that A.H. and L.H. were in the bathroom for a long time. He asked if she approved of him going to get them and Ms. Morgan agreed. Respondent approached A.H. and L.H. as they walked towards the water fountain. Respondent admonished A.H. and L.H. for being in the bathroom for an extended amount of time. He told them that they should be participating more in PE class and that he would be referring them to in-school suspension (ISS). Both A.H. and L.H. distinctly and explicitly recalled the events that took place that day. A.H. credibly testified about her interactions with Respondent, stating: And then Mr. Lauster – and then I started telling Mr. Lauster, so we will participate more, can we please not go to ISS. And he said, well, you’re on the soccer team, you shouldn’t be hanging out with a loser. She’s a do-nothing. You can’t -- you shouldn’t be hanging. And then I was just, like, we will participate more and I’m sorry. He was like, I expect more from you because you’re on the soccer team. And I was just -- and L said nothing. And I was just, I will do more. And then he just kept calling L a loser. A.H. distinctly recalled that Respondent referred to L.H. as a “do- nothing” and a “loser.” L.H.’s testimony was the same. She recalled that Respondent referred to her as both a “loser” and a “do-nothing” and that he asked A.H. why she was hanging out with “this loser,” referring to L.H. Respondent threatened to send A.H. and L.H. to ISS, but then told them he would give them another chance. The School District initiated an investigation into the matter. On or about March 6, 2020, Respondent received a letter of termination from the School District’s Superintendent. On or about April 22, 2020, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the School District. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the School District did not terminate Respondent. Rather, the settlement agreement operated as a “last chance agreement,” which provided for an automatic termination should any future infractions occur. Respondent was neither apologetic nor remorseful for how he handled A.H. and L.H. Instead, in testimony that was wholly unconvincing, he maintained that he did not call L.H. a “do-nothing” or a “loser,” but, rather, that he told the students that they “made a loser decision” and “chose to be do-nothings in the bathroom.” At only 12 or 13 years old at the time of the incident, L.H. was impressionable. By all accounts, she is a very shy girl. L.H.’s mother testified that L.H. struggles with anxiety and that in the past she has felt like she is a loser and does not have friends. She was “shook up” by Respondent’s comments. Similarly, Respondent was unremorseful and unapologetic about his actions during the bus incident. Respondent attempted to justify his behavior towards M.O., her mother, and the bus driver. He testified that he needed to stop the bus because he saw inappropriate activity on the bus that could have been dangerous to everyone onboard. Respondent is correct that the students on the bus were engaging in inappropriate behavior—they were getting in and out of their seats, walking in the aisles, and playfully fighting with each other. However, Respondent handled it poorly. Principal Jackson testified that the appropriate reaction would have been for Respondent to contact the School District’s transportation department (which he did) and then report the inappropriate behavior to school administration the next day. He should not have approached the bus or condemned the students or the bus driver. Respondent was clearly angry when he spoke to M.O. He lost his composure. Worse still, he directed his anger to K.O. Ultimate Findings of Fact The undersigned finds that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent inappropriately yelled at and intimidated M.O. who had changed seats on the bus while it was moving. Respondent also became confrontational with M.O.’s mother and threatened the remaining students on the bus with referrals, regardless of whether they were misbehaving or not. Petitioner also proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent told L.H., in front of A.H., that she was a “loser” and a “do nothing.” The undersigned finds that based on the findings of fact above, Respondent’s conduct during the bus incident and the PE incident have been proven by clear and convincing evidence and that Respondent, through his actions, violated the statutes and rules as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. None of the other factual allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint were proven by clear and convincing evidence.1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission finding that Respondent, Stephen Lauster, violated section 1012.795(1)(j) by violating rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and (2)(a)5.; and as sanctions for such violations, suspending his educator’s certificate for one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE 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 3rd day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 303 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Holly Bamonte was employed as a classroom teacher by the Escambia County School District. As such, Respondent was subject to the rules and certification requirements of the Florida Department of Education, including the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080 and 6A-10.081. Additionally, Respondent was subject to the Escambia County School District Employee Code of Ethics. The employee code provided that all school district employees were expected to acknowledge and accept responsibilities stated in the state code of ethics and must conduct themselves in a manner that promotes and supports ethical principles and values. All of these rules and codes were included in Petitioner's Federal/State Compliance Packet for school year 2013-2014. The compliance packet was provided and accessible to all certified instructional personnel of the Escambia County School District, including Ms. Bamonte. During the holiday break in 2013, J.T., C.G., and about 10 to 15 other high school students under the age of 21 attended a party at the Respondent's home. The home is approximately 1,500 square feet with a small kitchen and living area. During the party these students consumed alcohol. The students who drove were asked to put their keys on the counter or in a bucket, if they were going to drink. Respondent was present during the party and was aware that the students were drinking alcohol. C.G. and J.T. saw and spoke to Respondent in the area where student drinking was openly occurring. She did not stop or prohibit such alcohol consumption and was not concerned that such overt alcohol consumption was taking place. Ms. Teresa Bowden was the mother of C.G., then a high school student. C.G. also attended the party at the Respondent's house where he consumed alcohol. Ms. Bowden went to Respondent's house because her son, who had been drinking beer at the party, called her to be picked up. On arriving, she went into the living room and saw five to ten students in a circle. She could not determine if any had been drinking alcohol. Another pair of parents was present who were angry because of a concern that the students, and in particular their son, had been drinking alcohol. These parents were told that Respondent was in the bathroom at the back of the house. Ms. Bowden asked her son, C.G., if he had been drinking and he said that he had. Like the other parents, Ms. Bowden was upset and concerned that her son was allowed to drink at Respondent's home. At some point during the evening, law enforcement officers arrived at the house. As the officers arrived outside, J.T. was leaving and spoke with them. They asked if there were kids inside drinking and he stated there were. The police entered the house, but did not find Respondent. Law enforcement contacted the parents of the students who were present at the party to come pick them up. At hearing, Respondent claimed that she and her husband had a fight the night of the party and that she left the residence earlier in the evening before the police arrived. She claimed that she did not see any of the teens at her home drinking. However, given the testimony of the teenage party attendees, Respondent's testimony is not credible. On the other hand, the evidence clearly demonstrated Respondent allowed underage high school students to gather in her home, and consume alcohol with her knowledge and in her presence. Whether she purchased the alcohol is not relevant. By permitting underage drinking in an environment she controlled, Respondent failed to protect students from harm and permitted them to engage in conduct that was illegal. Clearly, Respondent's lack of judgment regarding student alcohol consumption at her home was significant and impaired her ability to function as a teacher with responsibility for protecting and supervising students. Such conduct was of sufficient severity as to justify termination of her instructional contract. Further, the party at Respondent's house, where students were knowingly permitted by her to consume alcohol, became known in the school community and resulted in upsetting parents in that community. Petitioner's lack of judgment demonstrated that parents could not have faith in her ability to protect their children. Such parental lack of confidence impaired her ability to serve as a teacher in the school system. As such, termination of her instructional contract with the School Board was warranted and should be upheld.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Escambia County School Board enter a final order terminating the Respondent's employment effective September 17, 2014, as originally noticed and approved by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Holly A. Bamonte 1248 Plata Canada Drive Cantonment, Florida 32533 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire The Hammons Law Firm, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Mr. Malcolm Thomas, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 75 North Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32505 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner of Education, against the Respondent, Kenneth Griffin, are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 963010, covering the areas of educational leadership, middle grades integrated curriculum, reading, and exceptional student education, valid through June 30, 2012. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at Plant City High School (PCHS), a unit of the Hillsborough County School District. On January 28, 2010, the Respondent engaged in an online conversation ("chat") on the "MySpace" social networking Internet site, with a 15-year-old high school student. At the time of the chat, the student was enrolled at another unit of the Hillsborough County School District. The Respondent and student were acquainted because the student had previously been enrolled at PCHS and had participated in the PCHS cross-country track team, and the Respondent had been the team's coach. During the chat with the student, the Respondent made reference to the student's physical appearance, to masturbation and the size of the student's penis, and to the student's girlfriend. According to the log of the chat, the Respondent directed the student to clear the chat screen when the chat was completed. The student's mother was able to monitor her son's online activities from her computer. After the chat was completed, the student's mother reviewed the interaction between her son and the Respondent and printed the chat log screens. She immediately sent a MySpace message to the Respondent and voiced her displeasure with the nature of the interaction, but said she was not contacting school officials because she was concerned about her son being "humiliated" by the interaction. She told the Respondent to "leave my son alone!" Upon his return from a social event later that evening, the Respondent received the mother's message. Shortly before 1:00 a.m., on January 29, 2010, the Respondent sent an email to the PCHS principal advising that he had received a message from an upset parent related to his chat with the student. He wrote "this has happened in the past, and I have changed my password a few times but hackers continue to hack my account." The Respondent denied that there had been anything "out of line" about the chat with the student. A few hours later, the Respondent came to the PCHS principal's office upon his own volition and again advised the principal that a parent was upset about the chat, but, at that time, the Respondent claimed that the chat had actually been conducted between the student and an acquaintance of the Respondent. The principal contacted a Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) official and advised of the situation. The School Board initiated a review of the matter and obtained the printed chat logs from the student's mother. On February 1, 2010, after meeting with School Board investigators, the Respondent resigned from his employment with the Hillsborough County School District. The Respondent asserted that he resigned because he was advised that the matter would become public if the School Board initiated disciplinary action and that he was further advised that he could resume his teaching career elsewhere. The Respondent has acknowledged conducting a chat with the student, but has denied participating in any impropriety during the chat. The Respondent has asserted that an individual known only as "R.J." was in the Respondent's apartment and using the Respondent's computer during the time of the chat. According to the Respondent, the Respondent ran into R.J. who was hanging around the common area at the Respondent's apartment complex. The Respondent asserted that R.J. asked to use the Respondent's computer, that the Respondent allowed R.J. into the Respondent's apartment, and that the Respondent left R.J. at the computer while the Respondent went into his bedroom to dress for a social event. The Respondent testified that the student thereafter initiated the chat, that R.J. relayed the student's messages to the Respondent, and that the Respondent dictated responses to R.J. According to the Respondent, R.J. embellished the Respondent's dictated responses with the inappropriate remarks, unbeknownst to the Respondent. There is no credible evidence that anyone other than the Respondent participated in the chat with the student. The nature of the chat was a matter of embarrassment for the student. At the hearing, the student testified that he previously regarded the Respondent as a mentor and that he felt "betrayed" by the chat. The student's father testified that he no longer trusted, and was uncomfortable with, the Respondent after the chat occurred. Officials from PCHS and the Respondent testified that the incident caused a loss of trust in the Respondent. The PCHS principal testified that the inappropriate interaction with the student caused her to doubt the Respondent's judgment, and she observed that such incidents damage the reputation of the school and cause a general loss of respect for the school and for other teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order revoking the Florida Educator's Certificate held by the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 8th day of September, 2011.
