The Issue Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 484422, covering the areas of biology and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2017. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at Oak Park. Respondent worked at Oak Park from September 25, 2013, to May 20, 2014. On May 21, 2014, Respondent was removed from her classroom as a result of the May 16, 2014, student-smoking incident (the “incident”) described herein and assigned to the school district office in a non-instructional position. Respondent was a first-year probationary teacher at Oak Park. Due to the incident, Respondent’s employment with the school district was not renewed for the following school year. Respondent is currently employed at Emerald High School in Greenwood County, South Carolina. Respondent had not been the subject of any previous complaints or disciplinary actions during her period of employment. The first session of the Oak Park school day, extending from 9:04 to 9:34 a.m., is called Knights Unite (“KU”). KU is described as: 30 minute period where healthy relationships between the students, faculty and staff of OPMS can be built. It is a time set aside for mentoring, engaging students with interactive activities to build their character, interactive activities to review content and to give each student of Oak Park someone they can trust and confide in. Respondent described the KU period as one in which she could help students to make up work, help them with independent study, allow students to meet with other teachers for help or independent study, engage in certain mandated activities, e.g., bullying lessons, and perform student-related administrative tasks. Fridays were typically independent study days in which students were allowed to make up work from the week. On Friday, May 16, 2014, during the KU period, students were involved in independent study and with filling out required address forms. Students needing to go to the media center, the guidance office, the main office, or to meet with other teachers during the KU period are given passes. Allowing students to engage in those tasks, including issuing passes for students “to get assistance or additional paperwork from a different teacher” was not contrary to Oak Park policy, nor did it violate any standard. Except for the four students involved in the incident, there was no evidence that any student left Respondent’s classroom without a pass. Petitioner suggested that the tasks being performed (or that were supposed to be performed) in Respondent’s class on May 16, 2014, were inconsistent with Petitioner’s written KU guidelines. Since the activities being performed by students, with the exception of those related to the incident, were not alleged as violations in the Administrative Complaint, compliance with the KU guidelines is not at issue. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that activities, such as individual mentoring or tutoring and individual catch-up work, are an appropriate use of KU period time. According to Ms. Longo, there were 18 students in Respondent’s KU class on May 16, 2014. At the time of the incident, each student had an individual desk. Currently, as depicted in the photographs in evidence, the classroom has been reconfigured with tables that seat multiple students. At some point during the May 16, 2014, KU period, a group of four of Respondent’s less responsible students huddled furtively in the back of the classroom. The two male students involved, D.L. and J.G., lit the butt of a small “Tiparello”- style cigar, and took a few quick puffs. They had their backs to Respondent’s desk and ducked down to conceal their actions. One of the two female students, J.C., in order to preserve the foolhardy act for posterity, took a cell phone video of the incident. The length of the video was a total of one minute and 51 seconds. The cigar appeared to have been first lit at the 0:05 mark. The youthful miscreants did not intend to be discovered, as evidenced by one student’s hushed statement that “I swear to God if you show anybody that [unintelligible] snitch.” That their actions were not obvious is supported by the lack of attention that they drew from other more conscientious students in the class, who did not look up or react to the act of false bravado. At the 0:17 second mark, Respondent can be seen at her desk at the front of the room attending to H.E., another student who was not involved in the incident. H.E. was generally positioned between Respondent and the cigar-smoking students, shielding Respondent from their actions. Respondent was also in the process of taking attendance. Ms. Longo testified that it is appropriate for Respondent to be at her desk to perform those tasks. Although Respondent and H.E. are only glimpsed at the 0:17 mark, it is not reasonable to conclude that H.E. simply vanished at that point, exposing the four troublemakers to Respondent’s view. Rather, some seconds had to have passed before H.E. moved away. The student’s efforts to hide the cigar and fan away the smoke confirm their efforts to avoid detection. Although J.G. coughed, his proximity to the cell phone (one or two feet) makes it impossible to tell how noticeable the cough would be from a distance. At the 0:25 mark, D.L. eyed the recording cell phone and threw down with a devil-may-care “whazzup, whazzup.” From roughly the 0:33 mark to the 0:44 mark, the youthful miscreants hurriedly hid the evidence and assumed an attitude of casual insouciance. The video then went black from the 0:43 mark to the 0:55 mark and, although the picture returned, the cell phone was clearly being concealed from the 0:55 mark to the 1:03 mark. That thirty seconds of cover and concealment is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that she got up and went over to the students’ desk area. The video resumed at the 1:03 mark and, after a few furtive sweeps of the area, clearly taken from a low vantage point, again went black from the 1:11 to the 1:18 mark. At the 1:18 mark, the video resumed and, at the 1:22 mark, J.G. is seen lighting the half-inch butt with a Bic lighter. The behavior of J.G. and D.L. demonstrated a continued effort to conceal their actions. At the 1:30 mark, the video shows that the students had been “busted.” J.G., in a display of feigned innocence, loudly proclaimed “what is that smell?” By the 1:35 mark, Respondent had called J.G. and the owner of the phone to her desk, and they dutifully complied. An unidentified student mentioned the word “perfume,” and either J.G. or J.C. spoke of “cologne” in an obvious effort to explain the unusual aroma in the room. At the 1:48 mark, Respondent advised J.C. that Respondent would need her phone for the rest of the class. Though occurring after the 1:51 end of the video, Respondent successfully confiscated the phone, which Ms. Longo confirmed was the appropriate course of action. Respondent indicated that she could momentarily smell something unusual in the room, which she attributed variously to incense, cologne, or deodorant. Due to the pervasive musty and mildewy smell in the class caused by a water leak and chronically wet carpeting, along with her blocked sinuses, she could not tell what it was. As stated convincingly by Ms. Pickens, “there were different types of smells in there on one day to the next depending on whether or not they put the fan in the classroom to dry out the carpet.” There was no evidence that Ms. Warren could see what was occurring while taking attendance and consulting with the student at her desk.2/ Petitioner’s speculation that Respondent could have (or should have) seen exactly what was happening at the back of the room was just that - speculation. After J.C.’s cell phone was confiscated by Respondent, D.L. came up with several excuses as to why he should be allowed to leave the classroom. His requests were denied. Thereafter, as Respondent was calling the office to report the incident, D.L. and J.G., followed by the girls, J.C. and C.W., left the classroom without permission. Teachers are not allowed to physically restrain students attempting to leave the classroom. Rather, the teacher is to “push the call button that’s in every classroom immediately and say that so-and-so just walked out of my class.” Respondent complied with that expectation by calling the office, which is an acceptable option. Since no administrators were available, Respondent gave the information regarding the students’ escape from the classroom to Ms. Longo’s secretary. It took a while for anyone to respond to Respondent’s call. The students returned to the classroom after about five minutes. After their return, Mr. Justus, who was the school’s athletic director and “coach” for the social studies department, and a member of Ms. Longo’s “leadership team,” came to the room. Respondent wrote referrals on D.L. and J.G., and they left with Mr. Justus. After the boys were taken from the classroom, Respondent sent an email to Mr. Wade, the associate principal and dean of discipline, and Mr. Justus to inquire about the referral of the girls, J.C. and C.W., and to let them know that she had J.C.’s cell phone. Two periods later, Mr. Wade came to Respondent’s classroom, at which time Respondent turned over J.C.’s cell phone to him. By that time, she had retrieved a cigar wrapper from D.L.’s desk, which was also turned over to Mr. Wade.3/ Ms. Peterson concluded that “[n]o evidence exists to show that Ms. Warren was ever aware that students were actually smoking a cigar in her class.” She further testified that Respondent “wasn’t aware they were smoking. She thought something was wrong, but that doesn’t mean she knew that they were smoking. That could mean that someone’s with something like a piece of paper.” On May 20, 2014, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned to the school district office. Respondent’s inability to see exactly what was occurring in the back of the classroom did not prevent her from suspecting improper conduct by the students and acting on that suspicion by appropriately requesting assistance from administration, confiscating the cellular telephone of a student, and investigating the matter herself to find the wrapper. The tone of the Administrative Complaint gives the impression that J.G. and D.L. put their feet up on their desks and enjoyed a fine Cuban Presidente while under Respondent’s approving gaze. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts show that J.G. and D.L., in a manner that was as sneaky and surreptitious as possible, lit the small cigar and, over the course of approximately 28 seconds, took a few furtive puffs. After putting it out and hiding the evidence, the miscreants repeated the act for approximately 13 seconds before being nabbed. The suggestion that Respondent neglected her duties, failed to make reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning or to their mental or physical health or their safety, or engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduced her effectiveness as a teacher is simply not supported by the facts of this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 2016.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's 2APS alcoholic beverage license No. 15-02229, should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Department on November 13, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Ajitkumar L. Naik, operated the Circle A Food Mart in Rockledge, Florida under a 2APS Cigarette permit No. 15-02229. The Department of Business Regulation, through its Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was the state agency responsible for issuing such permits and regulating the conduct of tobacco sales under them. Bonita Sue Adkins, born on October 23, 1973, was, at the time of the alleged offenses, a student at Rockledge High School. She had known the Respondent for about 2 years and patronized his store frequently. On those occasions she spoke with him as a friend about her life in general and he was very nice. She trusted him. Sometime prior to October 24, 1991, however, she claims, the nature of his approach began to change. He began to get more personal with her, suggesting she satisfy herself sexually. When she would speak with him about her relationship with her boyfriend, or when her stomach hurt as a result of her menstrual period, he would allegedly tell her how he could make her feel better sexually and would, periodically, talk with her about having sex with him even though she claims she never led him on or gave him any reason to believe she was interested in him that way. Ms. Adkins describes herself as an open and demonstrative individual and admits to having hugged Respondent once or twice but never to having kissed him. On October 9, 1991, as a result of a dispute with her boyfriend during the school day, Ms. Adkins was upset and felt the need to talk with someone. She left school before it was over, something she did often, and went to Respondent's store where she told him of her problems and asked him for a cigarette even though she knew she was too young to legally possess them. She claims she had gotten them from him in the past after she told him she was over 18 without showing him the identification he had asked for. Respondent denies this, however. On this particular day, Ms. Adkins claims, Respondent again said he could satisfy her sexually, purportedly indicating he would "eat her" and "make her come." She states he told her that if she would just be with him for sex for a couple of hours alone, he'd give her anything in the store she wanted. On all these occasions, when Respondent would speak to her with sexual innuendo, she did nothing about it, accepting it as "guy" talk. Only when he touched her did she get upset. On this occasion, Ms. Adkins states, she was wearing stretch jeans and a loose top over an undergarment and panties. Customers came in and out of the store while they were talking, and Respondent remained behind the counter with her on the outside. When the store emptied, however, Respondent allegedly told her to get the drink she had asked for and as she was facing the fountain, she claims, he came behind her and put his hand up under her shirt. She told him to stop and tried to get away. He was holding her tightly, however, she claims, and touched her breast under the undergarment for several minutes while she resisted and tried to get away. According to Ms. Adkins, Respondent finally let go of her breast and tried to put his hand down the front of her pants, but could not get far enough down to touch her genitalia. All during this time, she claims, she was trying to get him to stop and to let her go. She thought he was trying to have sex with her which she did not want. During the several minutes of struggle, during which he supposedly tried to kiss her and she consistently resisted his advances and asked him to let her go, she did not scream or call out because she felt there was no one there to hear her to help her. She does not know who was or might have been in the area, however. Ms. Adkins ultimately got away from the Respondent and, leaving the store, took a taxi which he had called for her to her home. Not only did Respondent call the cab, for which Ms. Adkins waited, but he also gave her the money to pay for it and a pack of cigarettes. This is patently unbelievable. It stretches credulity to expect anyone to believe that after being assaulted sexually, Ms. Adkins would wait around her attacker's store for a cab he allegedly called for her. Respondent purportedly told Ms. Adkins to say nothing about what happened between them to anyone. She did not report the matter to anyone including her parents or the police until 2 or 3 days later because, she claims, she did not know what to do. She claims she felt Respondent had violated her trust and she was afraid to tell her parents. Her best friend's mother worked for the police department but she didn't tell her, either. It was only when her boyfriend, Mr. Dotson, to whom she told the story several days later, told her to tell her mother about it did she make her complaint. Ms. Adkins' reputation for truth and veracity in the community is not good. She was arrested for burglary when she was 16 years old and for several other minor offenses which were not prosecuted. On October 15, 1991, Officer Hollenbeck was advised by his dispatcher, the mother of Ms. Adkins' close girlfriend, that Ms. Adkins had told her she had been assaulted. That same day he contacted Ms. Adkins' mother to ask if they wanted to file a complaint. The following day, Ms. Adkins and her mother came to Hollenbeck's office where Ms. Adkins made a statement accusing Respondent of assault. Several days later, on October 21, 1991, Officer Hollenbeck contacted Respondent and asked him to come to the police station where he told Respondent of the allegations Ms. Adkins had made against him. In a sworn statement made at the time, Respondent admitted Ms. Adkins had come to his store on the day alleged and that they had talked, but he unequivocally denied any assault. Respondent indicated to Officer Hollenbeck he had had trouble in the past with Mr. Dotson and his mother who spread untrue rumors that he had sold beer and cigarettes to minors. He indicated that when Ms. Adkins was in his store, two other patrons were there. When Hollenbeck checked this with those patrons, both recalled having been there and one recalled seeing a blonde female. Neither saw anything unusual going on. When Hollenbeck asked to see the tape from the security camera in the store, Respondent indicated it had automatically been erased and used over a relatively short time after real time. The system is a continuous reel type on which, if not preserved for a specific item, the tape is used over and over. Respondent admits Ms. Adkins came into his store on the day in question complaining of a stomach ache and seeking a free soft drink to which he agreed. At that time, other patrons and the beer distributor were there and she remained until all had left. When he asked her what was wrong, she stated she had had a fight with her boyfriend, had left school early, and needed to "chill out" until she could go home. At the time, Respondent was waiting for his wife to bring him his lunch and go pick up their daughter at school. Respondent and Ms. Adkins talked, but he denies she gave him any details regarding her fight with her boyfriend. He claims he told her to talk with her friend, Ginger, about that. Respondent also denied giving Ms. Adkins either money or cigarettes, and he specifically denies any sexually oriented conversations with her nor did he proposition her sexually. He admits he might have called her "pretty girl" as a part of the friendly approach he takes with all his customers. When she came into his store that day it was near the lunch hour and this is a busy time for him. According to Mr. Naik, Ms. Adkins is a liar and an individual who will make any untrue allegation about people to get even with them if she believes they have offended her. He believes she has made these instant allegations about him because he refused to sell her boyfriend, Mr. Dotson, cigarettes. She threatened to report him to the police for possession of marijuana, an allegation he claims to be untrue. Mr. Dotson, age 17 at the time of the hearing, currently lives with Ms. Adkins but denies having any serious relationship with her now. He was told by Mr. Taylor, who testified to Ms. Adkins bad character for the Respondent, that Ms. Adkins was not well liked by her peers, but he had not found this to be true. He also denies ever having told Mr. Taylor that Ms. Adkins was a liar or had a bad reputation for truth and veracity. He claims he has purchased cigarettes in Respondent's store in the past but never from Respondent personally. This is consistent with Respondent's denials. Taken together, from the testimony of Ms. Adkins and Mr. Dotson, and observation of their demeanor while on the stand, it is hard to credit either with much believability and the testimony of neither is particularly credible. Ginger Austin, formerly Ms. Adkins' best girlfriend, has patronized Respondent's store frequently for about a year. At first, she claims, he was polite and courteous to the girls, but with time, he began to speak suggestively toward Ms. Adkins. She relates that on one occasion he suggested to Ms. Adkins that she get rid of her boyfriend and get a real man, and she also recalls having heard him tell Adkins that if she would "screw" him she could have anything in the store. However, neither young woman reacted to these comments and both continued to patronize the store even after the alleged assault. She claims this was because there were no other stores around, but the evidence clearly shows there were other stores in the area, though not on the direct route between school and home as was Respondent's store. Nonetheless, neither seemed to consider Respondent a threat or to take him seriously. Ms. Austin claims she is no longer friends with Ms. Adkins and has not discussed her testimony with her. She also denies having discussed Adkins' reputation with Taylor. Here, as with Adkins and Dotson, the witness' testimony is not persuasive. Respondent pleaded guilty to a lesser misdemeanor offense than that originally charged, the exact nature of which was not disclosed, even though he continued to protest his innocence because he is an alien. Had he been convicted of the original felony charge, he claims, even though he did not commit it, he would have had to leave the country That was the sole reason for his plea, he asserts. This is not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Department in this case alleging misconduct by the Respondent regarding Ms. Adkins on or about October 24, 1991, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3774 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not based on credible evidence. Testimony is accurate but not believed. First three sentences accepted. Balance rejected as not based on credible evidence. - 8. Rejected as not based on credible evidence. 9. - 11. Rejected as not based on credible evidence. Not a Findings of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Rejected as not based on credible evidence. Accepted as to her actions but not as proof of Respondent's misconduct. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Not an appropriate Finding of Fact relating to the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: NONE SUBMITTED. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 William R. Clifton, Esquire 1273 South Florida Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 Janet B. Ferris Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward (Respondent or Mr. Steward), violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), or sections 1012.795(1)(g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint,2/ and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Steward held Florida Educator Certificate 1156507, covering the areas of biology and earth- space science, and was employed as a science teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Steward’s certificate expired on June 30, 2013. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Steward was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs with resulting damage to property or another person in Broward County, Florida. As Mr. Steward admitted, on April 3, 2013, he was found guilty by a jury on this charge. On December 6, 2011, there was an altercation between a 15-year-old male student, A.C., and Mr. Steward in his classroom at Miami Carol City Senior High School. The Commissioner offered no competent evidence regarding this event other than pre-hearing admissions of Mr. Steward and his testimony at hearing. Mr. Steward testified that he was teaching in his fifth- period class, which was a ninth-grade science class consisting of about 21 students, when there was a knock on the classroom door. A.C., who was a student with behavior and attendance problems, had moved to a seat near the door and offered to see who was there. Mr. Steward at first agreed, but then changed his mind and asked A.C. to remain seated, while Mr. Steward answered the door himself. At the door were three unknown students. A.C. then got out of his seat, stating that the unknown students were his brothers, and moved to the door to greet them. Mr. Steward testified that the students at the door caused a great amount of disruption in the classroom, and he turned around to quiet his students. He testified that as he turned his back to the door, he felt A.C. “violently” press his groin against Mr. Steward’s buttocks, which startled and frightened Mr. Steward, so he had to “remove [A.C.] from [his] personal space.” Mr. Steward testified that A.C. then positioned himself between Mr. Steward and his desk, which had the telephone. According to Mr. Steward, A.C. then stepped forward in a “violent motion” and threatening manner with his fists balled up and “chin checked” Mr. Steward. Detective Marin testified that “chin checking” was slang to describe a tap or touch on the chin primarily as a challenge, used to instigate a confrontation, but was not itself a punch. Mr. Steward testified that he “removed [A.C.] from [his] presence.” Mr. Steward said that then, A.C. moved toward him again with a threatening motion, and Mr. Steward responded: With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder. With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder and with my right hand I grabbed his left shoulder. With using his momentum I placed him on the ground, I did not throw him, I did not slam him, I placed him on the ground. He’s a very small person. As soon as I did that, I, I checked for my students who were in attendance to locate security. One or two of them left the class and then there began to be a stampede out of the classroom. From that moment on–-oh, oh, while I was holding him on the ground, A.C. began to violently struggle and make motions towards me. Then also the three other students began to grab and pull at me and grab, pull and push at me. Then for my own safety I didn’t know if these children were armed. I didn’t know anything, I let A.C. go and he and the three other students fled the classroom. Later that day, Principal Dunn was told that Mr. Steward had been in an altercation with a student. He asked the school resource officer, Tracy Moore, to investigate. The following morning, December 7, 2011, Principal Dunn called Mr. Steward to his office to discuss the incident. But for the meeting in Mr. Dunn’s office, Mr. Steward would have reported to his classroom. At the meeting, Mr. Steward’s behavior was a bit erratic. He was laughing, loudly and inappropriately, at the events of the previous day. Principal Dunn noticed that Mr. Steward’s eyes were glassy. Principal Dunn suspected that Mr. Steward was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Mr. Steward stated that his eyes were glassy and swollen because he was up the night before thinking about the incident with A.C. Principal Dunn called the region director and the Office of Professional Standards for advice on how to proceed. He kept Mr. Steward in his “custody,” so that Principal Dunn or the school would not be responsible if anything occurred. Principal Dunn completed a Reasonable Suspicion Form, noting that Mr. Steward had slow or inappropriate reactions, glassy and swollen eyes, and inappropriate laughter. He determined that there was probable cause to send Mr. Steward for a drug and alcohol screen. Mr. Steward was tested by LabCorp on December 7, 2011. The results were positive for marijuana. Mr. Steward’s exhibit offered to show that the lab sample which was tested was actually obtained on another day is not persuasive, and his argument that the test results should not be admitted is completely rejected. On January 5, 2012, a Conference for the Record was held with Mr. Steward, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Sherri Daniels of United Teachers of Dade, and Ms. Joyce Castro, district director. The events of December 7, 2011, and the test results were reviewed with Mr. Steward. He was given an opportunity to respond, but declined that opportunity. He was advised that a second positive drug test, refusal to submit to future drug tests, or failure to abide with rehabilitation directions could result in additional action, including dismissal. Mr. Dunn testified that the incidents had an effect upon Mr. Steward’s effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), and section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2011). It is further recommended that the Commission impose upon Cornell Lamont Steward a fine of $3,000.00 and revoke his educator certificate for a period of three years, at the expiration of which time he may receive a new certificate by meeting all certification requirements of the state board current at the time of his application, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Clarence Dixon received a Bachelor of Science degree with academic honors from Bethune-Cookman College. He was active in athletics and was rated "All-American" in football. He was employed by Piper High School for the 1980- 81 school year in his first teaching position. He was hired to teach physical education, and was encouraged by the principal of Piper High School to take an active part in the black community. Sandra Brown is employed at Piper High School as a security specialist. She met Dixon through their work association and asked Dixon to counsel her son, as she knew he respected Dixon. Mrs. Brown related several conversations wherein Dixon made sexual advances to her. Mrs. Brown was also involved in the initial school investigation of Dixon's alleged sexual improprieties with Piper High School students; Sharon Cooper is a 15-year-old female student at Piper High School. She had been upset over rumors that involved her reputation, and was considering leaving school over the matter. Dixon became aware of her problem end counseled her to remain in school and ignore the rumors. Carl Nadler, a 16-year-old student at Piper High School, overheard Cooper tell Dixon that, "All the guys say I suck dicks and fuck." This was the statement attributed to Dixon in Count 2 of the Petition. However, it appears that Dixon did not use these words, or at least did not use them in a sexually suggestive context. Lesia McGee is a 17-year-old student at Piper High School. She did not testify at the hearing due to illness, but the parties agreed to allow her deposition to be admitted as evidence associated with Count 5 of the Petition. Her testimony establishes that Dixon told her, "If you wear those purple pants again, I'm going to tongue you to death." Any doubt regarding the sexual implication of this statement was removed by remarks Dixon made to McGee on other occasions to the effect that she had a good figure and would she be enough of a lady not to tell anyone if she and Dixon were to make love. McGee readily admitted that Sandra Brown wanted her to exaggerate her complaint, but she refused. Her testimony indicated no animosity toward Dixon nor influence by Sandra Brown. Freddie Jones is a student at Piper High School. He informed another student, Sandra Cunningham, that Dixon had asked Jones to spread a rumor about her. Jones recanted his initial statement to investigators at the prehearing deposition. He returned to the allegation at the hearing, explaining that he had tried to help Dixon by lying at the deposition, but came to believe it was more important to tell the truth. Jones' testimony lacks credibility because of its inconsistency with his earlier sworn statement. Valynda Johnson is an eleventh grade student at Piper High School. She and Dixon had frequent contacts even though she was not his student. Several times Dixon sent her passes to leave class in order to meet him on the athletic field. Dixon concedes that he once sought to have her excused from class to do some typing for him. On one occasion, Dixon invited Johnson to a basketball game with him and on another to meet him at a convenience store. On two occasions, Dixon asked Johnson, "When are you going to let me do that?" or words of similar import. When she asked what he meant, he replied, "You know what I'm talking about." Johnson was unsure of Dixon's intentions, but believed that Dixon was probably seeking sexual relations with her. Although Johnson was confused on some of the details of her testimony, she was a generally credible witness, showing no animosity toward Dixon or influence by Sandra Brown. Rene Snelling is an 18-year-old student at Piper High School. Dixon and Snelling became friendly, and Dixon made periodic comments to her about her figure and potential for a modeling career. They also discussed a trip to visit a college in Kentucky. Although Dixon took only male students on this trip, he did bring back souvenir T-shirts for Snelling and several other students. Dixon also phoned Snelling at her home and once told her he had a gold chain for her. The comment on which Count 8 is based involved Dixon's question to Snelling, "If we ever had sex would you [Snelling] be ladylike enough not to tell anyone?" or words of similar meaning. This conversation took place in the school library where Snelling was working on a class assignment. Dixon denies making this statement but recalls that when he asked to sit beside her in the library she replied that a nice-looking man like Dixon could sit next to her. Although Snelling was unsure of some of the details of her contacts with Dixon, she was a generally credible witness and showed no animosity toward Dixon or influence by Sandra Brown. Hooker T. Robinson is a 18-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard Rene Snelling tell another student that if Coach Dixon were not so dedicated to his wife she would fuck him. Robinson was called by Respondent apparently to discredit Snelling's testimony. However, Robinson's testimony indicates that a sexual attraction was developing between Dixon and Snelling which is consistent with the charges contained in Count 8. Darryl Allen is a 15-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard Chanita Austin, Rene Snelling and Valynda Johnson discussing Dixon in early January. He heard one of them say, "He [Dixon] is acting so high class and doesn't speak anymore," or words of similar import. Darwin Taylor is a 15-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard a discussion between Sandra Brown and Rene Snelling about February wherein Mrs. Brown stated to Snelling, "Don't worry, we've got him where we want him." Taylor further overheard Mrs. Brown advise Snelling to tell the judge that Dixon gave her a gold chain and tried to touch her and have sex with her. This testimony and that of students Lesia McGee and Chanita Austin (deposition) establishes that Mrs. Brown either intentionally or in the zeal of her investigation encouraged exaggerations. However, the students testifying in this proceeding recognized this and were net swayed by Mrs. Brown's encouragement. The testimony of Piper High School students Alvin Williams, Eugene Wimbs and Ernest Merrell is not material and is accorded no evidentiary weight herein. The depositions of Piper High School students Sandra Anderson, Chanita Austin and Jackie Dawson do not contain evidence relevant to the charges herein and are likewise accorded no weight. The testimony of Anthony Ash, Broward County CTA representative, and Andrew Thomas of the Broward County School System, involve procedural matters not directly relevant to factual questions at issue here. The Respondent denies making the statements and other improper conduct attributed to him by the witnesses. He points out that the complaining witnesses are all from the same neighborhood and are all below-average students. He theorizes that they were confused over factual matters and did not appreciate the damage their statements could have upon him, and that they were unduly influenced by Sandra Brown. The testimony of these Piper High School students, with the exception of Freddie Jones who changed his testimony, was generally credible. They demonstrated an appreciation for the gravity of their complaints and the potential impact on Dixon's career. They did not show any resentment toward Dixon, but rather viewed him as a friend or former friend. The witnesses were encouraged to come forward by Sandra Brown. As noted above, Mrs. Brown's investigative techniques were lacking in objectivity. However, there was no indication that any witness committed perjury as a result of improper influence by Mrs. Brown. Although it was apparent that the students did discuss this case among themselves, there was no indication of any conspiracy against Dixon.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts 3 and 4 of the Petition be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be found not guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2 and 6 of the Petition. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 5, 7 and 8 of the Petition. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be discharged from employment as a teacher by the Petitioner School Board of Broward County. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1244 SE Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Richard H. Frank, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
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 At issue herein is whether or not the teaching certificate of Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, should be revoked based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail for alleged violations of Sections 231.28 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Rules of the State Board of Education, as alleged in the Petition filed herein.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 150640, Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1979, covering the area of auto mechanics. During times material, Respondent has been employed in the public schools of Brevard County at Cocoa Beach High School as a shop teacher. He is currently on temporary duty elsewhere outside a classroom setting. This case was initiated based on a report received by the Florida Professional Practices Council on November 15, 1978, by officials of the Brevard County School Board alleging that Respondent may have committed acts providing grounds for revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.37, an investigation of the matter was undertaken and a report submitted to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council (Petitioner). On January 9, 1979, the Executive Committee found that there existed probable cause to believe that Respondent was guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate, which finding was forwarded to the Commissioner of Education who also found such probable cause and directed the filing of the instant Petition filed herein on January 25, 1979. Said Petition alleged that Respondent had engaged in conduct that is "inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, conduct which is not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Raymond A. Brooks and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect." It is further alleged that his alleged conduct reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee. The material allegations of the Petition are that: Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a teacher at Cocoa Beach High School, entered into discussions with students in his classroom regarding the growth and cultivation of marijuana, which led them to believe that he condoned the use of marijuana. Respondent allowed students to clean stems and seeds from marijuana in his classroom. Respondent allowed students to roll marijuana cigarettes in his classroom. Respondent allowed students to bring marijuana to his classroom. Respondent bought a camera from a student who told him the camera was stolen. Respondent misrepresented to students, provisions of the school's student handbook regarding possession of marijuana on school grounds. Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana. On March 27, 1979, Respondent answered the allegations admitting jurisdiction, but denying the substantive allegations contained in the Petition. The Petitioner presented the testimony of eight (8) male high school students: Perry Morton, Paulo Carlini, Mark Murphy, Thomas Miller, John Gore, Hugh Baker, John Mason and Kirk Vanomer (by deposition). In addition, Petitioner offered the testimony of H. D. Smith, Principal of Cocoa Beach High School, who testified that, in his opinion, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Brevard County School System had been seriously reduced as a result of the alleged misconduct on Respondent's part. All of the student witnesses who testified were enrolled in Respondent's fourth period power mechanics class and were present when Respondent discussed the growing of marijuana with them in their classroom during their fourth period class. It suffices to say that according to their testimony, Respondent explained to them how to cut marijuana stalks in order to increase the potency of marijuana in the plant leaves. Respondent also made known to his fourth period students his personal belief that marijuana should be legalized. Testimony also reveals that at least on one occasion, Respondent told his students that they could roll a joint in his class but that they could not light it up. Student Carlini also testified that other teachers at the high school talked to them about drugs. (TR. 34-35) The testimony is clear that all of the student witnesses recalled Respondent advising them that the possession and use of marijuana was against school regulations and against the law. In this regard, Respondent testified that when the subject of marijuana came up during a free period in class, he related what information he knew based on his personal observations and a pamphlet provided him by the Brevard Sheriff's Department to advise students and address questions posed to him by such students. And, as stated, Respondent advised students that it was his personal opinion that the use of marijuana should be legalized based on the costs of enforcement and increased revenues derived from a "use" tax on marijuana. Respondent further testified that he neither advocated nor condoned the use of marijuana. In support of its allegations that Respondent permitted and/or allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom, Petitioner presented the testimony of student Paulo Carlini. Carlini acknowledged the fact that during each of two prior days before the date in question, he and other students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Carlini further acknowledged that Respondent told them that the possession of marijuana was against school regulations. A second witness presented by Petitioner was Perry Morton. Morton testified that he gave a bag of marijuana to Joe Schraffenberger during class on the day of the incident in questions. Like Carlini, Morton acknowledged that during the two days immediately preceding the incident the students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. The purpose of this was to trick the teachers and administration into believing that they had marijuana in their possession and then embarrassing them when it proved to be pencil shavings. Rollin Burch, one of the student witnesses who testified indicated that he also saw pencil shavings being rolled that day on which it is alleged that the Respondent permitted marijuana cigarettes to be rolled in his class. The substance claimed to be marijuana was not presented during the hearing. Additionally, Respondent denied having any knowledge of marijuana in his classroom, nor did he give permission for his students to roll marijuana in his classroom. Respondent testified that on the two days prior to the incident involved herein, several students had been rolling pencil shavings contained in a transparent bag in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Respondent, on each of the two days in question, checked the bag and the cigarettes to make sure that what they were rolling were in fact pencil shavings. On each instance, pencil shavings were being rolled by the students. On the day of the incident, Respondent was busy working at his desk on student failure reports that were due. Carlini showed him a transparent bag and asked permission to roll the substance inside. Respondent glanced up, viewed what he thought to be pencil shavings, nodded his consent and resumed work on his reports. Later, seeing a rolled cigarette, Respondent smelled it, concluded that it smelled like pencil shavings, and returned it to the student. Finally, in response to the allegations that Respondent misrepresented school regulations by permitting students to roll marijuana in his classroom, Respondent acknowledged that he made the statement that, "You can roll them, but you can't light them up." Respondent further acknowledged that he represented to the students that nothing in the school regulations prohibited the rolling of pencil shavings into the form of marijuana cigarettes, although all smoking is prohibited. During the period in which the pencil shavings were being rolled, a student asked whether he could smoke one of the pencil shaving cigarettes, whereupon Respondent replied: "You can roll them, but don't light them up." All of the students testified during cross-examination that the above statement was made during the time when pencil shavings were being rolled. Respondent confronted several students in a prohibited area of the school grounds and advised them that they should carefully return to the school grounds inasmuch as Dean Wright was in the area. By such statement, the students apparently assumed that Respondent knew that they were there to "smoke some pot." Marijuana was never mentioned and, although Respondent's comment was made in the form of a warning, the students assumed that Respondent knew some of them smoked marijuana and that that was their purpose for being there. The students questioned on the subject acknowledged that at the time of the incident, they were doing nothing illegal and that Respondent had no way of knowing their purpose for being in that area. The Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the allegation that the Respondent bought a camera which he knew was stolen. Finally, Petitioner, through the testimony of Principal H. D. Smith, urges a finding that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace and disrespect or that it has impaired his effectiveness a teacher. Principal Smith acknowledged the fact that Respondent was employed to teach power mechanics and vocational shop during his tenure as principal for the past three years. Principal Smith, prompted by reports that he received from two parents and a student, Kirk Vanomer, contacted school security who investigated reports that Respondent was permitting students to clean seeds and roll marijuana in his power mechanics class. (TR. 119-120) Based on the findings of the investigation conducted by school security, Principal Smith voiced his opinion that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics in that he permitted students to engage in an activity that was "both criminal and in violation of school board regulations." (TR. 126) Principal Smith pointed to page 25 of the School Board Regulations, Section 44.7, which provides in pertinent part that, "It is against school board regulations for students to have possession of or be under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages." He further testified that students are given copies of the student handbook during the pre-planning period (the first week of the school year) and that the teachers are responsible for advising students of their rights and responsibilities as related to the student handbook. (TR. 128) Principal Smith indicated that several parents called in inquire about what disciplinary measures would be taken against Respondent and that several students had expressed anxiety to him about being assigned to Respondent's inasmuch as they had testified against him. (TR. 130-131) George Arthur Powell, Jr., a woodworking instructor at Brevard County Public School System for approximately fifteen years, testified that the Respondent is regarded as a strict disciplinarian among fellow teachers in the school system. Mr. Powell testified that he encountered disciplinary problems with the administration supporting him with respect to his attempts to discipline students at Cocoa Beach High School. According to Mr. Powell, during the October of 1978, he queried Respondent about students using fake marijuana cigarettes rolled from pencil dust or shavings from sawdust. Powell testified that based on his experience, it would serve no purpose to send a student to the administrators for disciplining inasmuch as the administration would probably make fund of the instructor who made such a referral. (TR. 142-144) The Respondent testified on his own behalf indicating that he had been employed by the Brevard County School District for approximately eight years during which time he had taught auto mechanics and mathematics. Prior to the subject incident, Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings. During his initial employment as a teacher at Rockledge High School, Respondent was admonished because of his strict enforcement of the discipline code. During this same period, Respondent's performance and evaluation ratings were excellent. When Respondent was transferred to Cocoa Beach High School during the school year 1978, he was questioned extensively by Principals Hank Smith and Nelson Rutledge regarding his policy on discipline. Testimony reveals that Respondent was selected due to his reputation for being a strict disciplinarian at Rockledge High School during the prior six years. As previously stated, Respondent voiced his opinion that marijuana should be legalized based on the fact that millions of dollars are spent of taxpayers' money each year to "corral, confiscate and apprehend the various pushers and peddlers of drugs and marijuana." Secondly, he indicated that if marijuana was a controlled substance, the taxpayer or the government would realize some revenue from the legalization. Finally, he thought that if marijuana was controlled, like tobacco, alcohol and drugs, it could be regulated and the taxpayers would realize revenues rather than expending revenues to police the borders, towns and cities for pushers and sellers. (TR. 157) Respondent conveyed this opinion to his students during discussions when the subject of marijuana, etc. was initiated or brought up in class. (TR. 158) Respondent denied telling students that he condoned the use of marijuana or advocated its use and advised them that it was illegal, both lawfully and by school rule and regulation, to possess marijuana; that the penalties were whatever the law imposed because in most cases, the student not only received a school suspension but also faced a juvenile court judge because it (possession) was definitely illegal. (TR. 160-161) Respondent admitted advising students, in response to questions posed to him, about the cultivation of drugs. Respondent denied any knowledge that marijuana was, in fact, being rolled in his classroom. Additionally, Respondent denied that he served as a "lookout" for a group of students. (TR. 174) Inasmuch as the instant proceeding is one wherein the Respondent's means of livelihood is threatened, the evidence to substantiate the allegations must be both clear and convincing. See The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1970), and Walker v. Florida State Board of Optometry, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). The mere fact of Respondent's warning students that they should return to a permissible area of the school grounds provides no basis of concluding that the Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana. Testimony reveals that the students were not smoking marijuana in the restricted area nor did the Respondent have any way of knowing the students' purpose for being in the restricted area. No evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent purchased a camera known to be stolen as alleged. Based on the evidence presented, no competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent, during class discussions, advocated or condoned the use of marijuana. Likewise, Petitioner failed to satisfy is burden of proof of establishing that Respondent allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom or misrepresent to the students, school regulations regarding such matters. Finally, in view of the above conclusions, Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect, or that his effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired, as alleged. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Petition filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Revocation filed herein be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 22nd day of August 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: RAYMOND A. BROOKS CASE NO. 79-478 /
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)
