Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Lawrence A. Longenecker formerly held a Florida teaching certificate, and was employed as a science teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School in Pinellas County until January of 1978. In January of 1978, administrative charges were brought against the petitioner by the Professional Practices Council (the predecessor to the Education Practices Commission) for the revocation of his teaching certificate. After a hearing before a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, it was found that petitioner had made sexual advances toward three female students on four separate occasions during 1977 and that petitioner was thus guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee. The Hearing Officer recommended, by order dated November 25, 1980, that petitioner's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence Longenecker, DOAH Case No. 80-1276 (November 25, 1980). By Final Order filed on February 2, 1981, the Education Practices Commission adopted the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and permanently revoked petitioner's teaching certificate. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence A. Longenecker, Case NO. 80-005-RT (February 2, 1981). No appeal was taken from this Final Order. In approximately March of 1983, petitioner filed an application for a Florida Teaching Certificate, which application was denied by the Department of Education. Its "Notice of Reasons" for denial, filed on June 30, 1983, recited the events which formed the bases for the prior permanent revocation of petitioner's teaching certificate, and concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he is of good moral character, as required by Section 231.17(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that petitioner had committed acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teacher's certificate. Petitioner was 28 and 29 years of age during the time of the acts which formed the basis for the prior certificate revocation. He is now 34 years old. Since 1978, he has obtained a Master's degree in personnel administration from the University of South Florida and has been employed in the area of retail management. He fees that he is now more mature and more wise and would like to return to his chosen profession of teaching school. During the pendency of the instant proceeding, petitioner visited Dr. Alfred Fireman for psychiatric counseling and evaluation on three occasions. It was Dr. Fireman's opinion that petitioner is psychologically fit to reenter the teaching profession provided that his behavior is monitored. He concluded that petitioner "was a suitable candidate for a probationary restoration of privileges." The Education Practices Commission has never reinstated a former certificate or issued a new teaching certificate to an individual whose certificate had been previously permanently revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1984. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue SW Largo, Florida 33540 J. David Holder, Esquire Berg & Holder 128 Salem Court Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Greisheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 125, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher's aide in a mentally handicapped classroom for the past three years. Prior to her employment, Respondent, who is the mother of a handicapped child, worked as a volunteer classroom aide. She is active in the Parent Teacher Association and is a girl scout leader. Respondent attended an orientation session at the beginning of the 1983-84 school year where school policies were discussed. However, she does not remember any explanation of corporal punishment policy and did not receive a copy of Petitioner's rules on this subject. Respondent has had no formal training in education and is not certificated. Respondent recalls a discussion at the beginning of the school year with the special education teacher who was her supervisor. The teacher advised Respondent not to hit Robert Pelligrino because his sister would likely take legal action. The teacher concedes that she made a special point of telling Respondent not to strike Robert Pelligrino, but claims to have forgotten everything else about the discussion including the reason for this unusual warning. On or about February 3, 1984, while engaged in her duties as a teacher's aide, Respondent slapped the student Robert Pelligrino in the face. She struck the child with sufficient force to leave a mark which was visible for a brief period following the incident. Although Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that Respondent struck Robert Pelligrino, she readily admitted doing so. However, Respondent claims she was merely trying to correct his finger-sucking habit. This alibi is rejected, in that events leading up to the incident provoked Respondent and caused her to believe that Robert needed to be disciplined while his unacceptable behavior was fresh in his mind. Robert, who is mentally handicapped, tripped a smaller, handicapped student who fell and was injured as a result of Robert's action. Respondent first went to the aid of the injured student and immediately thereafter slapped Robert. The two other incidents were attested to by Robert's sister, Mrs. Donna Ferrell, who was serving as a volunteer aide on February 1, 1984. Mrs. Ferrell and Respondent were both working with a group of handicapped children on the occasion of a class field trip. Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent beating on the chest of one student in an effort to re-attach a "stick-on" name tag which the child had removed. Later, on the bus, Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent reach out and strike or tap a student on the top of his head to gain his attention. This evidence did not establish that Respondent injured either student, that she used undue force, or that she was attempting to punish either of them.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing its charges against Respondent. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of September, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Herman L. Tyler, failed to fulfill provisions of a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties, dated February 22, 2005, that became part of a Final Order of Petitioner, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a state-certified law enforcement officer and instructor holding certificates in each area of certification. On May 10, 2005, Petitioner issued a Final Order adopting a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the parties. The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement specifically states in paragraph 2, the following: The Respondent agrees as a condition of settlement of this cause to a one-year period of probation of his Instructor Certificate beginning fifteen days following entry of a final order in this cause. The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement specifically states in paragraph 3, the following: As a condition of probation, the Respondent shall enter into and provide Staff with proof of successful completion of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission or Staff-approved course in ethics prior to the expiration of the term of his probation. As noted above, the Final Order required Respondent to provide proof of his completion of an approved ethics course within a one-year period of probation. The Respondent failed to provide proof of completion of an approved ethics course as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order revoking Respondent, Herman L. Tyler's, instructor certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 11th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Herman L. Tyler Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by reason of his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Hillsborough Corrections Institute on October 19, 1990 as a trainee and entered the Corrections Officer Academy (Academy) the following Monday, October 22, 1990. The Academy is run by Hillsborough Community College under the guidelines established by the Florida Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Completion of the Academy is a prerequisite for certification. Section 943.13, Florida Statutes. After successfully completing the Academy the trainees are promoted to probation correction officers for nine months and assigned to a correction facility. Petitioner, while in the Academy, reinjured a military service connected injury and was unable to attend and participate in the self-defense portion of the curriculum while it was given. He presented a doctor's certificate that he should avoid walking or running exercises for a prolonged period of time (Exhibit 4). Petitioner was advised more than once that he would need to take the self-defense portion of the Academy curriculum before he could be certified and that he had six months in which to take this portion of the training. At least two and possibly three classes were available to Petitioner during the six month period following the graduation of his class in which he could have taken the Self-Defense portion of the curriculum. Petitioner attended the graduation ceremonies with his class but he did not receive a certificate that he had completed the Academy. Immediately following the graduation ceremony Petitioner received the same 10% pay raise the other trainees received. Hillsborough Correction Institute (HCI) was not aware that Petitioner had not successfully completed the Academy until May 2, 1991. At this time the personnel manager at HCI accompanied by Major Berry went to the superintendent with the problem and recommended Petitioner's dismissal. With HCI laboring under the false assumption that Petitioner had completed the Academy and was eligible for certification, he had been allowed to work in the prison compound. Since only certified correctional officers are allowed to so work, the Institute was exposed to legal liability if any injury had occurred to a prisoner or a corrections officer and Petitioner had been involved in the incident. Effective May 6, 1991, Petitioner was terminated because he had not successfully completed the Academy within the time specified. Petitioner contends that two white correction officer trainees were treated differently than he was treated, but could testify only to what he had heard from other correction officers. The two trainees referred to by Petitioner were David Collins and a Ms. Duhamel. Respondent presented evidence (Exhibit 2) that Collins had been a corrections officer in another state. His application for employment at HCI was sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for review of his training. FDLE advised HCI that Collins needed only 40 hours of additional training and he was enrolled at Hillsborough Community College. Subsequent to the completion of this training, FDLE found they had made an error and Collins needed an additional 40 hours of training. He was sent back to Hillsborough Community College for this training. Ms. Duhamel received work related injuries to her back while she was taking the self-defense training and was placed on Workers' Compensation for an extended period. She was subsequently certified after successfully completing all of the hours and courses required at the Academy. Petitioner presented no evidence that his race played any part in the decision to terminate his employment. Despite this lack of evidence from Petitioner, Respondent presented evidence that all trainees who do not complete the Academy are terminated in employment and cited four specific instances in which three of the dismissed trainees were white.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered dismissing the petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice filed by Christopher Hooks against the Florida Department of Corrections. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Christopher Hooks Post Office Box 310623 Tampa, Florida 33602 Dana Baird, General Counsel Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Sec. Commission on Human Relation Department of Corrections Building F, Room 240 2601 Blair Stone Road 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Tallahassee, FL 32303 4149 Louis A. Vargas Margaret Jones, Clerk General Counsel Commission on Human Relation Department of Corrections Building F, Room 240 2601 Blair Stone Road 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Tallahassee, FL 32303 4149
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 422775 (graduate, rank 3), which expires on June 30, 1984. She is certified to teach biology and health education at the secondary (grades 7-12) school level. She is now employed by the Duval County School Board as a teacher at Douglas Anderson Middle School. (Testimony of Cobb; Prehearing Stipulation; P-4.) In January, 1974, Respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor crime: the obtaining of public assistance by fraud in violation of Section 409.325, Florida Statutes. On January 28, 1974, the County Court of Duval County adjudged her guilty and placed her on probation. (P-1.) On November 23, 1976, the State Attorney of Duval County filed a criminal Information charging Respondent with petit larceny. Essentially, he alleged that, on November 21, 1976, she took merchandise belonging to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., without paying for it. On November 30, 1976, she entered a plea of nolo contendere to the petit larceny charge; she was adjudged guilty by the County Court of Duval County and sentenced to pay a $50 fine and court costs. (P-2.) In July, 1978, Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate. Section V of the application asked: "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation"? By marking the appropriate space, she answered "No". (P-3.) She executed the application before a notary public on July 14, 1978; she expressly certified that: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 F.S.) I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. Pursuant to her application, and in reliance upon the representation that she had never been arrested or involved in a crime, the Florida Department of Education issued her the teacher's certificate which she now holds. (Testimony of Lee; P-4.) At the time she completed her application, Respondent was aware of her criminal record and knew that she had been involved in at least one criminal offense--the 1976 offense of petit larceny. At hearing, she could not explain why she denied any past involvement in a criminal offense: Q.: [Counsel for Commissioner] : So, you knew [when you applied for a teacher's certificate] that you had been involved in a criminal history or had had an involvement with the law? A.: [Respondent]: In '76, yes. Q.: Okay, why didn't you put, "yes"? A.: I just didn't. Q.: But you . . . you knew you had been involved in a criminal offense. A.: In '76, yes. : So then why didn't you put, "yes"? A.: I just didn't. (Tr. 126.) It must be concluded that Respondent knowingly falsely represented to the Department of Education that she had no prior involvement in any criminal offense; that she misrepresented her criminal record in order to obtain a Florida teacher's certificate. (Testimony of Cobb; P-1, P-2, P-3.) Whether an applicant has ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense is a material factor in the Department's evaluation of an application. An application may be denied if the applicant has committed acts which would justify suspension or revocation of a teaching certificate; it is likely-- although not certain--that, if the Department was aware of Respondent's past criminal record, her application would have been denied. (Testimony of Lee.) When Respondent submitted an application for employment with the Duval County School Board on July 24, 1978, she falsely answered "No" to the question: "Have you ever been arrested for any other offense other than minor traffic violations"? (Tr. 49.) She knew her answer was false 2/ . Had her criminal record been revealed, she would not have been recommended for employment. (Testimony of Epting, Cobb.) From October 7, 1978, to November 11, 1978, Respondent obtained unemployment compensation even though she was employed by the City of Jacksonville. She obtained the unemployment compensation by falsely indicating she was not employed. Consequently, a criminal Information was filed on April 29, 1980, by the State Attorney of Duval County charging her with unemployment compensation fraud. On June 4, 1980, she pleaded guilty to the charge; however, the Circuit Court of Duval County withheld adjudication, placed her on probation for one year, sentenced her to three weekends in county jail, and directed that she make complete restitution of the funds wrongfully collected. (P-6.) Respondent acknowledges that she knew her action was wrong, that she knew she was not entitled to the unemployment compensation funds. She explains that she was in financial need and behind on her house payment; she feels her actions were justified, under the circumstances, because Jacksonville (her employer) had promised that she would continue to be employed. Instead--after she had incurred long-term financial commitments--Jacksonville terminated her employment. She has now made full restitution for the wrongfully taken funds. (Testimony of Cobb.) Respondent has been an effective and satisfactory teacher during the 1980-1981 school year. Her ratings have been the highest possible; she has shown initiative and established rapport with her students. Her principal recently promoted her to chairman of the science/health department and recommended that she be reemployed for the 1981-1982 school term. (Testimony of Poppell; R-1.) Teachers in Duval County are held to a high standard of character and conduct. A teacher's involvement in crime would tend to violate those standards; parents would be unwilling to entrust the education of their children to such an individual. (Testimony of Poppell.) The Commissioner's proposed findings of fact have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's Teacher's Certificate, No. 422775. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 3rd day of November, 1981
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practice Commission should grant Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed February 22, 1995, Petitioner requested an initial two-year nonrenewal temporary teaching certificate and a two-year part-time coaching certificate. The application discloses that Petitioner was born July 24, 1960. A question on the form asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic accident (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. The additional information requested on the form, if the "yes" box is checked, provides spaces for the following information: "city where arrested," "State," "Charge(s)," and "Disposition(s)." In response to this question, Petitioner checked the "yes" box and filled in the three spaces provided. Petitioner disclosed that, in East Williston, New York, in 1978, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." (This would mean driver's license because Petitioner answered in the negative the next question on the form, which asks whether he had ever had a teaching certificate revoked or otherwise disciplined in another state.) Petitioner also disclosed that, in Roslyn, New York, in 1979, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." Last, Petitioner disclosed that, in Mineola, New York, in 1986, he was charged with "Disorderly-Conduct" and the disposition was "Plead Guilty/Paid Fine [and] Placed on Probation." On a separate sheet of paper attached to the February 22 application and entitled "Arrest/Revocation Record," Petitioner disclosed: In addition to the records I have provided you, I was arrested several other times around the year 1980, and I don't recall the exact dates and dispositions--they were misdemeanors for disorderly conduct, and the charges were either dismissed or reduced and a fine paid. In signing the application, which is acknowledged by a notary, Petitioner attests that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed March 11, 1994, Petitioner requested only a two-year part-time coaching certificate. This application is identical to the first except in the disclosure of convictions. In the March 11 application, Petitioner disclosed the East Williston and Roslyn offenses, although the years changed to 1979 and 1980, respectively. Instead of a Mineola offense in 1986, Petitioner listed an Old Westbury offense in 1986. The Old Westbury offense was also for disorderly conduct and the disposition was a guilty plea and payment of fine, although the probation was omitted. Petitioner did not disclose on a separate sheet or otherwise the additional material disclosed on the separate sheet attached to the February 22 application. Petitioner has passed the relevant portions of the examination required of teachers and has met the conditions for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate except for issues in connection with his criminal history. By letter dated February 23, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application for a Florida teaching certificate had been denied. The letter refers to an accompanying Notice of Reasons. The Notice of Reasons recites that Petitioner filed an application for a Florida teaching certificate in March 1994. The Notice of Reasons notes that Petitioner disclosed only three of ten criminal convictions and concludes that the nondisclosures and convictions themselves constitute violations of the statutes and rules cited in the Preliminary Statement above. On February 19, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, driving under the influence, and operating a vehicle without a license. This and all other arrests took place in Nassau County, New York. On May 10, 1979, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charges of disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $500 fine, alcohol rehabilitation, and restriction of his driver's license to business and school. On September 27, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and two counts of criminal mischief. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a reduced charge of two counts of disorderly conduct. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $75 restitution payment or 10 days in jail and conditionally discharged him. On November 25, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and driving under the influence. The former charge was dismissed. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, driving under the influence. The court sentenced him to a $200 fine and revocation of his driver's license. On January 12, 1982, Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault. On April 12, 1982, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of harassment. The court deferred disposition and conditionally discharged Petitioner pending payment of $32 restitution. On May 19, 1984, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. On April 1, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charge of attempted criminal mischief. The court unconditionally discharged him. On May 26, 1985, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and resisting arrest. On June 12, 1986, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the charges. The court sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation. On November 5, 1986, Petitioner was arrested and charged with harassment and resisting arrest. On December 1, 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, both charges. The court conditionally released Petitioner. Petitioner is recovering from dependencies on alcohol and drugs. In 1987, he entered a rehabilitation clinic on Pine Island where he underwent a month's treatment. He then entered a halfway house in Ft. Myers for three months. He regularly attends Alcoholic Anonymous meetings and obtains counseling. Prior to obtaining treatment, Petitioner attended St. Johns University and the Berklee College of Music, evidently without obtaining any degrees. Since treatment, Petitioner obtained in 1989 an Associate Arts degree from Edison Community College in Ft. Myers and in 1992 a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Emerson College in Boston with a major in acting and a minor in literature. While in Boston pursuing the BFA degree, Petitioner taught writing to gifted high school students and voluntarily performed for high school students plays that Petitioner had written and produced. He also tutored inner city students in reading. In April 1994, Petitioner obtained a statement of eligibility from Respondent. This allowed him to teach for up to two years, during which time he had to apply for a temporary nonrenewable teaching certificate. In August 1994, Petitioner was employed to teach seventh grade social studies and reading at Cypress Lake Middle School in Lee County. After a month, he was transferred to the special education department where he taught students in the middle-school drop-out prevention program. While at the school, Petitioner served as an assistant coach on the girls' basketball team and the boys' baseball team. The principal of the school terminated Petitioner's contract February 21, 1995, evidently when he learned that Respondent would be denying him a Florida teaching certificate. Petitioner has since been employed as a teacher by a private school in Lee County. Petitioner relied on advice from a well-meaning friend when he filed a second application a couple of weeks after filing the first application. The friend had told Petitioner that he could apply for a coaching certificate without applying on the same application for a two-year temporary teaching certificate. The innocent filing of two separate applications generated confusion for both Petitioner and Respondent. When denying Petitioner's request for a teaching certificate, Respondent inadvertently omitted mention of the first application. Similarly, when filing the second application, Petitioner inadvertently failed to include the separate sheet that he included with the first application. However, Respondent already had the separate sheet from the first application. It would be as disingenuous for Respondent to claim lack of knowledge, as to the second application, of the disclosures contained on the separate sheet attached to the first application as it would be for Petitioner to claim that the denial of the second application is not also intended to be a denial of the first application. The adequacy of the disclosures on the separate sheet is a separate matter. The two applications refer to two of the three 1979 arrests and report sentences of revocation of driver's license. The three 1979 arrests actually resulted in convictions for disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol (February 1979 arrest), disorderly conduct (September 1979 arrest), and driving under the influence (November 1979 arrest). The actual sentences were, respectively: $500 fine, driving restrictions, and alcohol rehabilitation; $75 restitution; and license revocation and $200 fine. The first two disclosures do a fair job of revealing Petitioner's first three convictions, especially given the fact that they took place 15 years ago when Petitioner was 18 and 19 years old. Obviously, one arrest/conviction is missing, but it appears that the court disposed of the second and third arrests at the same time and possibly in a consolidate proceeding. This may account for Petitioner's recollection that the second and third arrests were a single case. Also, the separate sheet addresses omissions. The dates are a little off, but the first arrest was early in 1979, and the consolidated disposition of the second and third arrests was in 1980. As reported by Petitioner, the charges are roughly correct, and the dispositions suggest the seriousness of the offenses. It is hard to tell which conviction the third reported arrest signifies. After the three 1979 arrests, there were four more convictions for which Petitioner had to account. To his credit, Petitioner identified 1986 as the year of the arrest, so as not to suggest that his criminal problems were further behind him than they really were. Although none of the actual arrests or convictions is for disorderly conduct, which is what Petitioner reported on the application forms, all four of the convictions could be fairly described as disorderly conduct. The reported and actual dispositions do not preclude the possibility that Petitioner was identifying any of the four arrests. Thus, Petitioner was probably disclosing the November 1986 arrest on the application forms, and he did a reasonably complete job of doing so. The disclosure question is therefore whether the separate sheet adequately accounts for the convictions arising out of the 1982, 1984, and 1985 arrests. These arrests took place "around the year 1980," as Petitioner reported on the separate sheet. "Disorderly conduct," as stated on the separate sheet, roughly describes the nature of the offenses, although less so the nature of the arrests, which is what Petitioner claims on the separate sheet to be describing. In fact, Petitioner paid restitution of $32 once, was unconditionally discharged once, and was placed on probation once. The reported fine in each case serves as reasonable disclosure, at least where no jail time is involved. On balance, Petitioner's disclosures did more than place Respondent on inquiry notice. The disclosures were reasonably accurate and detailed. They gave a fair picture of the kind of trouble that Petitioner got into at that point in his life. Respondent's case is based on Petitioner's unfitness to teach based on his alleged dishonesty in the application process and his past criminal behavior. Once the question of dishonesty in the application process is resolved in favor of Petitioner, the remaining focus is on his behavior 9-15 years ago when he was 18-26 years old. The number of arrests and convictions is troubling. But the dispositions do not suggest offenses of extreme gravity. Petitioner is now 35 years old. He has rehabilitated himself in terms of intoxicants, as well as educationally. For many years, he has demonstrated a clear commitment to teaching and evidently is skilled in the profession. He has served his communities well and seeks to continue to do so as a teacher in Florida. Given the nature of the offenses, their age, and the age of Petitioner at the time he committed the offenses, there is no basis in the record to find that Petitioner is morally unfit to teach.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Education Practice Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner's February 1994 application for a Florida teaching and coaching certificate. ENTERED on October 6, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 6, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19-22: adopted or adopted in substance. 23-27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Attorney Jerry L. Lovelace 909 SE 47th Terrace, Suite 201 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Ronald G. Stowers Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline on Respondent in association with his Correctional Certificate, Law Enforcement Certificate, and Instructor Certificate?
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 19, 1984, and was issued Correctional Certificate No. 31730. On January 21, 1981, he had been issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 31731. Finally, on September 18, 1997, Respondent was issued Instructor Certificate No. 207101. On May 7, 2002, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at Hernando Correctional Institution (the facility) in Brooksville, Florida. He held the rank of sergeant. The facility has an area within its confines referred to as a control room. Within that control room are lock boxes containing keys. Those keys provide access to certain places within the facility. Only designated persons within the facility may open the lock boxes to obtain keys to gain access to the discrete areas within the institution. Other persons are not allowed to open the lock boxes to obtain the keys found in the lock boxes. On May 7, 2002, while in the control room, Respondent used channel lock pliers to manipulate the lock assembly on two separate lock boxes. Respondent was not entitled to access those lock boxes. The circumstances involving Respondent's attempt to access the lock boxes led to an investigation by the Department of Corrections Inspector General's Office. Inspector Cecil W. Rogers, II, an institutional inspector with the Department of Corrections was assigned to investigate the matter. As part of the investigation, Inspector Rogers interviewed Respondent using procedures consistent with the expectations of the interview process. In the interview Respondent was placed under oath before offering his responses. In the interview Inspector Rogers asked Respondent if the Respondent had attempted to unlock the lock boxes in any manner, or obtain entry into the lock boxes. Respondent replied that he did not enter the control room at the time he was accused of being there and did not try to access the boxes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the violations of the statutes and rules and suspending the Respondent's Correctional Certificate, Law Enforcement Certificate, and Instructor Certificate for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 29th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bob Bishop, Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should suspend, revoke, or otherwise discipline the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner herein.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 456761, covering the area of Elementary Education, which is valid through June 30, 1999. During the 1995-1996 school year, the Respondent was employed by the Sumter County School District as a reading teacher at Webster Elementary School. During the 1995-1996 school year, Shaun Boone was enrolled at Webster Elementary School as a fifth grade student. Shawn Boone was born on February 22, 1985, and was eleven years of age at the time of the incident. During the 1995-196 school year, Respondent taught reading to Shaun Boone in a "pullout program" in which students were assigned to go the Respondent's classroom each school day for fifty minutes. During the 1995-1996 school year, the Respondent shared a classroom with Patsy Rogers, another reading teacher. The room was divided in half by a row of bookshelves and file cabinets extending from one wall approximately three-quarters of the length of the room. Each teacher was assigned his and her own class of students. During Shaun's reading class on May 22, 1996, both the Respondent's and Ms. Rogers' students were gathered on the Respondent's side of the classroom to watch a videotape. During this class period Shaun was working on a reading exercise in Ms. Roger's side of the room. Shaun asked the Respondent for help with his reading exercise. The Respondent and Shaun sat down side by side at a table in Ms. Roger's area with the reading exercise papers on the table in front of them. The Respondent sat to the right of Shaun. Their backs were to the bookshelves and cabinets which divided the room. While seated in this position, the Respondent placed his left hand on top of Shaun's right leg and began to rub his leg. He then moved his hand up to Shaun's groin area and rubbed the student's genitals through his clothing. This touching occurred beneath the table in front of them. The Respondent's touching of his leg and genitals frightened Shaun. He immediately stood up and started to move away. As he stood up, the Respondent grabbed and squeezed his buttocks. Shaun slapped the Respondent's hand away from his buttocks and moved away from him. After school, Shaun went to Wednesday night church services; however, he told his parents what the Respondent had done to him at school that day when they got home from church. Shaun's father became very upset and, together with his wife, took Shaun to school the next morning. He met the school's principal, Ms. Carolyn Stephens, on the steps of the school when she arrived at 7:30 a.m. the next day, May 23, 1996. After speaking to the parents and interviewing the student. Ms. Stephens called the Superintendent of Schools to report the incident. Ms. Stephens was instructed to report the matter to the School Resource Officer and did so. Later on that same day, May 23, 1996, FDLE Special Agent (S/A) Alfred Danna arrived at Webster Elementary School to conduct an investigation at the request of the Sumter County Sheriff's office. S/A Danna was based in Tampa. Prior to that day, S/A Danna did not know any of the individuals involved in this matter. S/A Danna interviewed Shaun in the Principal's office. Shaun related the same information to S/A Danna that he had shared with his parents the previous day and with Ms. Stephens earlier on May 23. After interviewing Shaun, S/A Danna interviewed the Respondent in Ms. Stephens' office. S/A Danna explained to the Respondent that he did not have to talk with him. After initially denying any knowledge of the incident, the Respondent admitted to S/A Danna that he had accidentally touched Shaun's leg while getting out of his chair. After S/A agent Danna's confrontational questioning, the Respondent admitted that he had rubbed Shaun's leg and groin and touched his buttocks, but explained that he was an affectionate person and that the touchings were not intended to be sexual in nature, only affectionate. Based upon S/A Danna's investigation, the Respondent was arrested and charged by the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit with two counts of lewd and lascivious act upon a child under sixteen years of age. The charging information was filed on June 3, 1996. On February 6, 1997, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of Battery. The Respondent was adjudicated by the Court to be guilty of Battery and was sentenced to probation for one year, and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine within nine months. The Respondent was specifically ordered to have no contact with children under 18 without adult supervision and to not teach anyone under the age of 18 while on probation. Based upon the report of the incident described above, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the Sumter County School Board and remained under suspension at the time of the formal hearing on September 9, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and considering the disciplinary guidelines, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 489 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sabellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34584 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
