The Issue Whether the employment of Petitioner, Cornelius B. Frankliln, was improperly terminated by Respondent, The School Board of Seminole County, in the summer of 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, C.B. Franklin, began service with the School Board of Seminole County in the position of teacher in the 1951-52 academic year. In 1955, Petitioner was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Respondent in the position of teacher. Said continuing contract was in effect at all times relevant hereto. Petitioner was last employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as an Assistant Principal II at Sanford Middle School on an annual contract of employment, which terminated of June 10, 1989. During his employment at Sanford Middle School as an assistant principal from 1980 through 1988, Petitioner received satisfactory annual evaluations. In March, 1988, Owen McCarron, Assistant Superintendent, applied a "staffing formula" for each school in Seminole County. The staffing formula is not a school board rule but is a formula that the school board approves based upon student population to determine the number of teachers, secretaries, assistant principals, and others needed at each specific school. Mr. McCarron is responsible for the application of the formula. The application of the formula is not submitted to the school board for approval. Mr. McCarron made a mistake in the preparation of the staffing formula for 1988/89. The mistake made was that the number of assistant principals for Sanford Middle School would be reduced from two to one. Having been informed of a reduction, Dan Pelham, Principal, Sanford Middle School, determined that he would have to choose among the Assistant Principal II's employed and decided not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner. Owen McCarron discovered the mistake and notified Dan Pelham, sometime in late March, 1989. However, Dan Pelham chose not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner but rather to advertise the position as being vacant. When Mr. Pelham was notified the position was reinstated he considered it to be an "opportunity" to consider alternative persons for the position. Mr. Pelham's decision was based on Petitioner's performance as reflected by his annual evaluations and faculty input. Mr. Pelham held a conference with Petitioner on April 8, 1988, and Petitioner was advised that his contract as an assistant principal at Sanford Middle School would not be renewed for the school year 1988-89, because the School Board had reduced the number of assistant principal positions at Sanford Middle School from two (2) positions to one (1). Petitioner was offered a teaching position, under his continuing contract status, at Sanford Middle School as a peer counselor. The Respondent did not act to approve the reduction in positions, nor was the Respondent notified that Petitioner was not being recommended for reemployment. The School Board does not have a rule to govern how the decision is to be made upon a reduction in staff. At the time of the hearing and at all relevant times prior thereto, Petitioner held a valid Florida Department of Education certification in the teaching fields of health education, physical education and supervision and administration. On or about June 9, 1989, one day prior to the expiration of Petitioner's contract as Assistant Principal II, the Petitioner met with Dan Pelham and John Reichert, Director of Personnel. At that time, Petitioner was again advised by Mr. Pelham that he had not changed his decision not to renew Petitioner as an assistant principal, even though he had been advised that the position had been restored. The Petitioner was advised that he could apply for the vacant Assistant Principal II position but he would have to submit an application and a resume. The Petitioner responded that Dan Pelham was well aware of his qualifications, and that a copy of his resume was on file. At that time, Mr. Pelham offered Petitioner the peer counselor position, but salary was not discussed. Petitioner was given copies of documents containing the job information for the position of peer counselor. The position had not previously existed and had not been advertised. Petitioner was reassured that he had employment with the School Board as a teacher under his continuing contract status. At the same meeting, Mr. Reichert advised Petitioner to accept the teaching position, and at the same time apply for the assistant principal vacancy at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner applied for state retirement on June 27, 1988, and his retirement was accepted by the School Board of Seminole County thereafter, on July 13, 1988. Prior to the time Petitioner submitted his application for retirement, he was verbally offered a teaching position under his continuing contract status for the 1988-89 school year at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner is an experienced school administrator, holds a master's degree in [school] administration and supervision from Rollins College, in Winter Park, Florida. As a component of his master's degree requirement he had instruction in school law. Petitioner was aware that his employment as an assistant principal was on the basis of an annual contract of employment and that the position was not entitled to continuing contract status. Petitioner did not apply for the position of Assistant Principal II (secondary) at Sanford Middle School, after it was declared vacant and advertised (in the Spring of 1988), even though he was told that he would be considered for reappointment to the position if he did. Petitioner was aware that if he accepted the offered position of peer counselor his pay would resume in the Fall of 1988, along with all of the other teachers, and that he would be paid at the top of the teaching salary scale on the basis of his thirty (30) plus years of service. Petitioner did not respond, verbally or in writing, to the offered position of peer counselor subsequent to its offer and prior to his retirement. Mr. L. David Pelham, the principal of Sanford Middle School, was not obligated to reappoint Petitioner to the position of assistant principal, after June 10, 1988. However, Petitioner was entiled to a performance assessment prior to that date. Mr. Pelham recognized that Petitioner held continuing contract status and was entitled to be placed in a teaching position at Sanford Middle School for the 1988-89 school year and thereafter. Petitioner never discussed his decision to retire with Mr. Reichert or Mr. Pelham. Neither person had any communications with Petitioner after the June 9, 1988 meeting. Petitioner's annual contract of employment clearly put him on notice that neither he nor the school board owed the other any further contractual obligation after June 9, 1988 and that he had no expectancy of employment as an assistant principal after June 10, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the affirmative relief sought by the Petitioner should be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that each party should bear their own costs and attorneys fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2007 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 (1st three sentences), 2, 3, 4 (1st sentence), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (except the last 2 sentences) - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 4 (2d sentence), 9,12 - Rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11 (except sentence 2)-Rejected as subservient. Respondents Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 through 26 - Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Hughes Superintendent of Schools c/o Seminole County School Board 1211 Melonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert, Whigham & Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32772-1330 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, or whether a lesser penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, William T. Simpson, who holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 94266, was suspended without pay from his position as principal of the Adult Division, St. Augustine Technical Center, St. Augustine, Florida on May 28, 1979, by W. Douglas Hartley, District School Superintendent, St. Johns County, Florida, pursuant to charges that Respondent misappropriated funds (Transcript, Page 54). Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, conducted an investigation, and its Executive Committee found probable cause to believe Respondent was guilty of acts providing grounds for revocation of his teaching certificate. The Executive Committee recommended to the Commissioner of Education that he find probable cause existed to believe that Respondent committed acts which provided grounds for revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate. The Commissioner found probable cause and directed that the "Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate" be filed. Respondent denied the material allegations and requested an administrative hearing. Subsequent to his suspension on May 28, 1979, Respondent resigned his position with the St. Johns County School Board and made restitution to the school board in the amount of $2,073.43. At the time of the administrative hearing Respondent was teaching at Edward Waters College in Jacksonville, Florida, which requires no state teaching certificate (Transcript, Page 79). Prior to commencement of the hearing, the parties filed the following instrument, which is copied in toto for clarity: JOINT STIPULATION AS TO JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS, MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, and Respondent, William T. Simpson, by and through their undersigned attorneys, jointly stipulate to the below-listed matters and consent to the admission of this Stipulation as evidence at the formal hearing of this cause scheduled for February 20, 1980, and pursuant to their stipulation and agreement, would state: JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS That the evidence would show that the Commissioner of Education, Ralph D. Turlington, pursuant to Section 231.18, Florida Statutes, and Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, by letter dated October 1, 1979, found probable cause existed and directed the filing of this Petition for the Revocation or Suspension of teacher certificate. That pursuant to Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, Petitioner has authority to file the Petition at issue in this cause. MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS That, on or about April 25, 1979, William T. Simpson failed to deposit into the St. Augustine Technical Center internal accounts fund approximately $95.00, collected by Dick Reis for a class in natural childbirth when these funds were placed in his care. That during the 1978-1979 school year, William T. Simpson failed to deposit into the St. Augustine Technical Center internal accounts fund approximately $45.00 turned in to him by Doris Blackshear which were fees for a slimnastics class. That, during the 1977-78 school year, William T. Simpson failed to deposit into the St. Augustine Technical Center internal accounts fund approximately $105.00 which were fees collected from the chemistry for nurses class and had been placed in his care and custody. That, during the winter of 1978, William T. Simpson failed to deposit into the St. Augustine Technical Center internal accounts fund approximately $75.25 from the sale of books for the chemistry class for nurses and which had been placed in his care and custody. That, during the 1978-79 school year, William T. Simpson failed to turn in or deposit into the St. Augustine Technical Center internal accounts fund registration monies received from 1) Mary Hutchins, 2) Clement Hutchins, 3) Carrie Jones, 4) Alice Terry, 5) Tammy Hill, 6) Sharon Wheeler, 7) Sandra Pomar, 8) Pauline Brown, 9) Shirley Gatchell, 10) Marge Supinger, 11) Shirley Foster, 12) Mary Robinson, 13) Enid Taylor, 14) Marie Peterson, 15) Mary Robinson, 16) Margaret Darty, and 17) Christopher Tipton, totaling approximately $545.00, which had been personally received by him.
Conclusions That the Petitioner and Respondent stipulate that the above-alleged stipulated facts are in violation of Section 6B-1 and Section 6B-5, Rules of the State Board of Education and St. Johns County School Board policies 9.24(6)(a)(7)(8)(9). That Respondent has made restitution to the St. Johns County School Board in the amount of $2,073.43. A "Motion to Strike and Answer of Respondent," filed by the Respondent on December 13, 1979, was withdrawn by Respondent, and allegations number 5 and number 7 of the Petition for Revocation of Teaching Certificate were dismissed. A ruling on the Motion to Dismiss allegation number 8, which alleged Respondent made telephone calls for which he did not pay was reserved and thereafter the Motion was denied. Petitioner called as witness the business manager of the St. Augustine Technical Center, who identified a telephone log entered into evidence as Petitioner's "Composite Exhibit 1" without objection. Many long distance calls were made between 1977 and 1979 by Respondent Simpson to telephone number 387- 1435 in Jacksonville, Florida. Sixty-two (62) calls were unlogged, and forty (40) calls were logged. The telephone number was traced to Jacksonville in Duval County and found to be registered in the name of a woman introduced by Respondent Simpson variously as his friend and companion and his fiance' (Transcript, Pages 18, 33 and 42). These personal long distance telephone calls totaled $74.79, and Respondent has not reimbursed the St. Johns County School Board for these calls. The Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, has recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of ten (10) years. Respondent has recommended that his privilege to act as an administrator in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of two (2) years. In mitigation of penalty, Respondent Simpson presented six (6) character witnesses. The Superintendent of Schools had known Respondent since about 1961 and had had no complaints of his classroom work as a high school English teacher or thereafter when Respondent was moved to administer the adult program until the problem of misappropriating funds came to the superintendent's attention. The superintendent would not employ the Respondent again in the adult education program or as an administrator, but hopes that Respondent has learned a lesson and after a probationary period would be agreeable to placing him in a classroom as a teacher (Transcript, Page 51). A member of the Board of Education would have no reservations about sending his children into a class taught by Respondent Simpson but would not like to have him as an administrator handling money (Transcript, Page 59). The Director of the Vocational, Technical Adult Program at St. Augustine Technical Center felt that Respondent Simpson had done an excellent job until the last eighteen (18) months of his administration, when his domestic problems caused him to reach a plateau and lose interest in his work (Transcript, Pages 61 and 62). The Director did not consider the taking of funds by Respondent Simpson "an insignificant mistake," but looked at the total picture of the man and would have no reservation about sending his children into a classroom where Respondent was teaching. The Supervisor of Secondary Instruction for the school board holds Respondent Simpson in high esteem as a teacher and, except for handling money, feels Respondent is a good administrator. An associate dean at St. Johns River Community College had found Respondent helpful and a good educator. Respondent Simpson's minister felt he was concerned about the students he instructed and worked well with the parents (Transcript, Page 74). Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, and Respondent Simpson submitted proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the teaching certificate of Respondent Simpson be revoked for a period of five (5) years from the date hereof, at which time he may apply for a new certificate as provided in Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 1902 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert M. Harris, Esquire 220 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Commissioner Ralph D. Turlington Department of Education Plaza Level 08 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hugh B. Ingram, Jr., Administrator Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(f), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 8., and, 6A- 10.081(2)(b)1., and 3., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. If it is found that Respondent has committed any of the statute or rule violations alleged, the penalty that should be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the documentary evidence admitted, and the record as a whole, the following facts are found: Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate Number 1294936, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and Reading, which was valid through June 30, 2020. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a Reading Teacher at Don Estridge High Tech Middle School ("Don Estridge") in the Palm Beach County School District. C.V.'s Relevant Background During the 2017-2018 school year, C.V. was an eighth-grade student at Don Estridge. Respondent was his intensive reading teacher. Intensive reading is a remedial course for students who are reading below grade level. Prior to working with Respondent, C.V.'s grades were below average. He received D's and F's in school. In 2016, C.V.'s mother, Renee Horn, married C.V.'s stepfather, Charles Horn. Prior to that marriage, C.V. was an only child living alone with his mother from the time he was two years old. C.V.'s stepfather also had children from a previous relationship. At the time C.V. met Respondent, his parents observed that he was having a difficult time adjusting to their newly- blended family. C.V.'s parents allowed him to spend time with his biological father. However, in their parental judgment, they believed that it was in C.V.'s best interest to limit visitation with his biological father. C.V.'s parents observed that C.V. displayed signs of non-characteristic fragility and volatility while he was under the instruction of Respondent, which concerned them. C.V.'s parents believed that the demonstrated emotional changes in C.V. were related to his friendship with Respondent and his resistance to the parents' desire to draw more boundaries with respect to that friendship. C.V. did not testify. Therefore, the source, or sources, of the behavioral issues observed by his parents and other adults around him were not conclusively established. Respondent's Relevant Background Respondent viewed herself as a teacher who was relatable to her students. She was an enthusiastic and energetic educator who enjoyed taking the time to help students whom she described as having previously slipped through the cracks. Respondent regularly provided extra help to students who requested it. Her door was open to any of her students who desired additional assistance with their school work. She regularly provided academic help to students during her lunch break. Tutoring C.V. first began receiving extra help with his school work from Respondent during his lunch period. In addition to C.V., Respondent regularly had between five and 15 other students in her classroom during the seventh-grade lunch period. This was also the time allotted to Respondent for her own lunch break. There was also a group varying between five and ten students whom she allowed to come to her classroom to work while she was teaching another class. Additionally, C.V. came to Respondent for help with his work in the mornings before school started. After C.V. began spending extra time working with Respondent, his grades improved. C.V.'s parents were aware of the correlation between the help from Respondent and the improvement in C.V.'s academic performance. In December of 2017, C.V.'s mother contacted Respondent and asked her to tutor C.V. outside of school on a private basis in exchange for payment. Respondent communicated with C.V.'s mother through email and text messages. Respondent authorized C.V.'s mother to give Respondent's cell phone number to C.V. so that he could communicate with her directly for educational purposes while the mother was at work. There was no evidence of the content of any text messages between Respondent and C.V. C.V. rode the school bus as his mode of transportation to return home after school. He was unable to stay after school for tutoring and still take the bus to get home. Although it was common for teachers to tutor students at a public library located near Don Estridge, Respondent found that when doing so, she often had to wait with students after tutoring sessions at the library for parents to arrive to provide transportation. This sometimes interfered with Respondent's ability to pick up her own children from preschool on time. For that reason, Respondent tutored C.V. after school at his home. She ensured that others were present at the home during tutoring sessions. Respondent also continued helping C.V. at school outside of his scheduled time in her class on an unpaid basis. With the consent of C.V.'s mother, Respondent transported C.V. from the school to his home either after helping him at school or when she was going to his home to tutor him. There was one occasion when Respondent drove C.V. to school for which it was unclear whether the parents gave her permission to do so. Believing that C.V. had developed an unhealthy attachment to Respondent, C.V.'s parents desired to limit his interaction with her. However, they did not terminate the tutoring sessions. Additionally, C.V.'s mother initiated contact between Respondent and C.V. on matters unrelated to academics amid the parents' efforts to create boundaries in the relationship. C.V.'s Time Spent in Respondent's Classroom In order to come to her classroom during their designated lunch periods, students were required to have a pass signed by Respondent. Those students who came to Respondent's classroom during lunch regularly reused the same pass to eliminate the need for her to create a new pass each time. C.V., along with other students, had such a pass issued by Respondent. Several witnesses testified that C.V. had a sticker on the back of his student identification card, which they characterized as a permanent pass placed there by Respondent, enabling C.V. to visit her classroom at any time. However, the provenance and meaning of the sticker were never conclusively established. On several occasions, C.V. left his elective music class to do work from other classes in Respondent's classroom. He did so with the coordinated permission of Respondent and the music teacher. Respondent believed that it was reasonable for C.V. to do so because her classroom provided a quieter environment for his studies and he was ahead in the music class because of his existing background in piano. When C.V.'s parents learned how much time C.V. was spending in Respondent's classroom during the school day, they thought that it was excessive. Church Attendance and Sharing Religious Beliefs Respondent served as an unpaid worship leader and co-runner of the children's ministry at a church where her father was the pastor. Neither she, nor any other person, served in a role designated to recruit members to the church. Respondent did not receive any incentive from the church to bring in new members. Respondent played music of various genres in her classroom. Sometimes she played Christian music. Respondent wore a cross necklace to school. When asked, she was open with students about the general fact that she was a Christian and that she attended church. Witnesses observed flyers with information about Respondent's father's church on her desk. It was not established that any students received, or even saw, the flyers. Some of Respondent's students have attended her father's church. When a student expressed interest in the church, Respondent did not give the student information about the church without express permission from a parent. With the permission of his parents, C.V. attended Respondent's father's church on several occasions. His parents attended the church with him on one occasion. Also, with the permission of his parents, C.V. was transported to and from church by Respondent or her husband and spent time with Respondent's family at her home after church. At some point, C.V. told some of his classmates that he attended Respondent's church. The nature of C.V.'s comments to his classmates about attending church with Respondent remains unclear. The evidence did not establish that Respondent directed him to do so. Admittedly out of frustration, Respondent posted a Psalm on the door outside of her classroom before leaving Don Estridge on her last day. She had contemplated handing the Psalm to Principal Capitano, but chose to place it on the door instead. A teacher observed the Psalm on the door, and an assistant principal removed it. Overnight Visits On one occasion, C.V. spent the night at Respondent's home with her family while his mother was out of town on a business trip. Having the impression that C.V. was unhappy at the prospect of going on the trip, Respondent and C.V.'s mother arranged for C.V. to stay with Respondent and her family for the weekend. C.V. spent the night at Respondent's home on a second occasion, which was also coordinated between Respondent and C.V.'s mother. C.V. expressed that he wanted to live with Respondent and that he knew more about her than her husband. Exchanging Gifts C.V.'s mother gave Respondent a number of gifts during the time when she was C.V.'s teacher. As a Christmas gift, C.V.'s mother gave Respondent a $100 gift card and two lipsticks. Later, she gave Respondent dresses for her daughters. Finally, for Valentine's Day, she gave Respondent a stuffed animal and a thermal water bottle. Respondent considered the series of gifts to be very generous. C.V.'s birthday was in February. Respondent wanted to reciprocate the generosity of C.V.'s mother by buying C.V. clothes for his birthday. Respondent sought permission from C.V.'s mother to purchase him clothing, which his mother declined. Believing that C.V.'s mother declined the gifts out of social politeness, Respondent ultimately bought him clothing for his birthday. Virginity Conversation One day during class, some of Respondent's students were discussing the topic of virginity among themselves. Respondent was not a party to the conversation until C.V. asked her at what age she thought kids should lose their virginity. Respondent believed that this was an age-appropriate topic for her 12- and 13-year old students to be curious about, but she declined to answer the question. She then told C.V. that it was not an appropriate question for her and that he should ask his mother instead. Although numerous witnesses testified to what they thought Respondent said to her students about virginity, Respondent is the only witness who was present during the conversation. Her testimony on the subject was credible. Principal Capitano testified that if a student brings up the topic of virginity to a teacher, the teacher should respond by saying that it is not an appropriate conversation to have. Meeting with the Guidance Counselor and Aftermath On March 12, 2018, Respondent became concerned that C.V. was exhibiting behavior that caused her to fear that he was considering harming himself. Although she did not believe that C.V. wanted to go, Respondent escorted him to see one of the school's guidance counselors, Kristen Saffici. Respondent took this action because she believed it was her obligation to do so based on C.V.'s behavior, which she considered potentially self-injurious. Counselor Saffici and Principal Capitano agreed that bringing C.V. to a guidance counselor was the appropriate course of action for Respondent under the circumstances. Respondent remained in the meeting with Counselor Saffici and C.V. Respondent told Counselor Saffici about her impressions of the problems C.V. was having. Over the course of explaining the background of what she believed to be C.V.'s problems, Respondent stated that she "loved him like a son." Counselor Saffici thought that the statement was inappropriate. From Respondent's perspective, saying that she loved C.V. like a son was a device she regularly employed with students to offset, or soften, a concurrent critical statement. During the meeting, Counselor Saffici observed that C.V. appeared withdrawn and sullen. He had his backpack on the table with his head down on the backpack and did not make eye contact. Respondent consoled C.V. by rubbing his head. Counselor Saffici believed that Respondent's behavior toward C.V. was not appropriate. Counselor Saffici, however, did not perceive the behavior to be sexual in nature. Based on her observations, Counselor Saffici believed that Respondent had no mal intent. It was her opinion that Respondent had C.V.'s best interest at heart. Following the meeting with Counselor Saffici, the school resource officer, Gary Chapman, interviewed C.V. independently to determine whether C.V. was a threat to himself or others. Officer Chapman concluded that C.V. was not considering self-harm at that time. Based on the interview, Officer Chapman's understanding was that C.V.'s emotional distress was related to his desire to see his biological father more often. C.V.'s parents met with Principal Capitano, Counselor Saffici, and Officer Chapman. Having determined that there was no reason to suspect a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.V., Officer Chapman closed his investigation. Principal Capitano told Respondent not to have further contact with C.V. The next day, C.V. came, unexpectedly, to Respondent's classroom to see her. Respondent spoke to him, but tried to get him to leave without alarming him or being rude. After C.V. left, Respondent immediately advised Principal Capitano and Counselor Saffici that he came to her classroom, and Respondent sought their guidance on what to do. Feeling that she did not have clear direction on what to do if C.V. came back, Respondent posted a Psalm on her door and left Don Estridge after her first-period class. In a letter dated March 16, 2018, Principal Capitano recommended Respondent's termination as a probationary employee at Don Estridge, effective March 27, 2018. The letter did not specify a reason for Respondent's termination, but stated: "Probationary Contract Employees may be dismissed without cause or may resign without breach of contract." Principal Capitano, however, testified that she recommended Respondent's termination because she believed that Respondent had violated the Code of Ethics. Specifically, Principal Capitano thought that Respondent put herself in a position where her relationship with a student was causing him duress. Following the events of March 12, 2018, C.V.'s parents arranged for C.V. to talk to a therapist. Thereafter, they observed improvements in his behavior. The content of the discussions C.V. had with his therapist was not conclusively established. Overall Nature of C.V. and Respondent's Relationship C.V.'s parents believed that C.V. saw Respondent as a girlfriend. However, they never thought that Respondent considered the relationship romantic or that anything sexual occurred. Some of Respondent's colleagues thought that her relationship with C.V. was uncomfortable or lacked appropriate boundaries. C.V.'s mother, viewed Respondent as a positive role model. In encouraging Respondent's relationship with C.V. in some respects, while attempting to establish more boundaries in others, C.V.'s parents were trying to balance the dramatic improvement in C.V.'s grades with what they believed to be C.V.'s unhealthy attachment to Respondent. Respondent believed that C.V. was very bright, but not applying himself in school. It was her desire to help him fulfill his potential. On a social level, she thought that he was a polite young man who shared hobbies with her husband and interacted well with her daughters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint and all charges contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER 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 15th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly considered prior teaching experience when calculating an appropriate salary for Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact All Petitioners were employed by the Board as full-time Florida certified public school teachers under a series of successive annual contracts. The Board operates under a Collective Bargaining Agreement known as the "Master Contract." The Master Contract includes, among other things, a salary schedule that is the result of negotiations with the Escambia Educational Association (EEA), the collective bargaining agent that represents teachers. A negotiated salary schedule is then recommended by the superintendent of Escambia County Schools pursuant to Subsection 1012.27(2), Florida Statutes (2007), to the Board for approval and adoption. The salary schedule adopted by the Board governs the compensation payable to instructional personnel. The salary schedule includes "steps" with corresponding "salary." Placement on the salary schedule step depends, in part, upon prior teaching experience. Generally, more prior teaching experience credited for placement on the schedule results in a higher level of compensation. All Petitioners received an annual instructional contract under the authority of Subsection 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, or later, Subsection 1012.33(3), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' annual instructional contracts set forth the contract salary on an annual basis payable through 12 monthly installments. The contracts specify the number of days to be worked and the daily rate of compensation. The Board's standard form contract provides that "[t]his annual contract shall be deemed amended to comply with all laws, all lawful rules of the State Board of Education, all lawful rules and actions of the School Board and all terms of an applicable ratified collective-bargaining agreement." All Petitioners performed the agreed-upon instructional services and, individually, were paid the agreed-upon contractual amount, as provided in the "Master Contract 1999-2002" or "Master Contract 2004-2007," as appropriate. This included the amount paid for years of service or "steps" as provided in the Master Contracts. Petitioners Davis, Elleard, Lanier, Malone, Outzen, and Taylor, however, protested the steps they were assigned. As shall be addressed below, the Master Contract allowance for steps was less than that required by Florida law subsequent to July 1, 2001. Petitioners' annual instructional contracts specify the salary paid through 12 monthly installments with a daily rate of compensation identified. The amount of compensation can be further broken down into an hourly rate based upon 7.5 hours per day, and provides for annual leave and sick leave. As is customary, if the employee takes leave and has no accrued leave balance, her pay will be reduced to compensate for the hours of leave without pay taken. The Board maintains ledgers with all the compensation information for its employees, including Petitioners. Petitioner Margaret Benson has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August of 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Benson was a full-time public school teacher in New Jersey and Tennessee for 17 years. For each of those 17 years, Ms. Benson received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Benson was given credit for 15 of the 17 years of her prior teaching experience. Ms. Benson has requested that the Board recognize each of her 17 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized one additional year of Ms. Benson's experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. There is no evidence in the record as to whether Ms. Benson requested recognition of her entire teaching service, prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Petitioner Reba Davis was employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Davis was a full-time public school teacher in Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky for 25 years. For each of those 25 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Davis received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Davis was given credit for all but five years of her prior teaching experience. Ms. Davis has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. The Board has denied the request for the period of 2003-2005 school years. Ms. Davis retired from teaching in 2005, but is not using the five years of teaching credit toward her retirement benefit, which was earned outside the State of Florida. At the time she began her service with the Board Ms. Davis made inquiry with Mary Helen Fryman of the Board's Human Resources Office as to why she was not given credit for all of her prior experience. She was informed by Ms. Fryman that the matter was, "Still under negotiation and that she knew I would be given . . . my experience for my years in Florida." She made additional inquiries of the teachers union and the Board and was told that, "They were still in the bargaining stages and they were still not clear." Petitioner Deborah Elleard has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2003. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Elleard was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 29 years. For each of those 29 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Elleard received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Elleard retired from the State of Alabama and when hired by the Board, Ms. Elleard was not given credit for her 29 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Elleard has requested that the Board recognize each of her 29 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized her 29 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2003 through May 31, 2006. When Ms. Elleard was hired she made inquiry as to why she was not receiving credit for her 29 years of teaching service. She was informed then and several times thereafter that the Board was working on the matter and that it would be resolved. Petitioner Deborah Gregory was employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher beginning August 2002 until her resignation following the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. Prior to her employment with the Board during the relevant time, Ms. Gregory was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama, Escambia County, and Orange County for 16 years. For each of those 16 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Gregory received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board in 2002, Ms. Gregory was given credit for 15 of her 16 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Gregory has requested that the Board recognize each of her 16 years of teaching service. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. There is no evidence in the record as to when or if Ms. Gregory requested recognition of her entire teaching service. Petitioner Ida Lanier has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2001. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Lanier was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Lanier received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Lanier retired from the State of Alabama, and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Lanier was denied credit for her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Lanier has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized Ms. Lanier's 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. When she was hired, Ms. Lanier inquired as to why she did not get credit for prior service and she was told it was because she was retired from another state. She was informed that the collective bargaining agreement prevented the credit but that the situation might change. She continued over time to make inquiry to both her union and the Board. Petitioner Phyllis Malone has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2003. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Malone was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years, Ms. Malone received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Malone retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Malone was given credit for 15 of her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Malone requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In August 2006, the Board recognized each of her 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. Ms. Malone had conversations with the Board's Human Resources Office and wrote a letter to Dr. Scott of the Board and talked to Judy Fung of the Board, inquiring as to why she was not receiving credit for past experience. During the time she taught, she continued to make inquiries. Petitioner Vicki Outzen has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Outzen was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years, Ms. Outzen received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Outzen retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Outzen was not given credit for her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Outzen has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized Ms. Outzen's 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. Ms. Outzen made inquiries of the Board at the time she was hired and continuously during her employment with regard to the Board's refusal to give her the requested credit. She was informed that negotiations with the union were in progress and that she should continue to "check back" with the Board. She continually checked back with Ms. Fryman, Director of Human Resources at the Board, and was told in a letter that because she was retired from another state she must start teaching at step zero. Petitioner Janet Taylor has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since September 11, 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Taylor was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 30 years. For each of those 30 years, Ms. Taylor received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Taylor retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Taylor was not given credit for her 30 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Taylor has requested that the Board recognize each of her 30 years of teaching service. Respondent has failed to recognize any of Ms. Taylor's prior years of teaching experience. The Board led Ms. Taylor to believe that she would be notified by the Board when she would be eligible to receive credit for prior teaching experience. For the years Petitioners are seeking credit, those years were not earned under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) as codified in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2007). If the Petitioners had been paid as they assert, the Board would be required to pay Petitioners as follows: Margaret Benson for an additional step for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $3,308. Reba Davis for five steps for school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. This amount totals $11,423. Deborah Elleard for 29 steps for school years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $52,895. Deborah Gregory for one step for school years 2002- 2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $3,308. Ida Lanier for 25 steps for school years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $83,561. Phyllis Malone for 10 steps for school years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $28,692. Vicki Outzen for 26 steps for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $66,338. Janet Taylor for 30 steps for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. This amount totals $101,427.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Escambia County School Board recalculate Petitioners' salary as of April 2, 2005, so that their salaries reflect the amount each should have earned if Petitioners had been given credit for each year of full-time public school teaching service earned in the State of Florida or outside the state, and pay them that amount. It is further recommended that Petitioners receive pay at all future times as provided by Subsection 1012.33(3)(g), Florida Statutes (2007), and this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Escambia County School Board remit to Petitioners a reasonable attorney's fee. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 21st day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine & Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5782
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018), as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.1 1 Respondent’s alleged conduct occurred in September 2018. The 2018 version of chapter 1012, and related statutes, was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 668 So. 2d
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator’s certificate and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1124072. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2024, and covers the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and reading. During the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at Dr. Phillips High School (DPHS) in the Orange County School District (OCSD). Respondent has been a licensed educator since 1995 and admits to understanding that she is a “mandatory reporter” in instances where a child has been abused or where abuse is suspected. Section 1012.795(1)(b) authorizes the Education Practices Commission to discipline an educator “for knowingly failing to report actual or suspected child abuse as required in s. 1006.061 or report alleged misconduct by instructional personnel or school administrators which affects the health, safety, or welfare of a student as required in s. 1012.796.” Section 39.201, Florida Statutes (2018), requires any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused by a person responsible for the child’s welfare to immediately report the knowledge or suspicion to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hotline. Several OCSD policies also mandate that a teacher immediately report any suspected child abuse to the DCF Abuse Hotline. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that “[o]n or about September 11, 2018, A.C., an eleventh[-]grade female student, reported to Respondent that [she] was being physically abused by her mother, [and that] Respondent failed to timely report the suspected abuse to [DCF] as required by law.” As a result of this alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(b). Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Respondent first met A.C. at or near the beginning of the 2018-19 school year, which commenced sometime around the latter part of August 2018. As to her initial encounter with A.C., Respondent testified as follows: Q. And when did you first meet A.C.? A. I believe she may have been absent the first few days of school, but upon her first day of entry to my classroom she asked me, when we were greeting each other at the door, do you know who I am? And I said, A.C. And she goes, well, do you know about me? And I said, no, A.C. Hi, nice to meet you. She goes, well don’t you know about my history, don’t you know anything about me? I know your son and I’m in ROTC and, well, DCF used to be here all the time in ninth and tenth grade, don’t you know anything about me? I thought you would know all about me. And I mentioned to her that I knew nothing about her except her name and her grades and welcome to my class. And I said, let me show you where you’re sitting this year. And I showed her her seat. Q. When she said, DCF used to come to school all the time, what was she talking about? A. I have no idea. I think she was telling me about her personal history. Her behavior was a little flamboyant and very attention seeking and it was very extroverted, wanting to get to know me on a personal basis. And I -- it was just a little different from what I’m used to. And but she definitely did stand out in my vision as somebody that was seeking attention. (Tr. pp. 103-104). Within seconds of meeting A.C., Respondent, by her own admission, thought of A.C. as an extreme extrovert who was prone to engage in flamboyant and attention-seeking behavior. On the morning of September 6, 2018, Ms. Shuster included Respondent on an email that was sent to several individuals regarding A.C. The email informed recipients of the need to schedule “a team meeting … in reference to [A.C.’s] sporadic attendance.” Respondent, in response to the email from Ms. Shuster, stated the following with respect to A.C.: She is extremely bright and multi-lingual. She mentioned the school had to call DCF (A4) on her several times last year because her mom is really mean. The last few absences she had ROTC commitments. I would check with them to verify. 8/24 was the ROTC field day, 9/5 was the Club Fair. She probably shouldn’t be in reading; however, she fell asleep on the FSA last year. The question may be why isn’t she getting enough sleep? I hope this helps. Although A.C. had only briefly mentioned to Respondent during their initial interaction that she had encounters with DCF during the previous school year, it is obvious that A.C.’s reference to DCF resonated with Respondent given that several days later Respondent thought the information was of such significance that it needed to be included in Respondent’s reply to the email from Ms. Shuster. As of September 6, 2018, Respondent knew that A.C.’s school attendance was sporadic; that something in A.C.’s life was causing her to not get enough sleep; and that A.C. reported having a “really mean mom” whose purported conducted resulted in several visits from DCF during the previous school year. September 11, 2018 According to Respondent, prior to the commencement of her fifth period class on September 11, 2018, she was greeting students at the doorway of her classroom when A.C. arrived. Because A.C. had recently been absent from Respondent’s class, Respondent asked A.C. “where you been.” In response to her question, A.C., according to Respondent, stated that she “got arrested and I can tell you all about it.” Respondent testified that she then told A.C. to go to her seat and “we can talk about that later.” Respondent testified that she then instructed A.C. to sit down, but A.C. continued talking and said to Respondent “I can show you pictures.” Respondent then instructed A.C. to “put [her] phone away and sit down.” A.C. complied with Respondent’s directive, but before doing so persisted in trying to show Respondent the pictures on her phone. Respondent said that she was about 20 feet from A.C. when A.C. attempted to show her the pictures. Because of the distance between her and A.C., Respondent testified that she was unable to discern what was reflected in the pictures, but she recalled that A.C. said “I can show you pictures, I can show you, you know, these bite marks.” (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 22-23). Respondent testified that at the conclusion of the fifth period class, she told A.C. to remain in the classroom. According to Respondent, as reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 18 and 19, the following events then transpired over a period of about 10 to 15 minutes: Q. Okay. So now you and A.C. are in the room. A. Yes. Q. And you say to A.C. or she says to you, what? A. I said, hey, A.C., you said you were arrested. Can you tell me about that? What’s going on? She goes, well, if you really want to know, I wanted to get it on with my boyfriend and so my mom didn’t like it, we got into it and I called the police on her and they arrested me. And I said, oh wow, A.C. I was like, why did they take you. And she goes, well, the cops said that they were calling DCF and that they found me -- that I was the one not listening to my mom. And I said, well, A.C., I can tell you this. I have a teenage daughter. She graduated from here a few years ago and, I said, I’m going to talk to you as a teacher and I’m going to talk to you as a mom. I said, as a mom, maybe try to put your foot in the other shoe. Maybe your mom doesn’t want a little A.C. running around in nine months. Did you ever think about that perspective? And she goes, no. She goes, oh I don’t want to have kids. She goes -- I said, well, are you planning on going to the military and she said no, I don’t want to do that either. And she goes, I want to do something in art, graphic arts. Create -- I’m very creative. And I said okay. Then we spoke about, you know, what else did we speak about? We spoke about, you know, trying to follow house rules so that she doesn’t get in this situation again, whatever. And she goes, yeah, yeah, I know. She goes, I’m over it. And I said, well, you know, lunch is about to end, you better hurry on. And so, then she left for lunch and then when she left I called Ms. Graves and I called Ms. Shuster. I did not get Ms. Shuster. I didn’t leave a message. Ms. Graves, I left a message. Ms. Graves called me back sixth period and when I told her, hey, A.C. reported that she got arrested, what’s going on, she goes, oh, every teacher has told me already. We know. And I said, okay, great, thanks. In addition to the above, Respondent testified that the following events also occurred during her 10 to 15-minute discussion with A.C: Q. During that period, did A.C. show you any photos? A. I don’t recall having any photo opportunities except the time that she -- when she was walking into the room trying to show me the phone from across the room. Q. Okay. So, while she is having the conversation with you during the lunch period, she didn’t try to show you the photos that she had previously tried to show you; is that correct? A. I don’t believe so. I remember I asked her about the photos and stuff like that. She goes, I can show you photos and I was like, no, I don’t want to see your photos. Because I just didn’t. A.C. testified that on September 11, 2018, she reported to Respondent’s class and informed Respondent that she had been abused by her mother. According to A.C., she showed Respondent several pictures of bruising and bite marks on her body, which A.C. attributed to having resulted from the conduct of her mother. A.C. testified that the images reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 are copies of the pictures that she showed Respondent on September 11, 2018. Bates stamped page 9 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 is an image that clearly shows bite marks on A.C.’s hand. A.C. testified that the bite marks reflected in this exhibit were still visible on her hand when she met with Respondent on September 11, 2018, and that she showed her injured hand to Respondent. A.C. could not recall if she showed the pictures to Respondent upon entering Respondent’s classroom or immediately following Respondent’s fifth period class. While A.C. was uncertain as to when she discussed the details of her situation with Respondent, her testimony regarding her interaction with Respondent on September 11, 2018, was without equivocation or hesitancy, she recounted the events in question with precision, and her testimony was not otherwise impeached by Respondent. A.C. was a credible witness, and her testimony is appropriately credited. September 13, 2018 Thursday, September 13, 2018, was open-house day at DPHS, and teachers were required to remain at school until 8:00 p.m. At approximately 4:30 p.m., Respondent and her colleague, Ms. Rosa Martinez-Rodriguez, were conversing in Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez’s classroom when the administrative dean, Ms. Tamie Shuster, appeared in the doorway of the classroom. According to Ms. Shuster, she needed to speak with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez about ESOL-related matters. Ms. Shuster finished her conversation with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, and before exiting the classroom, she was hailed by Respondent who informed her that student A.C. reported to Respondent that she had been bitten by her mom, and that A.C. had shown her cellphone pictures of the bite marks. When asked by Ms. Shuster if she had told anyone else about A.C.’s complaint, Respondent indicated that she had not. Ms. Shuster informed Respondent that the incident involving A.C. had to be reported, and after meeting with Respondent, Ms. Shuster promptly reported the incident involving A.C. to the DCF Abuse Hotline. In the narrative section of the reporting form completed by Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, she noted the following: “The student [A.C.] reported to her teacher Ms. Camacho Szeto that her mother got mad at her [and] left bite marks on her.” As a follow up, Ms. Shuster, on September 14, 2018, prepared a written statement outlining the events of the previous day. In all material respects, Ms. Shuster’s written statement on September 14, 2018, is consistent with her testimony and the information that she included in the narrative section of the abuse reporting form that she prepared on September 13, 2018. Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez was in earshot of the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster and testified to the following: Q. Okay. And then what did you hear during that conversation between Ms. Szeto and Ms. Shuster? A. So they were talking about, as I said, a student that they both seemed to know about. The student seemed to have a lot of absences. And I heard Ms. Szeto tell Ms. Shuster that the student had said that her parent bit her and had shown her some pictures on the phone, but that she hadn’t reported anything because she had not observed bite marks on the student in person, on her person. And she wasn’t sure, also, if it was true as -- because there was a question about whether the pictures were of the student. To my understanding. Q. Okay. So, it’s your testimony that Mrs. Szeto told Ms. Shuster that she didn’t report it to DCF because she wasn’t sure if the student was telling the truth; is that correct? A. I’m not sure who she was referring to as not reporting it. I’m not sure if it was DCF or administration. That was unclear to me. But, yes, it was clear that she said that she wasn’t sure if it was true. Q. Ms. Camacho saying she wasn’t sure if it was true. If what was true? A. What the student was alleging that her parent had bit her and that the marks were actually the student’s. (Tr. pp. 60-61) Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, approximately two weeks after witnessing the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster, prepared a “witness statement,” which reads as follows: On September 13, 2018, Ms. Camacho-Szeto visited my office. She remained here for about an hour. It was Open House day, so we had to be in school until 8 p.m. We were having a conversation about personal matters. At some point during the visit, Ms. Tamie Shuster stopped by the door. Ms. Camacho-Szeto informed her that one of her students was stating that her mom bit her and the student had shown her pictures of the bite marks on her phone. I do not recall the name of the student, nor if it was an ESOL student. Ms. Camacho-Szeto stated that she had not reported anything because she wasn’t sure if the student was saying the truth as she never saw the bite marks on the student, only pictures on her phone and she didn’t know if they were really pictures of her. Ms. Tamie Shuster said she would investigate and left. Ms. Camacho-Szeto left to get her meal before Open House began. Respondent, when recalling her conversation with Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, testified as follows: Q. What did you say to Ms. Shuster? A. I said, hey, Ms. Shuster, last week you sent an email about A.C. and regarding the attendance child -- that you were spearing up the Child Study Team and I needed to talk to you. I called you the other day, but you weren’t at your desk. I said, I have this girl, A.C., she’s a little bit, you know, she’s a handful, I said, but I need to tell you, she told me she was arrested and she said these things. She’s trying to show me a phone from across the room and she mentioned some bite marks. I see no evidence of bite marks. I see nothing but the behaviors that’s exhibited tell me this child needs some type of counseling or whatever… . She goes, oh, gee, thanks. Now I have to call it in. And I said, well, I don’t know, Tamie, I’m not -- I don’t see any signs of abuse here whatsoever, she just said she was arrested, but I don’t have her history. You have her history, you’re starting the Child Study Team. I said, if I call in a report to DCF, I have nothing to show except that she was arrested and they’re not going to take the report … . * * * Q. Okay. Now you said you mentioned to Ms. Shuster that A.C. said something about bite marks. A. Yes. Q. But what did you tell Ms. Shuster about what A.C. said about bite marks? A. I said, she was trying to show me a cellphone from across the room of a -- looked like an x-ray with bite mark -- not bite marks, sorry. Teeth -- like x-ray teeth. And I said, and I see no evidence here of any bite marks or anything on this child. But I was just trying to calm her down and to start my class and I’ve not spoken to her about it anymore. And I said, could you follow up with her? (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 38-41). Ms. Shuster and Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez both testified that Respondent, when speaking with Ms. Shuster on September 11, 2018, stated that A.C. had been bitten by her mother and had shown Respondent pictures of the bite marks. Neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified, nor did they note in their written statements, that Respondent stated that A.C. was “trying to show Respondent pictures from across the room.” Furthermore, neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified that Respondent mentioned “x-ray like pictures of teeth” when discussing A.C. with Ms. Shuster. In addition to the above, Respondent’s purported statement to Ms. Shuster that she had “not spoken to her (A.C.) about it anymore,” when read in context, is in direct conflict with other testimony where Respondent states that she met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class to discuss with A.C. the situation involving A.C. and her mother. It is not entirely clear from the evidence why Respondent would not disclose to Ms. Shuster that she had met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes, and thus mislead Ms. Shuster about the extent of her interaction with A.C. on September 11, 2018. Also, Respondent’s testimony that she did not have an opportunity to review the pictures on A.C.’s phone during her after-class meeting with A.C. is problematic, and not worthy of belief. While it may have been reasonable under the circumstances for Respondent to forestall A.C.’s attempts to show Respondent the pictures at the beginning of the class period, it defies logic and reason that Respondent would meet with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class, ask A.C. about the pictures, and then refuse to view them when given the opportunity to do so. Respondent’s evasive, misleading, and inconsistent testimony undermines her credibility to the point to where her version of the events in question cannot be believed. Dr. Knight is the principal at DPHS and testified that it is not required that an employee have actual knowledge that a child has been abused. According to Dr. Knight, employees are trained that, when dealing with issues of suspected child abuse or neglect, “it’s not your job to determine if you think it’s factual or not. You call it in and then DCF is the organization that determines whether it’s factual or not. Your job is to just report it and they take it from there.” Dr. Knight’s testimony accurately states Respondent’s obligation as a “mandatory reporter.” Findings of Ultimate Fact On September 11, 2018, A.C., who was then an eleventh-grade student, reported to Respondent that she had been physically abused by her mother. A.C., when discussing the events with Respondent, presented pictures of her injuries and also showed Respondent bite marks that were then present on A.C.’s hand. The fact that A.C. verbally informed Respondent that she was abused by her mother was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. The fact that A.C. showed Respondent pictures of injuries to her body was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. Although Respondent understood her obligation to report known or suspected child abuse to DCF, she failed to do so with respect to A.C.’s allegations of abuse. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order that: 1) suspends Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of two days; 2) places her educator’s certificate on probation for a period of two years from the date of the final order, with conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission; 3) requires Respondent, during her period of probation, to attend and successfully complete, at her expense, training related to her reporting obligations under section 1012.795(1)(b); and, 4) pay a fine in the amount of $480.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association Suite 109 1516 East Hillcrest Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 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
The Issue Whether Respondent, a middle school teacher, violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., (2)(a)8., (2)(c)1., (2)(c)8., and (2)(c)9., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint (AAC); and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number 1299379, covering the area of music. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a Music Teacher at LMS in the Manatee County School District. 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. 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. Background On April 28, 2017, Respondent submitted a resignation letter to MCSD, and later that same day rescinded this resignation letter. Based on a prior investigation, on May 17, 2017, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the LMS principal for poor judgement and poor classroom management. MCSD Office of Professional Standards started another investigation of Respondent in May 2017. In June 2017, PPD served a subpoena on Respondent, and seized his electronic devices. On August 4, 2017, Respondent was temporarily reassigned to MCSD transportation office. On August 17, 2017, MCSD placed Respondent on paid administrative leave. In August 2017, Investigator Nelson completed an investigation report that went to MCSD senior administrators, including the superintendent and its legal counsel. A practice of MCSD is that once an investigation is opened involving a union member, that union member is represented by a union paid counsel. MCSD communicates solely through the employee’s counsel. At the time, Respondent was a union member, and was represented by counsel during the pertinent MCSD’s investigations. On August 30, 2017, Respondent was not present when his counsel met with Investigator Nelson and MCSD general counsel. They advised Respondent’s counsel of the evidence found regarding Respondent, and that MCSD was going to move forward with the termination of Respondent’s employment. Respondent’s counsel was informed that Respondent could resign his teaching position in lieu of termination. Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the Manatee County School Board (Board), dated September 1, 2017, providing for his resignation to become effective on September 12, 2017. Further, this letter provided that Respondent would not seek “reemployment” with MCSD. The Board was scheduled to meet on September 12, 2017, and would have considered any termination requests. Once Respondent resigned, MCSD did not have any further jurisdiction over Respondent. Dr. Breslin served as an assistant principal at SCSD’s Booker High School (Booker) when Respondent applied for a position there shortly after he resigned from MCSD. She was on the committee that interviewed the various candidates, including Respondent, and decided to hire Respondent. Respondent was hired by SCSD and taught at Booker. During his probationary period, Respondent was released from his SCSD employment. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the charged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with K.A., a sixteen year old female student, as evidenced by a picture of Respondent and K.A. kissing. On or about September 5, 2017, in the midst of a district investigation into inappropriate relationships between Respondent and female students, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his teaching position with the district, to be effective September 12, 2017. On or about September 22, 2017, Respondent submitted an application for a teaching position with Sarasota County Public Schools. Respondent fraudulently answered 'no' to the following questions: Have you ever: failed to fulfill a teaching or administrative contract? had any disciplinary action taken against you by any Board of Education? been removed or dismissed from any position? resigned in lieu of termination? On the last page of Respondent’s SCSD application, he certified that his answers were true and to the best of his knowledge. Pictures In June 2017, pursuant to a search warrant, the PPD seized Respondent’s laptop computer and two cell phones, and sent them to FDLE for analysis. FDLE Analyst Carson was assigned to retrieve any pictures and/or text messages from Respondent’s devices. FDLE Analyst Carson issued the results via a report to the PPD. The FDLE report was not admitted into evidence. Mr. Oyler (and other PPD officers) reviewed the FDLE report, including the pictures4/ taken from Respondent’s devices, and found no evidence of an inappropriate relationship as alleged by a female LMS student. However, Mr. Oyler observed pictures of Respondent with another young (female) person. Mr. Oyler contacted LMS Resource Officer Moore to determine the identity of this other young female. Officer Moore, a 17-year employee of PPD, has been a resource officer assigned and stationed at LMS since 2013. In early 2016, Respondent was investigated for “some allegations,” and Officer Moore had a conversation with Respondent about his interactions with female students. Officer Moore advised Respondent to: So you just protect yourself. Make sure you’re keeping the door [to his classroom] open if you can between classes with view so the other [band/orchestra] teacher has observation. Don’t be alone with students, especially female students. Make sure you’re protecting yourself and making smart choices about it. Officer Moore knows N.A., the mother of K.A.5/ During the 2016-2017 school year, Officer Moore and N.A. both worked at LMS. Officer Moore would see K.A., a MCSD student, when she came to LMS to wait for her mother. Additionally, Officer Moore socialized with the A. family at various parties, including K.A.’s graduation from high school in May 2018. At the hearing, Officer Moore was shown a picture retrieved from Respondent’s devices of two people kissing, specifically Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, page 39 (hereafter referred to as the “kissing photograph”). When shown the kissing photograph, Officer Moore expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying the two persons kissing: Respondent and K.A. Further, Officer Moore identified Respondent and K.A., individually or together, in the remaining pictures of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 40-47. Officer Moore’s testimony is found credible. Investigator Nelson conducted two investigations of Respondent, and met with him five or six times. When shown the pictures retrieved from Respondent’s devices, Investigator Nelson expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying Respondent in all of the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, including the kissing photograph. Investigator Nelson’s testimony is found credible. Respondent’s counsel, through questioning of Mr. Oyler intimated that K.A. manipulated and uploaded multiple altered images to Respondent’s electronic devices. Mr. Oyler provided that he had heard K.A. “saying that she modified the images,” or that she had “doctored the photos.” K.A. did not testify in this hearing, nor did any other students. However, Mr. Oyler interviewed K.A. during the course of the PPD investigation. Initially K.A. denied having any relationship with Respondent. However, when Mr. Oyler presented K.A. with all the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, her reaction left Mr. Oyler with the impression that K.A. and Respondent had “more of a romantic, physical relationship.” Mr. Oyler’s testimony is found credible. Pastor Mazon was asked the following question: “Do you recognize the male in that photograph [the kissing photograph]?” He answered “Not really, not from that angle . . . no, not really.” He was then asked specifically: “Does that appear to be Mr. Peterson [Respondent] in that photograph?” Pastor Mazon responded: “It would be hard for me to tell from the side view like that. I would have to see it from the front.” And when shown the same kissing photograph in color and asked if the male was Respondent, Pastor Mazon replied: “That’s still a hard call for me. You know, skin tone. But then I see a scar from – on behind the ear, which I never saw, which I never - - that’s kind of hard for me, yeah. . . . I wouldn’t be able to identify him in that fashion.” Pastor Mazon was unable to confirm or deny that Respondent was in the kissing photograph, yet he positively identified Respondent in each remaining picture of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18. Pastor Mazon’s testimony lacks clarity and credibility as he waffled on identifying Respondent in the first picture, but had no hesitation in the remaining pictures. Ms. Bellamy, Respondent’s aunt, testified that she did not recognize the male in the kissing photograph. In the remaining pictures, Ms. Bellamy confirmed Respondent was in the pictures on pages 40 and 42 of Exhibit 18, but was not in the pictures on pages 41 or 43 through 47. Ms. Bellamy did confirm that Respondent was in the picture in Petitioner’s Exhibit 20. As Respondent’s relative, Ms. Bellamy’s testimony appears to be selective and is not found credible. Sarasota County School District Petitioner’s Exhibit 17, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent was under contract with MCSD to serve as an instructional employee for the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, Respondent’s resignation letter, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent resigned his MCSD position for the 2017-2018 school year, effective September 12, 2017. Further, Respondent agreed to not seek reemployment with MCSD. Dr. Breslin was an assistant principal at Booker in Sarasota, Florida, for the 2017-2018 school year. She served on the committee that interviewed candidates for a teaching position at Booker. Dr. Breslin reviewed and relied upon Respondent’s SCSD application, and interviewed Respondent (with the other committee members) for the Booker teaching position. Further, Dr. Breslin performed the reference checks regarding Respondent’s application. Dr. Breslin was instrumental in the decision to hire Respondent for the position at Booker. Dr. Breslin was never provided a copy of Respondent’s letter of reprimand or his MCSD resignation letter. Further, during SCSD’s interview process, Dr. Breslin was not told that Respondent had been under investigation by MCSD. Dr. Breslin confirmed that by Respondent’s failure to tell her (or the committee) of these (the letter of reprimand, his resignation letter from MCSD, and/or the investigation), Respondent gave a false presentation. Had Dr. Breslin known of any of these, Respondent would not have been brought in for an interview and would not have been hired. Dr. Bowden testified that Respondent was released from his SCSD teaching contract during his probationary period. Typically, SCSD does not provide a reason for an employee’s release. However in this case, Respondent’s employment was terminated based on his arrest. Dr. Bowden also testified that Respondent’s failure to advise SCSD of his resignation from MCSD, his letter of reprimand, and that he was under investigation was tantamount to falsification of his application to work for SCSD. Respondent was represented by competent counsel, during MCSD’s investigation and his ultimate resignation from MCSD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty on Counts 1, 2, and 5 through 8, and permanently revoking his Educator Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 24th day of October, 2019.
