Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bill A. Corbin, has been a member of the Florida Bar since October, 1972 and has continually engaged in the private practice of law in Blountstown since that time. His present office is located at 305 Fannin Street, Blountstown, Florida. On January 1, 1973, petitioner was retained by the Calhoun County Board of Commissioners to represent the county in the capacity of county attorney. He remained in that position until March 1, 1983, or a period of ten years. During that period of time he was a member in good standing of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and made the required contributions into the program. From April 1, 1980 until August 26, 1983, Corbin also served as county attorney for Liberty County. When he left the employ of Calhoun County on March 1, 1983, he reenrolled in the FRS effective the same date using his employment with Liberty County as a basis for the continued enrollment. After conducting an audit of petitioner's employment in early 1983, respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, advised petitioner by letter dated April 22, 1983 that because he failed to comply with current FRS membership requirements, he was being removed from FRS membership effective July 1, 1979. The effect of this action was to leave Corbin with approximately 6 1/2 years of creditable service with the FRS rather than almost 10 1/2 years. The proposed agency action triggered the instant proceeding. The position of county attorney in Calhoun County was a regularly established position and has been for some 25 years. The same is true for the county attorney slot in Liberty County. In Calhoun County, Corbin was paid on a monthly basis and had the normal deductions made from his salary. He received the same annual percentage increase in salary as did other county employees. He was also covered under the County's errors and omissions policy, and was eligible for workers' compensation coverage. According to a Calhoun County Commissioner, Corbin received annual and sick leave of one day per month while serving as county attorney. However, unlike other county employees, he was not compensated for unused leave when he terminated employment, and did not have to fill out leave slips as do other employees when taking leave. He also was given stationery, use of a reproduction machine, and clerical help from the county clerk's office when necessary. Corbin's initial employment with Calhoun County was based upon an oral agreement between he and the commissioners. This agreement was later reduced to writing in 1979 in order to comply with concerns expressed by the county's outside auditors. The standard employment contract specified a set fee per month for Corbin to attend regular Board meetings, advise them on legal matters concerning County business, and to prepare resolutions, correspondence and ordinances. Additional services concerning litigation were rendered on either a contingent fee basis or an hourly rate basis. These sums were paid from monies set aside each year by the County for legal services not covered by Corbin's monthly salary. No deductions were taken from payments made to Corbin for these additional services. The contract also provided that either party could terminate the same upon giving thirty days' notice. A similar agreement was executed by Corbin for his employment with Liberty County except that the agreement called for compensation at a rate of $40 per hour. Corbin's normal duties generally included attending two regular board meetings each month which lasted from two to twelve hours each, attending special meetings, handling correspondence, keeping minutes of each meeting, and being on call for requests for advice from Board members. In all, petitioner estimated he spent approximately 30 hours per month on Calhoun County business. Although some of the county work was performed in the courthouse where the boards met, most of it was done in Corbin's law office since he was not provided an office by either county. The members of the Board control petitioner's hours by assignment of the work to be done, including requests for advice, research and opinions, and litigation. The Board determines which cases will be settled, defended or appealed. Corbin is required to accept any case or matter assigned, and does not reject assignments. However, the Boards do not control the day to day methods by which petitioner litigates cases and performs legal judgments. Petitioner does not supervise any employees employed by the County nor does he supervise or direct the activities of any full time or part time assistant county attorneys or legal secretaries. The rule which makes petitioner ineligible for membership in the FRS is Rule 22B-1.04, Florida Administrative Code, which became effective on July 1, 1979. After the rule was adopted, respondent sent a memorandum to all local agencies, including Calhoun and Liberty Counties, requesting that they review those employees that might fall within the "professional" status in order to determine their eligibility under the newly adopted rule. A copy of the rule was also sent to each local agency. The agencies were then required to transmit information on each such employee to the respondent. Thereafter, it began the lengthy process of auditing all reporting units, including the two counties in question. Because respondent is now reviewing over 700 reporting units, the audit process is time-consuming, and has resulted in lengthy delays in removing ineligible employees from FRS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Bill A. Corbin to remain in the Florida Retirement System from July 1, 1979 through August 26, 1983 be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of June, 1984.
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was initially employed as a non-degree teacher in Putnam County, Florida, beginning with the 1951-52 school year. During the 1952-53 school year, Petitioner attended the University of Florida where she obtained her degree. She then returned to the Putnam County school system for the school year beginning in 1953. Petitioner was a member of TRS from 1945 until her retirement in 1970, and seeks to purchase retirement credit for the 1952-53 school year in order to qualify for a 25-year pension. The issue to be determined is whether or not she was on an approved leave of absence in 1952-53, or whether she was merely reemployed in the Putnam County school system after completing her degree program. Petitioner was encouraged to obtain her degree by W.M. Thomas, who was then Superintendent of Putnam County Schools, and was advised by him that her absence would be considered an approved professional leave. Mr. Thomas subsequently corroborated this by letter. Additionally, a former school board member, Mr. Clyde Middleton, stated that Mrs. Carter was granted professional leave for this period. See Exhibit One. Mrs. Carter made no written request for the leave of absence nor do school board records reflect any consideration of this matter. However, the current superintendent has accepted Mrs. Carter's statement and those of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Middleton, and has certified approval of this leave to TRS. See Exhibit One. Respondent rejects this after-the-fact documentation and maintains that the only acceptable evidence of prior approval would be the school board minutes or other records reflecting official action by the board.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order authorizing Petitioner to purchase credit in the Florida Teachers' Retirement System for the 1952-53 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Melcene L. Carter 401 Kersey Street Hazlehurst, Georgia 31539 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Department of Administration Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C--Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. McMullian, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT MELCENE L. CARTER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-234 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact A review of Exhibit 1, the personnel record of Respondent, discloses that Respondent has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board since 1959; that he has taught science at various junior high schools and middle schools from 1958 to present; that deficiencies in maintaining discipline in his classes, judgment, maturity, and planning have been noted on his evaluation reports throughout that period; his evaluation reports have generally been below average; after extending his probationary period he was granted continuing contract status in 1971; and his evaluations have been unsatisfactory for the last three years. All of the witnesses called by Petitioner have been associated with Respondent in the school system and all considered his performance as a classroom teacher unsatisfactory. Specific incidents observed by the witnesses which led to their evaluation an characterization of Respondent include: Children in Respondents classroom intentionally hyperventilating and passing out while Respondent was in the room presumably continuing his instruction. Children in Respondent's classes more disorderly, rowdy, and noisy than in any other class. Noises from Respondent's classes of sufficient volume to disturb adjacent classes. Respondent continuing his reading of a lesson in a voice that could be heard only a few feet away while the students in other parts of the classroom talked, fought, played games and otherwise ignored Respondent. No rational grading system adopted or used by Respondent. This resulted in numerous complaints from both students and their parents respecting the grades assigned. In this respect more complaints were registered against Respondent's grades that any other teacher. Respondent often sent children to the principal for minor disciplinary problems while he ignored much more serous misconduct. Lack of coherence in Respondent's instruction in jumping from one subject to another with no plan and no continuity. Children in Respondents class recognized his inability to control the class and evinced lack of respect for Respondent. Despite numerous counselling sessions and help, Respondent never produced adequate lesson plans for his classes. Lack of plans led to less continuity in the lessons and a lower teaching level. A combination of lack of discipline, lack of proper planning and inconsistent reaction to the students in his class led to the inevitable conclusion that the students in Respondent's classes were not learning those things he was supposed to teach them. On one or more occasions Respondent disobeyed the orders of his principal to come to his office to discuss problems. respondent refused to be counselled without a union representative present. Following nearly three years of counselling, guidance and attempts to assist Respondent to improve his effectiveness at Fitzgerald Middle School, the school authorities apparently determined that Respondent should be terminated and requested an evaluation of Respondent by a Professional Practices Council Evaluator. Respondent was advised some two weeks before his arrival that an evaluator would come to observe Respondent conduct his classes and that the evaluator would submit a report following the observation. Pursuant thereto the evaluator spent February 27, 28, and March 1, 1979 observing Respondent conduct his classes. His report of this evaluation comprises Exhibit 11. In this report Respondent was evaluated as unsatisfactory in the following duties expected of a teacher: Grade record book from which students grades are taken was improperly kept and contained insufficient information to make a rational determination of the grade actually earned by each student. Respondent made no distinction among his diverse students and consequently gave them all the same assignments. Respondents lack of control over the classroom was so inadequate that an incredible amount of cheating was going on. Answers to questions were exchanged orally between students during tests and this was ignored by Respondent. As a result there was no incentive for learning and little, if any, learning took place in Respondents classes. Classroom management and discipline was practically non-existent. As stated in Exhibit 11: "Mr. Barlow cannot discipline his students well enough to get their cooperation to carry out what would otherwise be an almost acceptable (1.e. needing some definite improvement) program. Thereafter the evaluator submitted three pages of specific incidents occurring in Respondent's classes on February 27, and three more pages of incidents which generally support the conclusion that in such an atmosphere either teaching or learning is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Planning of lessons by Respondent, both short and long-term, was so inadequate that these plans across school year 1978-79 were described to "violate, more than follow, those guidelines" [established for lesson plans]. Instead of having self-confidence and self-sufficiency in exercising authority Respondent "radiates insecurity in the classroom". Following these unsatisfactory reports the evaluator concludes that Respondent's students are being deprived of a vital part of their education. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of all other witnesses. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent did not deny that his classes were disorderly and unruly, or that the incident of the children in his class hyperventilating and passing out occurred. He contends that if he had more administrative help he could operate effectively in a classroom. His problems at Fitzgerald Middle School he blames largely on the Assistant Principal in charge of the seventh grade teachers, who, while frequently visiting Respondent's classes, undermined him. Other than Respondent's testimony no credible evidence was submitted that the Assistant Principal was doing anything other than trying to help Respondent improve his performance.
The Issue The issue is whether Walter Gilbert should be terminated from employment by the Sarasota County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Sarasota County School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the Sarasota County School System. Mr. Gilbert is a 53-year-old man who has worked for the Board since 1998. He has been employed as a security aide since 2000, and was so employed during the 2004-2005 school year. It is his job to protect students at Sarasota High School. Mr. Gilbert has been a football coach, has been active in the Youth Football League, and is prominent in the community. He is married, has seven children, and is a grandfather. D.B. is a 2006 graduate of Sarasota High School. She was born November 26, 1987. She was 17 years old in the winter and spring of 2005, when the events that will be related herein, occurred. Sarasota High School is a large school and comprises numerous buildings. Approximately 2500 students attend the school. The campus includes a field house, a football field, the original building, a cafeteria, a library, and numerous classrooms. D.B. has been an acquaintance of Mr. Gilbert for several years. She frequently talked to him, and his long-time friend John Jones (Mr. Jones), beginning in the ninth grade. She would talk to Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Jones, who is also a security aide, almost every day. She was advised by Principal Hradek not to talk to Mr. Jones so much. Principal Hradek counseled Mr. Gilbert on at least one occasion to act professionally in his conduct with regard to students. Before Christmas 2004, D.B. and Mr. Gilbert discussed lingerie. Sometime after these discussions Mr. Gilbert presented her with lingerie. This occurred around Christmas 2004. D.B. described this lingerie on some occasions as three thongs, and on at least one other occasion, two thongs and a pair of "regular" panties that did not fit her. D.B. said Mr. Gilbert on at least one occasion asked her to show him her underwear, which she was wearing. She showed him the thong underwear by pulling it upwards over her pants although on another occasion she said she did this by removing, or at least lowering, her pants. In January 2005 D.B., engaged in fellatio with Mr. Gilbert under a stairwell in Building 13 of Sarasota High School during the school day. The stairwell was not readily accessible to students. Subsequently, during the spring of 2005, she had sexual intercourse in the Building 13 stairwell with Mr. Jones, in the Building 13 maintenance room with Mr. Jones, in the Building 13 stairwell with Mr. Gilbert, in a Building 13 maintenance storeroom with Mr. Gilbert, in a Building 13 maintenance room with Mr. Jones, in a coach's office in the field house with Mr. Gilbert, and in the field house bathroom with Mr. Gilbert. Also during this period, she and Mr. Gilbert were in an unused school resources office in Building 5 together but did not engage in sex acts. When they left that room they went into an elevator but only kissed while on the elevator. On one occasion, Mr. Gilbert took her into a room in Building 5 that had a chair in it. D.B.'s clothes were removed and Mr. Gilbert attempted intercourse but was unable to do so. Thereafter Mr. Jones entered the room and had intercourse with D.B. while Mr. Gilbert watched. As the end of the 2004-2005 school year approached, she ended her relationship with Mr. Gilbert but continued engaging in sex acts with Mr. Jones. All of the sexual activity between Mr. Gilbert and D.B., and Mr. Jones and D.B. was consensual. All of the sexual activity took place on campus, during school hours, and in places generally inaccessible to students. Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Jones were gentle and kind with her, according to D.B. She did not wish to cause them trouble with the authorities. Near the end of the 2004-2005 school year, Assistant Principal Downes became aware of rumors that D.B. was having a sexual relationship with a member of the school staff and as a result called D.B. into his office. When confronted by him, she denied the allegation. She also denied it to the police and to her mother. Eventually, she admitted to her mother that she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Jones and the appropriate authorities were notified and an investigation ensued. Subsequently, she revealed her relationship with Mr. Gilbert and participated in a controlled telephone conversation with him while in the company of Detective Corrine Stannish. After the revelation of these encounters D.B. met with Detective Stannish, Deputy Brian Woodring, who is the School Resource Officer, and a Sarasota Police Department evidence technician on the Sarasota High School Campus. This occurred after the end of the school year in 2005. D.B. was asked to describe to the officers the site of each sexual encounter. After some initial confusion over whether she was going to Building 13 or 14, buildings which are mirror images of each other, she led the officers to Building 13, and to the other places in which she had encounters with Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Jones. The places where D.B. led the officers were places that students would not normally access. Many of the sites were locked. D.B. was able to describe with remarkable precision the interior of these sites before she entered them with the officers. The evidence technician used a "black light" in an effort to locate semen. Semen fluoresces when exposed to a black light. No residue of semen was found. Subsequent to a report from a custodian during August 2005, Assistant Principal Downes and Deputy Woodring discovered keys in Mr. Gilbert's locker in the field house. These keys included two Sarasota High School master keys, a golf cart key, an elevator key and a gate lock key. The master keys would open Building 13. Although, D.B. offered contradictory testimony with regard to the description of lingerie presented to her by Mr. Gilbert, and offered confusing and sometimes contradictory testimony with regard to the location and the identity of the participant with regard to some encounters, and preliminarily denied certain aspects of her activities to her assistant principal, police officers, and her mother, on the whole it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that D.B. had sexual liaisons with Mr. Gilbert during the time she was a minor student at Sarasota High School.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County, Florida, uphold the termination of Walter Gilbert's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2006, 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 7th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur S. Hardy, Esquire Matthews, Eastmoore, Hardy, Crauwels, & Garcia, P.A. Post Office Box 49377 Sarasota, Florida 34230-6377 Robert E. Turffs, Esquire Robert E. Turffs, P.A. 1444 First Street, Suite B Sarasota, Florida 34236-5705 Dr. Gary W. Norris Superintendent of Schools Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3365 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact As indicated, this case has been presented upon a facts stipulation between the representatives of the parties and the agreement for submission of certain evidential items in aid of the fact stipulation. The exact terms and details of the facts stipulated are as follows:
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Duval County School Board, allow the Petitioners claim for tenure effective the beginning of the academic year 1977- 78, with full benefits, including back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire General Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Thomas E. Crowder, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202
