Findings Of Fact Mary L. Baxter has been employed by the Polk County School Board for approximately 14 years, first as a classroom teacher, then as assistant principal, and in 1984 she was appointed as principal of John Cox Elementary School in Lakeland. While assigned to John Cox Elementary School, Petitioner was issued an annual contract for eleven months (Exhibit 5). Neriah E. Roberts is the Northwest Area Superintendent of Polk County Schools and was in that position at all times here relevant. As Northwest Area Superintendent, Dr. Roberts was Petitioner's immediate supervisor and supervised seventeen additional principals of the Polk County School System. Functions of the area superintendent include acting as liaison between the communities and the schools in his area responsibility, assisting the principals in obtaining funding for maintenance and other school activities and overseeing the performance of these principals. As Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Dr. Roberts prepared Petitioner's performance evaluation. In his first annual evaluation of Petitioner's performance (Exhibit 4), Dr. Roberts reported that Petitioner met performance standards. However, two of those blocks contained comments regarding performance by Petitioner that needed to be improved. Under "Student Services," Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should reassess her disciplinary procedures. Dr. Roberts had received complaints from parents of children at John Cox Elementary School indicating Petitioner was paddling an excessive number of pupils. When he checked the discipline records with Petitioner, he found some 97 pupils had been paddled during that school year. That discovery lead to Dr. Robert's comments. Under "Management" on the evaluation, Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should open lines of communication between her staff and her assistant principal. Dr. Roberts had received comments from teachers at John Cox that Petitioner was short tempered and was not popular with members of her instructional staff. On one occasion while Petitioner was principal at John Cox, Dr. Roberts met with the staff at John Cox at which meeting five or six teachers commented unfavorably on Petitioner's relations with her staff. Such reports formed the basis of these comments by Dr. Roberts above noted. In addition to placing the two comments on the March 25, 1985 evaluation, Dr. Roberts submitted a letter to Petitioner dated March 27, 1985 (Exhibit 6) in which he elaborated on the comments placed on the evaluation. Dr. Roberts held another conference with Petitioner on August 14, 1985, which he memorialized in a letter to Petitioner dated August 23, 1985, (Exhibit 7). In this letter, he referred to his March 27, 1985, letter and stated that letter was intended to substitute for a more formal professional development plan. In the evaluation of Petitioner dated March 3, 1986, Dr. Roberts reports that Petitioner successfully met minimum standards in all sections of the evaluation. However, in Section 1, comments are made that "Improvement has been made in leadership style, but this does not preclude the need for continued improvement." Under Item 11 on this evaluation, the comment appears that "Your flexibility and adjustment to this community and students has been good. Due to the inability to read the dates on some of the evaluations contained in Exhibit 4, it is impossible to tell which evaluation was for the second year and which is for the third year Petitioner was principal at John Knox. From Dr. Roberts' testimony, it appears that the evaluation for the second year is included in Exhibit 6, and the evaluation reports in Exhibit 4 in which the date is not legible was for her third year at John Cox. At the expiration of Petitioner's three years as principal at John Cox, she became eligible for a multi-year contract, and Dr. Roberts recommended her for such a contract. When this recommendation reached the superintendent's office, Donald R. Cox, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, noted that the recommendation was inconsistent with school board policy and contacted Dr. Roberts to remind him of the policy that before administrative personnel can be given a multi-year contract, their performance evaluations must be totally satisfactory in each category on the evaluation report for the three years preceding the awarding of a multi-year contract. Dr. Roberts then contacted Petitioner by phone to tell her she would not receive a multi-year contract. Petitioner was quite upset during this conversation and indicated to Dr. Roberts that she would resign. She was requested to put her resignation in writing. This conversation occurred near the end of the week, and the following work day (either Friday or Monday) Dr. Roberts and Dr. Cox met with the superintendent. During this meeting, the status of Petitioner was brought up, and Dr. Roberts told the superintendent that Petitioner had indicated she would resign. Shortly thereafter on January 12, 1987, the superintendent of schools submitted a letter to Petitioner (Exhibit 5), accepting her verbal resignation as principal at John Cox Elementary School and advising her that she would be reassigned to the first available vacancy as assistant principal. By letter dated June 15, 1987 (Exhibit 10), Petitioner indicated she had not resigned and that the charges against her were based on information she had been given no opportunity to challenge or rebut. The superintendent then authorized Dr. Cox to set up a meeting with Petitioner and Dr. Roberts to try and resolve the differences. At this time, it was clear that no valid resignation had been submitted by Petitioner, and this was no longer an avenue to be pursued by the school board. Dr. Cox was authorized by the superintendent to offer Petitioner continued employment as principal of John Cox Elementary School, a transfer to another school as assistant principal at no reduction in salary or a return to professional status as instructional personnel. A meeting was scheduled and held shortly after June 15, 1987 between Roberts, Cox and Petitioner at which Cox offered the above noted alternatives to Petitioner. Petitioner then stated she did not want to remain at John Cox, but would like a lateral transfer to another school as principal. Cox was not authorized to approve the lateral transfer requested by Petitioner and told her he would relay that request to the superintendent and advise Petitioner. When Dr. Cox presented this proposal to the superintendent, the latter indicated he would refuse to recommend to the school board that Petitioner be employed at any other school to a position higher than assistant principal. Cox relayed this information back to Petitioner, and she was subsequently assigned as assistant principal at North Lakeland Elementary School at the same salary she had received as principal at John Cox. Petitioner subsequently requested the hearing to challenge this action, and these proceedings followed.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis J. Fells, has been an employee of the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, since 1975. At all times material hereto, he was a teacher and basketball coach at American Senior High School. On September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown was fifteen years of age, a student at American Senior High School, and a student in Respondent's sixth period physical education class. Monday, September 7, 1981, was Labor Day. Since classes for the 1981- 82 school year had commenced the week prior to Labor Day, American Senior High School was closed on Monday and reopened on Tuesday, September 8, 1981. On September 8, Respondent reported to American Senior High School to carry out his teaching and coaching duties. Since the floor of the gym was being painted, and since the school year had just begun so that not all physical education students had their gym clothes, the physical education classes were held in either the auditorium or the gym as study-halls, and the students wore their regular clothing. Between 9:30 and 10:30 the morning of September 8, Norman Blanco, a volunteer assistant basketball coach, came to American High to talk to Respondent about holding tryouts for the basketball team for the new school year. Since Respondent was with a class, Blanco told Respondent he would return after school to discuss that matter. Both the sixth period classes and the school day ended at 2:15 P.M. Respondent's sixth period physical education class had been held in the auditorium. James Lee, one of Respondent's sixth period students, asked Respondent for a ride home after school, and Respondent agreed to give Lee a ride home. Respondent left the auditorium and went to the main office to sign out and check his mail. He started to walk toward the boys' locker room, but stopped to speak to the art teacher about the eagle emblem to be placed on the gym floor by the art students. He then went to the gym to get the paint for the floor and took the paint to the art teacher's room, where he left it, although the art teacher was no longer there. Respondent then went to the coaches' office, where Blanco was waiting. From past experience, Blanco knows that if he arrives at American High at 2:15, he cannot find a place to park. He usually arrives about fifteen minutes after school lets out so that all the cars are gone and he can park wherever he wishes. On September 8, he arrived at American High at approximately 2:20 P.M. He went to the coaches' office to talk to Respondent. By the conclusion of their ten-to-fifteen minute meeting in the coaches' office, Blanco had talked Respondent into holding tryouts for the basketball team rather than simply using last year's team, as Respondent had intended to do. Blanco left Respondent in the coaches' office at approximately 2:35 P.M. There are two doors in the coaches' office: one opening into a hallway, and one opening into the boys' locker room. During Respondent's meeting with Blanco, the doors were open. After school on September 8 in the hallway outside the coaches' office, band members were going out to the football field, members of the flag corps were assembling for practice, and the cheerleaders were practicing approximately fifteen yards from the door into the coaches' office. In the boys' locker room, members of the cross-country team, the football team, and the soccer team were using their lockers or changing their clothes for practice. Additionally, the coaches' office is not Respondent's private office; rather, it is also used by the cross-country coach, the baseball coach, and the soccer coach, who are also involved with their students, their team members, aides, and managers. Inside the boys' locker room is a small room used for storing basketball equipment. The door to that room is kept locked. There are only three keys for that room: Respondent possessed one, Assistant Coach Jones possessed the second key, and the third key which traditionally was kept in the main office had never been returned after the girls' basketball team borrowed it one night the previous school year. After his meeting with Blanco, Respondent went to the main office, where he left his handwritten announcement concerning tryouts for the basketball team on the public address system. He then saw James Lee out in front of the school, directly in front of the main office. At approximately 2:45, from the main office, Respondent went to his car and left school with James Lee. When Lee arrived at his home, he told his mother that it was 3:00 and that Coach Fells had given him a ride home. After dropping off James Lee, Respondent went to Mr. B's Package Store and Lounge to see A. J. (Arnold) Johnson, one of the owners. Over the Labor Day holiday, Bobby Hunter, Assistant Basketball Coach from Boston College, visited Respondent and left sneakers for A. J. Johnson at Respondent's house. Respondent took the sneakers into Mr. B's and gave them to Johnson, who was waiting for the bank to open at 3:00 so he could transact some business at the bank. Johnson left Mr. B's to go to the bank at approximately 3:05, and when he returned from the bank, Respondent was still there. While Johnson was gone from Mr. B's, Respondent visited with Roscoe Large, the sales representative from Southern Wine and Spirits, and several other persons whom he also knew. After Respondent had been at Mr. B's for approximately thirty minutes, he left and drove to Coconut Grove to pick up his son at the baby-sitter's. On the following day, Respondent went to school and spent a normal day. After he arrived home on Wednesday, his wife told him that someone had been calling on the telephone accusing Respondent of raping Paulette Brown. The next morning, Respondent called the principal of American Senior High, and the principal advised him to stay home. On September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown stayed after school rather than leaving the school grounds when school adjourned for the day at 2:15. Between 2:30 and 2:45, she visited with Agnes Pitts and William Hopkins in the vicinity of the coaches' office and boys' locker room. When Agnes Pitts again saw Paulette Brown, it was approximately 3:00, and Brown was walking toward the front of the school. Brown told Pitts that she was going home. At approximately 3:00, Brown called her father and asked him to pick her up at school. After he picked her up and pursuant to her suggestions, they first picked up fried chicken for dinner and then picked up Paulette's brother when he got out of school at 3:30. Mr. Brown then took Paulette and her brother home and then went to pick up Paulette's mother, Pauline Brown, at 4:00 at her place of employment. Between 5:00 and 6:00 P.M. on September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown called her godsister, April Clark, and told Clark that Respondent had raped her. She also told her story to George Richberg that same evening. She also told her story twice to Jeffrey Clark. During her second relating of the story to Jeffrey Clark, she included mention of a janitor with a key to the boys' locker room. On Wednesday, September 9, Paulette Brown stayed home from school. After taking a nap, she called her boyfriend's sister and told her that Coach Fells had raped her. When the boyfriend's sister threatened to tell someone in a position of authority if Paulette refused to, Paulette told a neighbor, who told Mrs. Brown. Paulette Brown was tested at the Rape Treatment Center on September 9, and the investigators for the police department examined the equipment room on September 12. To gain entry to the room, the police drilled through the deadbolt lock. Five non-mobile sperm were found within Paulette Brown by the Rape Treatment Center. Testing by the Miami-Dade Police Department Crime Lab established that the sperm came from an individual that was an "O-positive secreter." This is the most common blood type. Forty percent of the American population falls in this category. Respondent is a member of this category, that is, Respondent is an "O-positive secreter." The Miami-Dade Police Department's fingerprint experts examined and dusted the equipment room at American Senior High School and found identifiable fingerprints of the Respondent. They found no identifiable fingerprints of Paulette Brown. The parties have stipulated that simply because one touches an object, one does not necessarily leave fingerprints. The sheet, which Paulette Brown claims she lay upon while having sexual intercourse with Respondent, was impounded from the equipment room and examined. Nothing of serological value was found. Respondent, Otis J. Fells, did not commit sexual battery upon Paulette Brown on September 8, 1981, and Respondent, Otis J. Fells, did not engage in any sexual activity with Paulette Brown on September 8, 1981.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of immorality and misconduct in office, as set forth in the Amended Notice of Charges filed in this cause, and reinstating Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County with back pay. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 16th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jose E. Martinez, Esquire Leib I Martinez, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200 Ponce de Leon Plaza Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire du Fresne & du Fresne, P.A. 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Leonard M. Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here Respondent was, and continues to be, an employee of the Hernando County School Board (HCSB) as a member of the instructional staff. Respondent is employed under a "professional service contract." The origin of these proceedings occurred on December 5, 1996, when Respondent was arrested for allegedly engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with a male, minor student. Apart from the allegations raised in this case, Respondent has been a satisfactory and effective employee of HCSB. Respondent began working for HCSB in 1989 at Powell Middle School as a science teacher with regular classroom duties. He eventually became the technology resource coordinator at Powell Middle School. As such, he no longer had regular classroom duties. Throughout his teaching career, Respondent frequently tutored and mentored students who needed help. Even without regular classroom duties Respondent continued to help students. Such help continues today. In fact, Respondent is known and respected by peers and parents for the mentoring and tutoring he gives to students and the success he has had with troubled students. Beginning in January 1995, Respondent served as director of an after-school program at Powell Middle School. HCSB and the local YMCA sponsored and funded the after-school program until sometime in the Spring of 1996 when the program was discontinued. Respondent was in large part responsible for the successful creation, organization, and operation of the after-school program. The after-school program began immediately after each school day and continued until 5:00 p.m. The program was staffed by Powell Middle School staff and other adults who taught different classes. Some of the after-school activities, like swimming lessons, took place on the premises of the YMCA. The after-school program participants enrolled in the off-campus activities rode a school bus from the school to the various activities in remote locations. Respondent directed the after-school program initially from his classroom in the science building of Powell Middle School and, subsequently, from a room used as a computer lab, adjacent to his former classroom. A number of school administrators and teachers were constantly walking in and out of the areas where Respondent worked each day because supplies for the after-school program were stored in the computer lab storage rooms. After school, teachers frequently visited Respondent's work station unannounced. Janitors and work details were on the school premises until 11:00 p.m. Bathrooms and a refrigerator for staff were located near Respondent's work station. Respondent's classroom in the science building had large windows along the outside wall. There were windows between the computer room and Respondent's classroom. There were windows between the computer room and another classroom in the same building. The only area which had any possibility of privacy was a walk-in storage closet in the computer room. The doors to the science classrooms, the computer room, and closet were never locked. During the summers, Respondent spent his time working at Camp Sangamon, a camp in Vermont for boys of all ages. He began working at the camp in 1980 as a regular counselor. Later he served as head of the activity trip program. Respondent worked as the camp's assistant director for about eight years. In the Summer of 1995, Respondent lived in a cabin with older boys who were counselors-in-training (CITs). However, he spent almost all of his time in the administrative office taking care of paperwork, planning activities, and supervising programs. He never went to his cabin in the middle of the day unless he was specifically looking for a CIT. Respondent's cabin was on a main trail through the camp in close proximity to other cabins and a basketball court. People were constantly walking by the cabin, especially in the middle of the day during a free activity period. The cabin did not have a lock on its door. It had large windows with no screens, which were usually propped open with a stick. The panels that formed the walls of the cabin were separated by approximately one inch. The spaces between the panels left the interior of the cabin visible during the day. As assistant director, Respondent could arrange for Florida boys to attend the camp at a reduced rate. Over the years, he made these arrangements for several boys. Respondent met C.B., a seventh grade student at Powell Middle School, in 1995. C.B. was a very troubled young man. He regularly skipped school, lied, and ran away from home. His home life included physical and mental abuse. His relationship with his parents was poor. His grades were very poor and he was on a track for dropping out of school. In 1995, C.B. was not one of Respondent's regular students. He was a participant in the after-school program. Initially, C.B.'s stepmother called Respondent to check on C.B.'s attendance in the after-school program. The stepmother and Respondent discussed C.B.'s problems, including his attempts to run away from home. During subsequent conversations, Respondent offered C.B. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon for three weeks in the summer of 1995. C.B.'s family was pleased that he would have an opportunity to go to camp. They accepted Respondent's offer and made final arrangements for C.B. to attend camp for three weeks at a reduced rate. When C.B. arrived at camp in 1995, he announced that he was going to stay at camp all summer. Despite his initial positive attitude, C.B. had trouble adjusting to camp life. He had problems interacting with other campers. He sometimes would curl up into a fetal position and cry uncontrollably. Respondent often helped C.B. get through these episodes. With help from his counselors and encouragement from Respondent, C.B. stayed at camp for eight weeks. Gradually, Respondent learned of C.B.’s troubled home life and felt sympathy for him and wanted to help. During the summer of 1995, Respondent assisted C.B. with the completion of a science project. C.B. had to complete the project in order to be promoted to the eighth grade. Respondent's cabin was always open with CITs coming and going. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cabin at any time. C.B.'s testimony that, at Respondent's request, he masturbated Respondent's penis in the cabin during a free activity period just before lunch is not credited since C.B.’s multitude of statements regarding multiple alleged incidents of sexual activity between Respondent and himself were highly inconsistent and consisted of changeable details which showed the implausibility, if not impossibility, of such activity occurring. In fact, all of C.B.’s allegations suffer from this infirmity. After returning from summer camp, C.B. went boating with Respondent and several other people. The group enjoyed snorkeling and water skiing. However, C.B. and Respondent were never alone on a boat. C.B. was in the eighth grade at Powell Middle School in the Fall of 1995. Even though he was not in one of Respondent's classes, C.B. often received passes from his teachers to visit Respondent's classroom during the regular school day. C.B. participated in the after-school program activities both on- and off-campus. There was some indication that C.B. was not permitted to go home after school unless someone was present at the home. Respondent regularly drove C.B. home following the close of the after-school program. Respondent worked one-on-one with C.B. to improve his grades. Respondent also worked one-on-one with other students during the same time period. He set up a program for C.B. that required C.B. to obtain the signatures of his teachers on an attendance and work form. Two to three times a week, Respondent visited C.B.'s home to tutor C.B. C.B. also was tutored by Jen O’Connor during the after-school program. C.B.'s grades improved markedly and he made the honor roll during the first grading period of his 8th grade year. Respondent encouraged C.B. to set high school graduation as a goal which would cause C.B. to be the first in his family to remain in school and graduate. C.B. testified that during the after-school hours of the 1995-96 school year, he twice complied with Respondent's request to masturbate Respondent's penis on school grounds, either in the science classroom or the adjoining computer/storage room. This testimony is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and again lacks credibility. On October 20, 1995, Respondent took C.B. to Disney World as a reward for his academic success during the first grading period. The Disney trip was an incentive for good progress which had been agreed to earlier that year by C.B.’s parents. Respondent and C.B. traveled in Respondent's pickup truck and shared the expenses of the trip. C.B. left with enough money to buy a one-day pass to one of the three Disney parks. Respondent and C.B. arrived at the Disney World parking lot before the amusement park opened. They parked in front of the ticket booth around 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. Other cars were also arriving. Parking attendants and people waiting to enter the entertainment area were in close proximity to Respondent's vehicle at all times. Disney was running a special promotion for Florida residents. For a small increase in the price, a Florida resident could purchase a pass to all three Disney parks for a year. Respondent wished to go to all three parks but could not do so unless C.B. was able to take advantage of the Disney promotion. Respondent and C.B. paid their entrance fee for all three parks with Respondent providing the difference in price. They entered one of the theme parks as soon as it opened for business. The evidence did not show that there was anything inappropriate about the ticket upgrade or Respondent making up the difference in price. The purchase of the pass was in no way harmful to C.B. With so many people around, there was no privacy or expectation of such in Respondent's truck. C.B.'s testimony that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the Disney World parking lot is not credited. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend a counseling session with a guidance counselor at Powell Middle School. Respondent made the appointment because he suspected that C.B. was the victim of abuse at home. On February 5, 1996, C.B. and his father had an argument. The father lost his temper and punched C.B. in the face and ear. C.B. did not go to school the next day. The school resource officer noticed bruises on C.B.'s face the following week at school. He reported his observations to an investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services. C.B.'s father admitted to the investigator that he hit C.B. in the face. The authorities took no legal action against C.B.'s father. At the end of his eighth grade year, C.B. was promoted to ninth grade and would be attending Springstead West High School. At the time, both C.B. and his parents expressed great appreciation over the help Respondent had given to C.B. That summer C.B., with the permission of his parents, again attended camp at a reduced rate. He went to Vermont early so that he could earn money working at camp before it opened. During his stay at the camp, Respondent "fronted" C.B. the money to buy a portable CD player, CDs, and some articles of clothing with the understanding that C.B. would repay Respondent later from the funds C.B. had in his camp account. In fact, C.B. did repay Respondent for these items. Additionally, Respondent permitted C.B. to use his credit card to order and purchase items from a catalog over the telephone. Again C.B. paid Respondent back. There was no evidence that these purchases were improper or harmed C.B. Mrs. Peady O'Connor, one of Respondent's friends, also went to camp in the summer of 1996 to work in the kitchen. C.B. stayed at camp all summer, returning home with Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor on August 16, 1996. There was no evidence the scholarships to camp Respondent provided during any of the summers at question here were improper. If anything, the scholarships benefited C.B. and the other boys who received them. Immediately upon his return to Florida, Respondent began having trouble with his truck. He took it to the shop on Saturday, August 17, 1996. He spent the rest of the day with a friend, Jackie Agard. Respondent did not go boating that weekend. School started on August 19, 1996, for the 1996-97 school year. Respondent returned to work at Powell Middle School as the technology resource coordinator. C.B. attended ninth grade at Springstead West High School. C.B. would occasionally contact Respondent for help. On Tuesday, August 20, 1996, Respondent leased a new sport utility vehicle. It did not have a pre-installed trailer hitch necessary for towing Respondent’s boat. The next Saturday, August 24, 1996, Respondent spent the day with friends from out-of-town. He did not go boating that weekend. On August 29, 1996, Respondent purchased a trailer hitch. He intended to install the hitch personally. That same day, Respondent and Chuck Wall, a scuba diving instructor, met with C.B. and his parents. The purpose of the visit was to sign C.B. up for scuba diving lessons. Respondent agreed to pay for the lessons as he had for those of other young people. Again, no evidence demonstrated that such lessons or the payment for scuba lessons were inappropriate or in any way harmful to C.B. On Saturday, August 31, 1996, Respondent took some of his friends to dinner and a movie in his new vehicle. He did not go boating that weekend. Respondent's boat was parked at the home of his parents all summer while Respondent was in Vermont. It was still there when Respondent installed the trailer hitch on his new vehicle on Labor Day, September 2, 1996. On September 3, 1996, Respondent took C.B. to his first scuba diving lesson. After the lesson, Respondent, C.B., and Mr. Wall took Respondent's boat to a marina at Crystal River. After launching Respondent's boat, Chuck Wall had difficulty getting the boat to run because it had not been used for such a long time. Respondent left his boat at the marina for the rest of the fall boating season. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that C.B. and Respondent never went boating alone. There was no inappropriate sexual conduct between C.B. and Respondent on Respondent's boat. On Saturday, September 7, 1996, Respondent took a group of students to Disney World. The trip was a reward for the students' involvement with a video yearbook project sponsored by Respondent. C.B. did not participate in the activity. The next Saturday, C.B.'s scuba diving lesson was cancelled. C.B. did not go boating with Respondent or have a scuba lesson that weekend because he was on restrictions at home. Respondent was invited to and attended C.B.’s stepmother’s birthday party on September 17, 1996. On or about September 18, 1996, C.B.'s parents became aware that C.B. was responsible for long distance phone calls to a girl that C.B. met at camp. The calls totaled about $300.00. Initially, C.B. had hidden the bill from his parents. C.B.’s stepmother discovered the bill. After a confrontation with his parents over the telephone bill, C.B. ran away from home. For the next few days, C.B. was living with friends. There was no evidence that Respondent knew where C.B. was staying or that once he discovered his whereabouts that Respondent withheld that information from anyone. Respondent was eventually asked to help locate C.B. On September 21, 1996, Respondent went to C.B.'s home. C.B.’s father asked Respondent what he thought should happen with C.B. regarding living at home. Respondent suggested that C.B.'s parents let C.B. live with the O'Connor family for a short period of time. He also suggested that C.B. receive counseling and agreed to arrange for the therapy. Mr. and Mrs. O'Connor and their son and daughter were close friends of Respondent. They are good, decent people. The son, Sean O'Connor, was away at college. The daughter, Jennifer or Jen, still lived at home. C.B.'s parents agreed to let C.B. live with the O’Connors on a trial basis provided that C.B. remain on restrictions within the O'Connor home for a period of time and pay back the telephone charges he had incurred. The O'Connors did not live within the Springstead West High School District. C.B. did not want to talk to his parents. Therefore, Respondent and the O'Connors worked together to provide C.B. with transportation to and from school. Further the parents did not provide C.B. any money for lunch while he was at the O’Connors. Again it was up to both Respondent and the O’Connors to provide C.B. with lunch money. C.B.’s parents were aware of the need for transportation and lunch money but did not offer to provide or provide any of these needs while C.B. was at the O’Connors. In fact, C.B.’s parents did not attempt to visit C.B., communicate with C.B., or be otherwise interested in C.B.'s well-being during his month long stay at the O’Connors. Respondent also purchased C.B. a beeper to facilitate communication between C.B. and Mrs. O'Connor. All of these provisions were reasonable for C.B. There was no evidence which showed these items were improper gifts on the part of Respondent or could reasonably be anticipated to cause harm to C.B. On the contrary, these "gifts" were beneficial, if not necessary, to C.B. After moving in with the O'Connors, C.B. was allowed to attend a football game. He did not meet Mrs. O'Connor after the game as he had been instructed. The police found C.B. and turned him over to C.B.'s stepmother. As soon as he got to the gate of his parent's property, C.B. got out of his stepmother's car and ran away again. The police eventually found C.B. at the home of his stepbrother's girlfriend on October 2, 1996. C.B.'s parents told the police to release C.B. to Respondent's custody. Respondent took C.B. back to live with the O'Connors. October 7, 1996, was an early release day at school. Respondent, C.B., and another student left from school to look for a lost anchor. Later that evening, Respondent dropped off C.B. at the O'Connors' residence then proceeded to take the other student home. October 8, 1996, was a hurricane day for the school district. Mrs. O'Connor was at home all day. Respondent and C.B. were never alone in the O'Connors' home. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever performed anal intercourse upon C.B. at the O'Connors' home or at Powell Middle School in the storage closet of the computer room. During the time that C.B. lived with the O'Connors, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend two counseling sessions with a school psychologist. On October 23, 1996, there was an ESE staffing meeting at Springstead West High School regarding C.B. The meeting was related to C.B.'s special education program. At some point prior to the meeting, the assistant principal was asked to investigate the fact that C.B. was living at the O'Connors and attending a school outside the zone in which the O'Connors lived. Normally, the principal would not be at a staffing meeting. He did not participate in any decision regarding C.B.'s education. Both Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor were invited to attend the meeting by C.B.'s stepmother. All three people attended the meeting along with appropriate education staff. The meeting grew heated over the issue of out-of- district attendance with Respondent becoming exacerbated with the principal and calling him a "liar" and addressing the principal forcefully while getting up out of his chair. The principal became verbally forceful with Respondent. Eventually, both calmed down. Forcefully stating a position is not coercion and the evidence did not show that either Respondent’s or the principal's behavior was either coercive or oppressive, especially since the principal later was instructed by the Superintendent to apologize to Respondent for his behavior during the meeting. During the meeting, C.B.'s stepmother decided it was time for C.B. to return home. She was prepared to take C.B. home that night after the meeting. She asked Respondent to leave her son alone. However, apparently her words were spoken out of exasperation since C.B., who was at the school, left with Respondent and Mrs. O’Connor at the conclusion of the meeting with C.B.'s mother's consent. C.B. had an appointment with a therapist that evening. C.B.'s father would pick C.B. up at the O'Connors the following day. On Thursday, October 24, 1996, C.B.'s father went to the O'Connors to pick up C.B. and move him back home. When the father arrived at the O'Connors' home, C.B. attempted to have a heart-to-heart talk with his father. C.B. wanted to know why his father always sided with his stepmother against him. He also told his father that he did not want to return home. His father told C.B. that he was coming home and that he could either come home the easy way or the hard way. When the father insisted that C.B. return home, C.B. went down the hall and ran out into the backyard of the O'Connors' home. C.B.'s father went out the front door and around the corner of the O'Connors' house. C.B.'s father caught up with C.B., grabbed him from behind, pulled him to the ground, straddled him and, while holding C.B. on the ground with a knee in C.B.'s pelvic area, repeatedly punched C.B. in the face with a closed fist and an overhead strike. C.B.'s father picked his son up by the collar and drug him over to a metal fence. C.B. was trying to push his father’s hands away. His father grabbed C.B. by the neck and slammed his head into the metal fence approximately three times. He struck C.B. about three more times in the face with a closed fist. At that point, a witness to the struggle grabbed C.B.'s father from behind in a half nelson and pulled him off of C.B. Once the father had released his grip and stepped back, the witness let go of C.B.'s father. During the first part of the struggle, C.B.'s father was calling his son a "fucking asshole" and "dirty little bastard." C.B. was yelling that he wanted to kill himself, wanted to get this over with, and hated himself. The father's response was that he could help his son end his life, that he had a gun back at the house, and "you know, we can get this on right now, let's kill you, let's get it over with." Almost immediately after being pulled off, C.B.'s father attacked his son again, grabbed him by the collar and struck him several more times in the face with a closed fist and slammed his head into the ground several times. The witness grabbed C.B.'s father again and tried to pull him off. C.B.'s father did not want to disengage and resisted the witnesses' efforts. The witnesses forced C.B.'s arms off his son and held him. At some point during the struggle, Mrs. O'Connor had come into the backyard. C.B. grabbed Mrs. O'Connor around the ankles and would not let go. C.B. was crying saying he wanted to die and "stop it, stop it, please." Mrs. O'Connor was yelling at C.B.'s father to stop. C.B.'s father still had C.B. by the belt loop and the neck. He had one knee in C.B.'s back. He was grinding C.B.'s head into the ground. The witnesses was forcing C.B.'s father's arms off C.B. Mrs. O'Connor told her daughter, Jen, to call the police. At that point, C.B.'s father let go of C.B. and ceased his attack. All of the blows which the father hit his son with were full force punches. C.B. was bloodied and bruised by his father. Photographs taken show extensive bruising on C.B.'s face. Incredibly both C.B. and his stepmother deny the physical effects of the struggle that night. C.B.'s father was arrested and taken to jail. The next day, C.B.'s stepmother filed a police report alleging that Respondent had sexually abused C.B. After his father was arrested, C.B. spent one night with his stepbrother. His stepmother told him not to attend school the next day. She wanted C.B. to go with her to talk to the authorities and to get C.B.'s father out of jail. Despite these instructions, C.B. rode to school with Jen O'Connor. When C.B.'s stepmother discovered that he was at school, she went to pick him up. When she arrived at school, C.B. refused to go home with or meet with her alone. Because he would not meet with his stepmother alone, he met with her in the presence of the school resource officer. Because C.B. refused to go home, C.B. was taken to a youth shelter in Pasco County, known as the Run-Away Prevention (RAP) house. C.B. ran away from the shelter that night at about 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. C.B. turned to the only adults he knew who could safely contact for help. C.B. called the O'Connors from a pay phone at a mini market in Pasco County. Respondent was at the O'Connors at the time. Both Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor went to pick up C.B. Respondent drove because Mrs. O'Connor did not drive. They picked C.B. up at the mini market in Pasco County. Both discussed with C.B. where he could go. Because of the incident with C.B.'s father, C.B. could not return to the O'Connors' house. Respondent suggested that he return home. However, C.B. rejected that suggestion, saying he would immediately run away again. Additionally, Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor very reasonably believed it would not be physically safe for C.B. to return home. All decided that C.B. would go to the home of another teacher. When they arrived at the teacher's home, some discussion occurred about C.B.'s predicament. There was some discussion about emancipation, but the discussion was purely theoretical. C.B. was given the number for the Domestic Violence Hotline so that he could call and report his father and perhaps obtain some protective services from the state. Neither the teacher nor her roommate, who was also a teacher, reported C.B. to the police or advised his parents of his whereabouts. They did not so report because they reasonably feared for his safety. This was the last time that Respondent had any material contact with C.B. The next day C.B. left the teacher's house and stayed with a friend that he generally stayed with when he ran away. The friend was known to his parents and the friend' house was within a mile of C.B.'s home. Interestingly, C.B. continued to sporadically attend school while on runaway status until he was prevented from riding the bus to school by a bus driver. During the time C.B. was on runaway status, no one asked Respondent if he knew where C.B. was or if he could guess where he might be. Moreover, under these facts, Respondent did not have the duty to report any such information about C.B. On October 29, 1996, and November 6, 1996, a deputy sheriff interviewed C.B. about the allegations raised by his stepmother. On both occasions, C.B. denied that Respondent had ever engaged in or attempted to engage in inappropriate conduct with him. On November 8, 1996, a sheriff's detective, Detective Baxley, and a worker from the Department of Children and Family Services each questioned C.B. C.B. again denied ever having any sexual contact with Respondent. In November 1996, C.B. returned to live with his parents. On November 13, 1996, the day that C.B.'s father made his first court appearance, with some direction on what needed to be said to the state attorney from Detective Baxley, C.B. told the state attorney, in the presence of both parents, that he did not want to press charges against his father and that the "fight" was his fault. The charges were subsequently dropped. On November 18, 1996, Detective Baxley and Detective Cameron interrogated C.B. Towards the end of the interview, C.B. accused Respondent of having inappropriate sexual contact with him on two occasions. C.B. alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis in Respondent's cabin at camp in the summer of 1996.1 C.B. also alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis on Respondent's boat in Crystal River sometime in the early Fall of 1996, within weeks of the beginning of school. The detectives had C.B. call Respondent. They taped the conversation without Respondent's knowledge. C.B. told Respondent that the police had given him a polygraph when in fact they had used a computer voice stress analyzer. Respondent told C.B. he had nothing to worry about as long as he told the truth. The police interrogated C.B. again on November 27, 1996. During this interview, C.B. accused Respondent of inappropriate sexual conduct involving masturbation of Respondent's penis in Respondent's science classroom or the computer room at Powell Middle School during after-school hours of the 1995-96 school year. Respondent was arrested on or about December 5, 1996. In January of 1997, C.B. alleged for the first time that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the parking lot at Disney World on October 20, 1995. On March 27, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him at the O'Connor residence during a "hurricane day" in October of 1996. On April 16, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him in the walk-in closet of the computer/storage room at Powell Middle School on two occasions in September or October of 1996. None of these various accusations were credible. Finally, there was no credible evidence that Respondent interfered with the relationship between C.B. and his parents in a manner which could reasonably be foreseen to harm C.B. Moreover, there is nothing in the statutes or rules of DOE which, absent harm, purports to make interference with a parent's custody or ignoring a parent's wishes a violation of those rules subject to discipline. Respondent met A.P., a sixth grade student at Powell Middle School, in 1995 as a participant in the after-school program. A.P. was a very out-going person, who demanded attention. He was also known for lying, especially when seeking attention. At times, Respondent, as director of the after-school program, had to discipline A.P. A.P. did not find Respondent to be strong, mean, violent, or scary. He never heard Respondent swear, tell dirty jokes, talk dirty, or threaten anyone. During his sixth grade year, A.P. would routinely visit Respondent's classroom during the school day even though Respondent was not one of his teachers. A.P. often visited Respondent during the after-school program. Respondent frequently gave A.P. a ride home after the after-school program. Respondent offered A.P. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon in the Summer of 1995. With the consent of his parents, A.P. attended camp at a reduced rate for three weeks that summer. In the Fall of 1995, A.P. was in the seventh grade. He was in a science class taught by Respondent. He continued to attend the after-school program. Respondent worked on computers during the times that A.P. and other students visited in the computer room. There is no persuasive evidence that pornographic pictures of nude males on the Internet ever appeared on the computer monitors while Respondent was operating a computer in A.P.'s presence. In January of 1996, A.P. continued to visit Respondent in Respondent's classroom or in the computer room after school. Respondent did not at any time ask A.P. to touch Respondent in a sexually inappropriate manner. Respondent never masturbated A.P.'s penis on school property. Respondent developed a plan for A.P. to work and earn money so that he could attend camp during the Summer of 1996. A.P. did not follow through with the plan. Consequently, he did not attend camp for the second time. In the Fall of 1996, A.P. entered the eighth grade at Powell Middle School. A.P. continued to visit Respondent in the computer room after school up until the police arrested Respondent. Just before Respondent's arrest, Detective Baxley interviewed several of Respondent's students. One of those students was A.P. Of his own accord, Detective Baxley went to A.P.'s home to interview him. During the interview, A.P. told the detective that Respondent had shown him pornographic pictures from the Internet in the school's computer room. A.P. also claimed that, on one occasion, A.P. declined Respondent's request for A.P. to touch Respondent's penis. On another occasion, Respondent allegedly masturbated A.P.'s penis. According to A.P., the latter two incidents took place in the computer room. At one point, A.P. also admitted to a teacher and a guidance counselor that he had lied about these incidents. Again the greater weight of the evidence shows that Respondent did not engage in any sexual activities with A.P. or engage in any improper behavior or relationship with A.P. Respondent never harmed A.P. in any way. J.K. was another student attending the after-school program at Powell Middle School. He went to school with both C.B. and A.P. He also attended Camp Sagamon during the summer for at least one summer. While at camp, J.K. testified that one time Respondent, while sitting on the porch of his cabin, asked him about what he thought about two men being together. However, J.K. does not remember what the specific words were. J.K. did not particularly respond and left. Nothing was said about anybody having sex. The statement did not have a sexual connotation. Clearly, no violation of the statutes and rules is supported by such a vague, out-of-context statement. J.K. also recalled one incident when Respondent accidentally bumped into J.K. while he was in the storage room. The incident occurred when J.K. came out from behind the door to the storage room while Respondent was entering. The back of Respondent's hand brushed J.K.'s groin area. Respondent was startled by the encounter, jumped back and said excuse me to J.K. Again, nothing in this incident even remotely supports a violation of statute or rules. Finally, J.K. testified about Respondent teasing him about not skinny-dipping while at summer camp. The episode occurred while J.K. and Respondent were on Respondent's boat with a group of other people. None of the others overheard the conversation or were in a position to overhear the conversation. There is nothing in the episode which suggests that the teasing was overbearing or disparaging. Again, no violation of the rules or statutes was shown.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Education enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of any violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. Jurisdiction is reserved over the issue of attorney fees should the parties not be able to agree on such. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 24th day of June, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is entitled to an athletic coaching certificate, as described in section 1012.55(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(4).
Findings Of Fact Early Life: 1960-1978 Petitioner was born on December 22, 1960. Petitioner is the youngest of five sons born to a Bahamian mother, who worked as a beautician, and a Jamaican father, who worked as a custodian. Petitioner's four older brothers have all earned college degrees. Petitioner's oldest brother served as an Army psychiatrist. Two other brothers also served in the military: one as a comptroller and the other as a Navy pilot. Petitioner's youngest brother is the executive director of a well-known hotel on Miami Beach. Petitioner grew up in the Liberty City section of Miami and graduated from Miami Beach Senior High School in 1978. Liberty City was a dangerous area in which to live with gunfire a familiar sound to residents. Two years after Petitioner graduated, Liberty City and other parts of Miami were torn by race riots. Unlike all of his siblings, Petitioner has never attended college. After high school, Petitioner worked as a washer and cook at a local hospital, but continued to pursue his real interest, which was performing as a disc jockey (DJ). Interning nights at a local radio station, Petitioner acquired enough experience to start a mobile DJ business in Liberty City and Miami Beach, where he worked on weekends. Criminal History: Essentially 1979-1986 Respondent's characterizations of Petitioner's criminal history as "extensive," in the Amended Notice of Reasons, or, worse, "storied," in his proposed recommended order at page 7, are unsupported by the record. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, only two criminal incidents are relevant, and they are misdemeanors that occurred over 25 years ago. The rest of Petitioner's criminal history consists entirely of arrests for which the charges were later dropped, except for a 1986 case in which the court withheld adjudication on a felony weapon charge to which Petitioner's plea is not in the record and a 2009 arrest for unpaid child support for which the purge amount was about $10,000. On August 28, 1979, Petitioner, then 18 years old, was arrested in Dade County for reckless display of a firearm and possession of over five grams of marijuana, both felonies. The marijuana charge--Petitioner's only arrest for drugs or alcohol--was dismissed, but Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and fined $25. This incident will be referred to as the "1979 Misdemeanor." In a letter dated May 7, 2009, to the Miami-Dade School Board Executive Director of Fingerprinting, Petitioner stated that he was in the backyard of his parents' home with one of his brothers and in possession of a bb gun. The small fine corroborates Petitioner's explanation. It is therefore found that a "bb gun" was the weapon in question, although Petitioner's letter misstated that all charges were dropped. On February 12, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for loitering and prowling and carrying a concealed weapon, the former a misdemeanor and the latter a felony. By operation of a deemed admission to Respondent's Requests for Admission, Petitioner, while a passenger in a vehicle, was found in possession of a semi-automatic weapon concealed in a ski mask. The misdemeanor charge was dismissed, but the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the felony charge and imposed a fine of an unspecified amount. The record does not disclose Petitioner's plea to this charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that, while he was DJing in a park without a permit, he had a concealed weapon without a permit, but misstated that both charges were dropped. On November 18, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for inciting rioting, a felony. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that he was DJing in a park and was arrested because the music was too loud. On October 4, 1986, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with grand larceny with a firearm, a felony. Based on a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to time served. This incident will be referred to as the "1986 Misdemeanor." In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was DJing a party in Tampa when a group of men started to beat a young woman in the parking lot. When security refused to intervene, Petitioner displayed a firearm to break up the crowd. Petitioner's letter misstates that the charge was dismissed. His explanation fails to account for the portion of the charge involving grand larceny, but makes sense when applied to the charge of which Petitioner was convicted. On December 13, 1987, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for two or three counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon to commit a felony, all felonies. These charges were dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a large fight broke out at a skating rink, but surveillance video revealed that he had not been involved in the fight, nor had he possessed a weapon. On or about June 15, 1993, Petitioner was arrested in Cook County, Illinois, and charged with disorderly conduct. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was staying at the Ritz in Chicago. While shopping along the riverfront, a law enforcement officer asked him if he could afford to shop there. A confrontation ensued, and the officer arrested Petitioner, but the charge was later dropped. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon, a felony. The charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight had broken out at a house party, and the police arrested everyone in attendance. There is no record of a 1997 arrest for battery. There is an arrest in July or October 1996 for battery in Louisiana, but Petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner mentioned a 1997 case involving a nightclub fight with which he had not been involved. A week later, a complainant claimed that Petitioner had hit him, but the charge was dismissed. On July 5, 1999, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with battery, a misdemeanor, which may have been raised to aggravated battery, a felony, by the prosecutor. Either way, the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight broke out at a nightclub, but witnesses verified that Petitioner had not hit the complainant, who originally said that another person had hit him. On October 6, 2002, Petitioner was arrested in Dorchester County, South Carolina, and charged with aiding or procuring a person to expose private parts in a lewd and lascivious manner--namely, the insertion of a soda bottle by two strippers into the vagina of a member of the audience who climbed onstage during a performance, as well as several acts of unspecified obscenities by two male members of the audience with the aforesaid strippers. The charge was that these unlawful acts were in the presence of and with the encouragement of Petitioner. The South Carolina documentation is contradictory as to disposition. The most plausible rendering of the disposition comes from the general sessions docket, which reports that, on October 13, 2003, this charge was dismissed with leave to restore, if Petitioner violated an agreement not to appear in South Carolina for five years at a revenue-producing event. Another document completed by the court clerk states that Petitioner was sentenced to six months in the state Department of Corrections, based on a plea not otherwise described, but the sentence was suspended for five years, pursuant to the agreement identified above. A partial transcript of the October 13, 2003, court proceeding quotes the judge as saying that the state was nolle prossing two charges, and the court was sentencing Petitioner to six months on apparently a third offense, even though nothing in the other documents describes three charges, but the judge suspended the sentence for five years, subject to the above-identified agreement. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the burden of establishing what took place in South Carolina falls on Respondent. Nothing in the record supports the judge's reference to three charges, which renders the judge's description of events unreliable. The most that can be said of the South Carolina incident is that a lone charge was dropped, subject to reinstatement, if Petitioner made a revenue-producing appearance in South Carolina for five years. The evidence fails to establish any finding of guilt by the court, plea of guilty by Petitioner, or subsequent reinstatement of the charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that the club owner had performers on stage, but Petitioner had nothing to do with their performance. Petitioner testified that he had been paid merely to appear at the club and sign autographs. On February 17, 2009, Petitioner was arrested on a writ of bodily attachment in connection with a finding of contempt of court for failing to pay child support. The purge amount was $10,223.36. The disposition of this matter is unclear, although it is obvious that Petitioner was arrested for an unpaid child-support obligation and was released, presumably after paying the purge amount or such lower amount as the court deemed fit. Luke Records and 2 Live Crew: 1987-1992 After graduating from high school, Petitioner grew his DJ business to the point that, by 1987 or 1988, he had started Luke Records, Inc., a record company devoted to the production and sale of hip-hop music. Using funds provided by his brothers, Petitioner eventually employed over 40 persons in Miami and elsewhere around the United States. The growth of Luke Records was largely the result of its association with 2 Live Crew (2LC), a hip-hop group known for its sexually explicit songs. Not yet under contract with a record company, 2LC visited Petitioner in Miami, where the parties agreed to a recording contract. Petitioner appears to have quickly assumed substantial business and performance roles with 2LC and wrote some of the songs that the group performed. Serving as the frontman for 2LC, Petitioner was prominent in the group's performances, which, according to Petitioner, featured dance music informed by the twin themes of sex and comedy. Clearly, 2LC's songs were dance music that featured sex. Regardless of the role of comedy in 2LC's music, Petitioner himself acknowledges that its sexual themes rendered the music inappropriate for minors. The evidentiary record does not include the lyrics to 2LC's songs, but the more offensive titles include vulgar references to male and female genitalia and a reference to women as "hoes," meaning "whores, as well as at least one album cover featuring Petitioner surrounded by scantily clad women. Given the explicit sexual content of the titles and lyrics, Petitioner helped promote the use of parental advisory stickers to be applied to albums, tapes, and CDs, including those of 2LC, that contained lyrics inappropriate for minors and thus constituted a form of adult entertainment. On the other hand, two unimpeachable sources--the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--found serious elements in at least certain of the 2LC songs of this era. In a copyright infringement case that arose after Luke Records had sold over 250,000 copies of 2LC's adaptation of Roy Orbison's, "Oh, Pretty Woman," the Supreme Court held, in a case of first impression, that commercial parody could be protected under the fair-use exception to copyright law. Describing the song itself, the Supreme Court opinion states: While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 583 (1994). In Luke Records v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1022 (1992), Petitioner and others won a reversal of a district court declaratory judgment that the 2LC musical recording, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be," was obscene under state and federal law. In another case of first impression--this time applying the obscenity test in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), to a musical composition containing instrumental music and lyrics--the appellate court relied on the testimony of two newspaper music critics that the subject music possessed serious musical or artistic value. More interestingly, the court relied on the testimony of a Rhodes scholar who was soon to undertake employment as an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. This testimony, which focused on the lyrics, traced "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" to three oral traditions of African-American music: the "call and response," "doing the dozens," and "boasting." Noting that the lyrics of "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" reflected many aspects of poor, inner-city blacks, this witness added that some of the lyrics contained statements of political significance or used literary devices, such as alliteration, allusion, metaphor, rhyme, and personification. Assuming without deciding that the trial judge had correctly determined that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" met the first two prongs of the Miller test--i.e., the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest based on contemporary community standards and the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law--the appellate court rejected the trial court's determination that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" fails the third prong of the Miller test--i.e., that it "lacks serious artistic, scientific, literary or political value." 960 F.2d at 138 (citing Miller, 413 U.S. at 24). After 2LC: 1992-2008 Petitioner and 2LC parted ways in 1992. Three years later, Petitioner and Luke Records, Inc. filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in the assignment of all masters and copyrights owned by Petitioner or Luke Records, Inc., to a company formed by a former in-house counsel of Luke Records. Thompkins v. Lil' Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1299-1301, and 1314n.22 (11th Cir. 2007). To some extent, perhaps due to the bankruptcy, Petitioner lost exclusive use of names associated with him, such as "Uncle Luke." As an asset of Petitioner, the Luther Campbell brand suffered a loss in value. The evidentiary record provides an incomplete picture of what Petitioner did during the ten years following his departure from 2LC. The arrests and Petitioner's explanations suggest that he DJed at house parties, made paid appearances at autograph-signing events, and attended nightclubs, although whether as a performer, audience member, or promoter is not clear. Petitioner released four hip-hop albums from 1992-2006. As always, Petitioner remained in Miami. In 1991 or 1992, Petitioner was among the persons who started the Liberty City Optimist youth football program. Competing with the local John Doe gang, Petitioner and other founders of the Optimist youth football program got kids off the dangerous streets and onto the football field. During the early years of his involvement with the youth football program, Petitioner invested considerable time and money, contributing at least $80,000. Petitioner helped lobby the Miami-Dade County Commission for what was eventually an expenditure of an estimated $14 million in facilities to serve organized football at local parks. Now, the Liberty City Optimist youth programs serve 6000 boys and girls, from 4-16 years of age, through a variety of sports and academic programs. Petitioner's wife, a local attorney and former FSU cheerleader, chairs the Liberty City Optimist youth cheerleading program. Although there have been some football-famous graduates of the program, such as Chad Johnson, the program's larger success is that 90 percent of the first group of youth to complete the program started college. Until 2005, Petitioner was not directly involved with the children in the Optimist youth programs. In 2005, realizing that his entertaining career had "taken a turn," Petitioner began coaching an Optimist youth football team. As he dialed up his involvement with youth, Petitioner tapered off his performances and appearances. Petitioner's two most recent albums are Somethin' Nasty, which was released in 2001, and My Life and Freaky Times, which was released in 2006. In contrast to the earlier cover art of 2LC, the cover art for the last album depicted Petitioner surrounded by fully clothed women. But some of Petitioner's titles would fit easily among the oeuvre of 2LC in its heyday. Somethin' Nasty includes "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," and "Hoes," and My Life and Freaky Times includes "Pop That Pussy" and "South Beach Bitches." In 2008, Petitioner made his last appearance, to date, with 2LC, at what was limited to an autograph-signing event. At the beginning of this period of Petitioner's life, in 1993, he became acquainted with James Harbor, Jr. Mr. Harbor was working for a state representative and met Petitioner through Congressman Alcee Hastings. Mr. Harbor later did an internship with Petitioner. Still later, Mr. Harbor was elected as a state representative from Palm Beach County and enlisted Petitioner in get-out-the-vote campaigns throughout Florida. Interestingly, Mr. Harbor testified that, as part of a voter-recruitment campaign, Petitioner appeared "in character." Mr. Harbor stressed repeatedly the distinction between the public persona of Petitioner and his private personality. Not a party person, during the time that Mr. Harbor has known him, Petitioner has always been "structured," hard-working and responsible, respectful toward women, and a firm disciplinarian when it came to his children. Mr. Harbor's testimony about the distinction between Petitioner's public persona and private personality finds support throughout the record, including a careful examination of the timelines. The 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor both involved weapons, not sex, and 2LC's main theme appears to have been sex, not violence or weapons. Whatever image of garish defiance that Petitioner may have cultivated during his 2LC-era, by the start of that era, he was never arrested again on charges that resulted in an admission of guilt, a no-contest plea, or a finding of guilt, except for the child-support arrest. Although the certification of Petitioner must take into consideration his public persona, to the extent that it still derives from his short-lived career with 2LC, there is no indication over the past 20 years that, outside of his performances and appearances, Petitioner has resembled the sex- song impresario, whom he portrayed with 2LC and in his later albums. High School Football: 2009-Present Starting in the 2009-10 school year, Petitioner turned from coaching Optimist youth football to coaching local high school football. During the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Central Senior High School, where his wife teaches a law class. For the 2011-12 school year, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Northwestern Senior High School. Although he would be willing to work as an unpaid volunteer, Petitioner has been required, due to insurance requirements in the school district, to accept the pay of a part-time contract football coach, which is $1000-$1200 per year. No longer living in Liberty City, Petitioner lives closer to another Miami-Dade County high school whose students are less exposed to violence and less at-risk than the students attending Miami Central or Miami Northwestern. Nearby Broward County public high schools do not require an athletic coaching certificate because school district policy allows a volunteer to coach. But Petitioner has decided to help the most vulnerable, most at-risk students from the inner-city neighborhood where he grew up. Petitioner has served these students in ways that other persons would find difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Trying to combat the sense of hopelessness that sometimes afflicts at-risk youth, Petitioner has worked at both schools to install a sense of school pride in football and academics. When he arrived at Miami Central, the school was an F school, but Petitioner joined a school-wide effort to improve learning conditions, and, when he left two years later, the school was a B school. Similarly, when Petitioner arrived at Miami Northwestern, it was a D school, but it earned a B during the most recent school year. Miami Northwestern is located directly across the street from housing projects, and its students are regularly the targets of violence, often involving weapons. About one-quarter of its students are required to attend gun programs. The football team includes many homeless children and children with children. In the month preceding the hearing, two Miami Northwestern students had been killed. On a positive note, about 70 percent of the 95 students on the Miami Northwestern football team are graduates of the Optimist youth football program. Also, as many as 90 percent of the students who played on the high school football teams that Petitioner has coached are attending college. The students with whom Petitioner works appreciate his dedication and hard work. They know that Petitioner has spent his entire life in Miami and has known some hard times. Generally, they know that, before they were born, Petitioner had been a celebrity as a member and promoter of a hip-hop group, itself known for its frank defiance of convention, at least in terms of graphic sexual language. As Petitioner testified, his students' mothers know Petitioner from when he was a DJ on a streetcorner, through his association with 2LC and discovery of new talent, such as the hip-hop artist Pitbull, and now from his work with youth. This familiarity presents unique mentoring opportunities to Petitioner. For instance, Petitioner knew one student's father, who later went to prison where he was murdered. One day, the student's mother approached Petitioner and asked him to tell her child about the good things that his father had done before he went to prison and died. Reflecting Petitioner's dedication to at-risk youth, for at least the past four years, Petitioner has rented one or two 15-passenger vans and, at his expense, transported interested players to schools in the southeast where they might be able to attend college. Petitioner does not reserve his attention to potential stars; instead, he tries to find colleges and junior colleges at every level that might be interested in admitting an individual student. Steven Field, the head coach of the Miami Northwestern football team, testified on Petitioner's behalf. Coach Field, who has most recently coached at University of Miami and Hampton University in Virginia, also coached at Miami Central from 2000- 2004. Coach Field testified that Petitioner is an "essential" member of his coaching staff, not for his name or past career, but for his way with the students. Petitioner leads by example and always fulfills any promises that he makes to the students--things that may otherwise be lacking in the lives of some of these inner-city youth. According to Coach Field, Petitioner's "no-nonsense, professional" style of dealing with the students commands their attention and respect. For example, as the coach in charge of the weight room, Petitioner does not allow swearing. When one student became disrespectful to another coach, Petitioner ordered the student to leave the premises. Neither Petitioner nor Coach Field would allow 2LC music to be played in the weight room due to its inappropriate adult content. Petitioner testified that, in trying to save students, he will "talk 'till I'm blue in the face," revealing not only the necessary dedication, but, more importantly, the insight that that there are no shortcuts or quick fixes in trying to communicate with at-risk children. Reinforcing the realism evident in Petitioner's testimony, Coach Stevens described his and Petitioner's efforts with the students as not much more than reinforcing the notions of living right at home and "getting your books at school." Coach Stevens stressed that he and Petitioner do not concentrate exclusively on the students who are talented enough to play football in college. At least a half dozen students are in felony programs. With these students, Coach Stevens testified that he and Petitioner do not speak about "getting into Georgia Tech"; they speak about finishing high school and getting a job. Coach Stevens has never heard Petitioner speak to the students about mistakes that he has made, nor does he wish Petitioner to do so. Coach Stevens, Petitioner, and the other coaches try to set a positive tone, so they talk to the students about what they need to do, not about mistakes that the students--or coaches--may have made in the past. However, if the school resource officer tells Petitioner about problems that an individual student is having, Petitioner will talk to the student one-on-one. In such conversations, Petitioner does not shy away from relating personally to what the student is going through. The Application Received on April 27, 2010, the Application answers "yes" to the following questions: Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offense? Have you ever had adjudication withheld on a criminal offense? Have you ever pled guilty to a criminal offense? The Application answers "no" to the following questions: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense? Have you ever pled nolo contendere to a criminal offense? The Application lists the following arrests and states that the disposition of all charges was dismissal, except for the South Carolina charge, which is reported as "guilty/adjudication withheld": Miami--8/79--reckless display of firearm Miami--2/85--loitering/prowling Miami--11/85--inciting riot Miami--12/87--aggravated assault Hillsborough--12/87--aggravated assault Miami--5/94--aggravated assault Miami--7/99--battery Dorchester County--10/22--"dissem promote" The Application is flawed in its disclosure of Petitioner's criminal history. As alleged in the Amended Notice of Reasons, the disclosure of the "loitering/prowling" arrest fails to mention the felony weapons charge, which was part of the same incident, and thus fails to note that the court withheld adjudication on this charge. Also, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Hearing, the Application fails to disclose the 1986 Misdemeanor, which occurred in Hillsborough County. Although the Application discloses a Hillsborough County arrest, it seems to confuse the incident with a later arrest in Dade County, but, more importantly, omits mention of the finding of guilt on this misdemeanor weapon charge. However, these flaws do not prove that Petitioner intentionally concealed information or was less than honest in completing the Application. Obviously, he has had many arrests, so the potential for confusion or even omission exists, and there are comparatively few inaccuracies. On these facts, it is found only that Petitioner filed an inaccurate application, but not that he filed an application with fraudulent or dishonest intent. Petitioner: At Present Petitioner does not pose a risk to the safety of the students entrusted to him. For the past seven years, Petitioner has had significant direct contact with vulnerable youth without any reported problems. In light of this critical fact, the 1979 Misdemeanor, 1986 Misdemeanor, and Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC and the adult entertainment industry lose whatever contrary predictive value that they might otherwise have. Simply put, Petitioner does not resemble the youth who committed the 1979 Misdemeanor or 1986 Misdemeanor or the man who performed with and promoted 2LC 20 years ago. Petitioner resembles the middle-aged man who released sexually explicit songs in 2001 and 2006, but this is addressed below. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, good moral character requires consideration of a person's honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and the law, so consideration of student safety, although important, is not sufficient. But the 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor, as old misdemeanors, provide insufficient support for a finding that, today, Petitioner lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law. Nor do these criminal offenses support findings that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude, as those terms are defined in the Conclusions of Law. Likewise, Petitioner's 2LC career 20 years ago and even his more recent releases of 2LC-like albums in 2001 and 2006 do not support a finding that he lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law or that he is guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude. For the reasons noted above, the redeeming value to be found in the releases means that they do not violate the law, provided they also conform to any laws restricting their dissemination, such as not to minors or not on television during certain hours of family viewing. Absent an attempt to market the offensive material in some broadly accessible fashion, such as on billboards or the sides of public buses, such non-obscene works similarly do not violate the rights of others. As noted above, the flaws of the Application do not support a finding of dishonesty or fraud. But, in his proposed recommended order, Respondent fairly questions Petitioner's initial refusal to identify his Application at the hearing. This failing of Petitioner, as well as the two others discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, cannot serve as standalone grounds for denial because: 1) they arose at the hearing and thus were not available as grounds in the Amended Notice of Reasons and even if alleged, they do not rise to the level of a lack of good moral character, as in a lack of honesty or fairness. But they do provide part of the justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner. Petitioner's failure at the hearing initially to identify his Application was not due to any confusion. There were not multiple versions of applications from which to choose. There was one Application on the table, and Petitioner initially testified, more than once, that he could not identify it. The temptation appeared palpable for Petitioner to off-load the responsibility for an obviously flawed application onto someone else who may have completed it for Petitioner, who nonetheless signed it. Cannily, Respondent's counsel moved for a summary order. The Administrative Law Judge warned Petitioner that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction in the absence of an application. Petitioner and his attorney made good use of a short recess to confer. After the recess, Petitioner identified Respondent Exhibit 1 as the Application that he had filed for an athletic coaching certificate. Petitioner's second failing of this type, also noted in Respondent's proposed recommended order, consists of his unwillingness to own up to his role or roles in any of the salacious songs that he has performed or produced. While it is possible that Petitioner might not have been responsible for the more salacious songs performed by 2LC, he clearly was responsible for the five sexually graphic titles on the two most recent, post-2LC albums, which, as discussed above, were released in 2001 and 2006. Petitioner's third failing of this type occurred when he testified about his bad period from 1979 to 1986. Petitioner admitted only to not living a "perfect" life and associating with bad persons. This seems a little lean for two misdemeanor weapons convictions and a withholding of adjudication of guilt on a felony weapon charge--all in the span of seven years. As Respondent points out, Petitioner has displayed minimal contrition for the bad choices that he made during this period. At minimum, he missed an opportunity to describe how he has changed when he "admitted" only that he was not perfect or implied that his legal problems were caused by bad associations. In these three instances, Petitioner sought to escape personal responsibility by claiming or implying that other persons prepared the flawed Application that he was somehow compelled to sign, other persons forced him to perform songs with five salacious titles in 2001 and 2006, and other persons got him into trouble during the bad period over 25 years ago. Although not evidence of a lack of honesty, Petitioner's failure to affirmatively own up to these acts suggest a lack of self- insight and perhaps even a misapprehension of the extent to which he must subject himself to the regulatory oversight that is imposed on applicants for certificates and, later, certificateholders. The other justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner is the prospect of his return to adult entertainment. In addition to part-time coaching at Miami Northwestern, Petitioner also owns a company, Luke Holdings, which deals in movie scripts and produces elements of television commercials, among other pursuits in the entertainment industry. In recent years, extreme examples of adult entertainment, such as pornography, have emerged bearing the Luther Campbell brand, but Petitioner denied that he has been involved in the production of such material. His denial is credited, although it would have been more persuasive, absent Petitioner's failings described in the preceding paragraphs. As noted above, Petitioner lost exclusive control of his brand after the bankruptcy in 1996, and, presumably, given the shadowy nature of the pornography industry, illegal use of his name is not out of the question. The distinction between past and present involvement in adult entertainment is an important one. In a recent case, EPC did not treat past involvement in the adult entertainment industry the same as involvement while a certificateholder. See In re: The Denial of the Application for Teacher's Certificate of Shawn J. Loftis, EPC Case No. 11-0464D (April 5, 2012) available at http://www.myfloridateacher.com/discipline/icmsorders/101-2590- FO-040512155402.pdf). In Loftis, Respondent denied Mr. Loftis's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate on the grounds of a lack of good moral character, gross immorality, and moral turpitude, as well as personal conduct that seriously reduces one's effectiveness as a school board employee, which violates section 1012.795(1)(g). The factual bases for the denial was that, between 2006 and 2008, Mr. Loftis had appeared in over 20 pornographic films featuring him engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the films were still available for viewing, including on the internet, although this employment had ended prior to Mr. Loftis's temporary employment as an instructor in Miami-Dade County public schools. After an informal hearing, EPC ordered that Mr. Loftis be allowed to continue to pursue certification. EPC stated that, if "found qualified," Mr. Loftis would be issued a Florida Educator's Certificate, subject to the conditions that he obtain from an approved, Florida-licensed provider written verification that he poses no risk to children and is capable of assuming the responsibilities of an educator and that, upon employment that requires possession of a Florida Educator's Certificate, Mr. Loftis be placed on probation, subject to the following conditions: 1) he immediately notify the DOE investigative office upon employment or termination of employment requiring a Florida Educator's Certificate; 2) his immediate supervisor send annual performance reports to the DOE investigative office; he pay EPC $150 for the costs of monitoring his probation; and 4) he violate no law or rules, satisfactorily perform all assigned duties in a professional manner, and bear all costs of compliance with the final order. The Loftis final order illustrates EPC's ability to issue a conditional certificate, even without a finding that the applicant had failed to meet the qualifications for certification. In considering the requirement stated in section 1012.795(1)(g) concerning personal conduct that seriously reduces the effectiveness of the certificateholder as a school board employee, the Notice of Reasons in Loftis, when compared to the Amended Notice of Reasons in the subject case, more closely approaches the most elastic requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that a certificateholder (or applicant) "[s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." Juxtapose this broader, objective requirement of protecting the student from conditions harmful to learning or harmful to the student's mental health with: 1) Petitioner and Coach Field's efforts to inculcate in their at-risk students such values as strength of character, perseverance, dedication, and hard work in the pursuit of ambitious goals and 2) the future release of more artistic or entertainment efforts along the lines of "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," "Hoes," "Pop That Pussy," and "South Beach Bitches." Consider the bewildering effect on students if, one afternoon, in the weight room and on the field, Coach Campbell were to promote rectitude and grit and, that night, the same man were to don the garb of the sex-song impresario and promote the escapist pursuit of sexual gratification. The addition of music or elements of African boasting and literary allusion in, say, "Pop That Pussy" or "Suck This Dick," which would rightfully spare these works from successful prosecution as obscenity, would not have any bearing on the extent to which the superficial appeal of this form of adult entertainment could undermine the hard, patient work of these students' coaches, teachers, and parents in trying to shape them into responsible young men. Impressionable inner- city youth might be easily confused by these competing messages, as they compared the paltry sums paid their contract coaches and modest sums paid their regular coaches and teachers with the riches lavished upon the producers of adult entertainment. Although the Loftis final order emphasizes that the applicant no longer is engaged in the making of pornographic films, neither that authority nor the record in this case provides a sufficient basis for attaching a condition to Petitioner's certificate prohibiting his engaging in the adult entertainment industry. Such litigation awaits another day and, one hopes, another certificateholder than Petitioner or Mr. Loftis. However, conditions attached to Petitioner's certificate could focus his attention on the ethical obligations that he has assumed as a certificateholder and the very real possibility that that his return to the performance or production of adult entertainment, while a certificateholder, would be at crosspurposes with the broad mission of education and expose his certificate to suspension or revocation. Petitioner should receive an athletic coaching certificate because he generally meets the substantive certification requirements that call for consideration of such broad criteria as good moral character and the absence of gross immorality and moral turpitude, he possesses unique attributes for reaching at-risk, inner-city youth, and he has demonstrated his commitment to, and effectiveness with, working with these children for at least seven years.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that EPC issue an athletic coaching certificate to Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: The certificateholder shall be placed on probation for five years, immediately upon issuance or, if later, employment that requires a certificate. Upon issuance of the certificate and on each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, EPC or its agent shall contact the Department of Revenue and inquire if Petitioner owes any child support arrearages. Upon receipt of written notice of such arrearages from the Department of Revenue or a circuit court, EPC shall immediately suspend the certificate until the arrearages are paid in full. The payment of a purge amount that leaves an arrearage owing does not satisfy this condition. Within six months of issuance of the certificate and within six months of each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, Petitioner shall complete 10 hours in coursework in the area of ethics with emphasis on the Principles of Professional Conduct, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 and shall deliver to the DOE investigative office written proof of such coursework. At the start of every school year, during the term of probation, Petitioner and his immediate supervisor will sign a statement certifying that each has read the Principles of Professional Conduct and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 20 days of the first day of school. The supervisor's statement shall confirm that he or she understands that his or her professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(l) that he or she "shall not assist entry into or continuance in the profession of any person known to be unqualified in accordance with these Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and other applicable Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rules." Petitioner's statement shall confirm that he understands that his professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that he "shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/ or physical health and/or safety." If Petitioner's immediate supervisor changes during the school year, the new supervisor shall sign a supervisor's statement within 30 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 60 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner. Within 30 days of the preparation and delivery of an evaluation to Petitioner, during the term of probation, he shall submit a copy to the DOE investigative office. During the term of probation, if Petitioner becomes actively involved in the adult entertainment industry, in any manner, he shall notify the DOE investigative office, in writing, within 30 days of first involvement. For the purpose of this paragraph, the performance or production of a sexually explicit song that would be inappropriate for the football team weight room or the appearance at an autograph- signing event promoted on the basis of Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC is active involvement in the adult entertainment industry. During the term of probation, the certificateholder shall reimburse EPC or its agent its reasonable costs of monitoring. If any of these conditions, except for the condition stated in paragraph 2, are not timely performed by Petitioner or, if applicable, his supervisor, EPC may suspend the certificate until Petitioner demonstrates compliance (or the term of the certificate expires) or, at its discretion, revoke the certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael John Carney, Esquire Kubicki Draper, P.A. Wachovia Bank Building, Suite 1600 One East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 mjc@kubickidraper.com Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 charles@ctwpalaw.com
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner under a continuing contract. The Respondent, Muriel Johnson Krueger, holds Florida teaching certificate number #0367469 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering grades K through 6. The Respondent is also certified in Florida for administration and supervision, grades K through 12. She also holds a Wisconsin teaching certificate. The Respondent taught in Wisconsin for a number of years; she taught in a one-room school house, grades 1 through 5. She began teaching in Florida in 1974 at Brooksville Primary School in Hernando County, where she taught first grade for two years. She next taught first grade at Moton School Center (Moton) also in Hernando County, for four years. She received her continuing contract in 1977. In 1979, the Respondent was appointed primary specialist at Moton; she held that position until August, 1985. As primary specialist, the Respondent was not assigned to a classroom; she worked primarily with teachers and teachers' aides. She was not responsible for drawing up lesson plans, recording grades, or developing pacing schedules, as those procedures are used in the ordinary classroom. The Respondent received favorable evaluations throughout her career in the Hernando County school system, until January, 1986. However, Respondent has never received an evaluation of her performance which would support her dismissal. In March, 1985, the Respondent was diagnosed as having certain physical and psychological problems, including diabetes and atypical psychosis. The Respondent's medical conditions, including the details regarding her psychological illness, were reported to the school system by the Respondent's doctors, Dr. Renee Haney, a psychiatrist and Dr. Joanne Pegg- McNab., a psychologist. In August, 1985, two days prior to the commencement of the school year, the Respondent was notified by the Petitioner that she would be teaching third grade at Spring Hill Elementary School (Spring Hill) during the 1985-86 school year. Previously, the Respondent had been given to understand, based on representations made to her by school administrators, that she would be teaching second grade in 1985-1986. The Respondent had prepared materials for the teaching of second grade, which she was unable to use in teaching third grade. Louise Ross, principal of Spring Hill, was aware that Respondent had not been a classroom teacher for at least four years prior to Respondent coming to Spring Hill in August, 1985. Ross was aware of Respondent's treatment for psychological illness. Prior to the students' return, the Respondent worked one week at Spring Hill. During that period, Respondent attended general meetings, and although Respondent received a packet of material during this period, it did not contain any specific instruction in regard to preparing lesson plans, grading or pacing. Respondent received specific written instruction regarding the recording of grades and pacing at a later date. Respondent did not receive any specific verbal or written instructions from Ross or any other person respecting the procedures in effect at Spring Hill in regard to grading and pacing until the memorandums of September 24, 1985 and November 19, 1985 from Ross concerning grades and pacing, and the December 16, 1985 letter to Respondent from Ross setting forth Ross' concerns about Respondent's procedures in grading, pacing, and lesson plan preparation that were covered in the meeting between Ross and Respondent on December 16, 1985. On September 24, 1985, approximately one month after school opened on August 22, 1985, Ross issued a memorandum regarding the number of grades to be recorded for each subject, and the procedure for recording the grades. On November 19, 1985 Ross issued a memorandum regarding the Ginn Reading Program (pacing student in reading). Both the memorandum and the chart attached pointed out it was a "guide" and that the primary concern was for the student to master the material. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent received this memorandum prior to returning to work on December 16, 1985. No documents concerning the pacing in other subjects were issued to Respondent. Pacing involves setting a pace for the teacher and the student to cover the required material in a set time and yet allow the student to master the subject matter. The failure to properly pace a class usually results in the student requiring remediation in the subject matter. Although Ross collected and reviewed Respondent's lesson plan books during the beginning of the school year and prior to Respondent going on sick leave in November, 1985, Ross did not make any suggestions or criticisms concerning pacing because when she checked the lesson plan books Ross found them sufficient. Respondent was aware of the requirement of preparing lesson plans in advance, but at Moton, where she had previously taught, the requirement was to prepare three days of lesson plans in advance, not five days as was required at Spring Hill. Spring Hill required lesson plans to be ready on the Friday immediately prior to week of the lesson plans, but Ross had allowed teachers to prepare lesson plans over the week-end for the following week. Respondent was absent from school beginning November 20, 1985 through December 16, 1985 on approved sick leave. Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and leave them for her substitute. Respondent's illness prevented her from preparing lesson plans for the period beginning November 25, 1985 and up until Respondent returned on December 16, 1985. However, the lesson plans for November 20, 21 and 22, 1985 should have been prepared prior to Respondent's illness. On December 16, 1985, the day Respondent returned from sick leave, Ross held a meeting with Respondent to advise her of certain changes in performance expected by Ross. The expected changes were the result of Ross reviewing Respondent's grade book and determining that the grades were not recorded in accordance with the September 24, 1985 memorandum, and reviewing Respondent's lesson plan books and determining that Respondent's class (an average class) was ahead of the top class in the third grade in reading and math. Respondent was advised of how to effect the changes and that compliance was expected by the beginning of the second semester. Although Respondent's third grade class was ahead of other third grade classes during the period of school prior to December 16, 1985, the student's mastery of the subject matter covered during this period was within an acceptable range, and remediation was normal. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until the Respondent took leave on March 12, 1987, the Respondent's pacing of her students was in accordance with school policy. Respondent's grade books may have shed some light on whether Respondent had properly recorded the student's grades but the grade books were not introduced into evidence. Prior to taking sick leave on November 20, 1985, the Respondent had, in addition to those grades recorded in her grade, recorded grades on sheets of paper in the back of her grade book contrary to the instructions given in the September 24, 1985 memorandum from Ross. However, Ross permitted the Respondent to record these grades in her grade book at a later time. Without knowing that it was against school policy, Respondent allowed her aides to record grades in her grade book. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until she took leave on March 12, 1986, the Respondent's recording of grades in her grade books was in substantial compliance with school policy. Although Respondent did not totally comply with the December 16, 1985 memorandum from Ross, her compliance with the memorandum satisfied Sonia Terrelonge, the third grade chairperson, who Ross had assigned the duty of working with Respondent to bring about compliance with the memorandum. Ross did not check Respondent's plan book or grade book on a regular basis as she had indicated in her memorandum of December 16, 1985 but delegated that responsibility to Terrelonge. On March 7, 1986, Respondent escorted her students to Terrelonge's portable classroom to see a movie and, since Respondent had detention duty, she picked up the students from other third grade classes on detention and returned to her portable classroom. At lunch time Respondent returned the students on detention to Terrelonge's portable classroom and escorted her students to lunch. After lunch Respondent escorted her students back to Terrelonge's portable classroom for the balance of the movie; again picked up the students on detention, and returned to her classroom. At the time scheduled for the conclusion of the movie, Respondent returned to Terrelonge's portable classroom to escort her students back to her classroom. Upon arrival at Terrelonge's classroom, Respondent discovered that her students had left earlier with either Maria Wolf or Catherine Winemiller or Jacqueline Mitchie, the other teachers having students at the movie. Although one of these three (3) teachers would have been responsible for supervising the return of Respondent's students to her classroom since Respondent was on detention duty, there is insufficient evidence to show which one had that responsibility. Upon return to her classroom Respondent observed some of her students outside the classroom unsupervised. Some of the students were running around and some were standing on a railing attempting to rescue a shoe from the roof. Respondent summoned her students into the classroom. None of the students were injured in any way. After the movie and the shoe incident the Respondent's children were "hyper". To calm them down, Respondent decided to go to the playground rather than to the scheduled special class. Respondent notified the special class teacher of this change but, without knowledge that she was required to notify Ross, failed to notify Ross of this change. This was the only special class the Respondent's student's missed while under her care during the 1985-86 school year. Other teachers took their students out on unscheduled recess when the children would not settle down. The evidence does not reveal any written policy concerning unscheduled recesses. Respondent kept blank discipline slips and omni passes in an unlocked desk drawer, and that students had on occasions filled out these slips without Respondent's knowledge. There was insufficient evidence to show that the children were under Respondent's supervision at the time the slips were taken out of the drawer and filled out. There were a number of disruptive and behavioral problem students in Respondent's class, but the number of disruptive or behavioral problem children in Respondent's class was not shown to be greater than in any other average third grade class. During the 1985-86 school year, Ross made frequent, unscheduled visits to Respondent's classroom and found Respondent's performance, including her classroom management, satisfactory, except on one (1) occasion, March 12, 1986. As a result of the shoe incident and skipping the special class, Ross called Respondent to a meeting on March 7, 1986 with Edward Poore, Assistant Superintendent, and Cathy Hogeland, Union Representative being present along with Ross and Respondent. As a result of this meeting, Ross advised Respondent to take the rest of that day off, which was Friday, and March 10, 1986 which was Monday. Respondent complied and returned to work on Tuesday, March 11, 1986. On March 11, 1986, the day Ross returned to school her students went on a field trip but Respondent was not allowed to accompany them. During the day Respondent worked on grading, grade books and planning. Also, on March 11, 1986, Ross gave Respondent a handwritten memorandum instructing her in class management, specifically addressing the supervision of students, class discipline, the following of lesson plans and attendance of students at special classes. Additionally, the memorandum instructed Respondent that teachers were not to eat lunch in the classroom and listed those areas where Respondent could eat lunch. On March 12, 1986, around noon, Respondent met with Ross, with Joanne Knight, being present as Union Representative. This meeting occurred as a result of Ross visiting Respondent's classroom and finding the students particularly disruptive and disorderly. When Respondent indicated that she could resume teaching her class that afternoon, Ross informed Respondent that she must take a leave of absence and have a complete physical examination and psychological evaluation or Ross would recommend her termination to the school board. Respondent was also informed by letter from Ross dated April 8, 1986 that her return to work would be based on the psychologist's report which should be submitted no later than May 31, 1986. Due to Ross' demands, Respondent requested leave and signed the necessary papers which had been filled out by the school board office. Respondent was put on leave without pay for the balance of the school year. Respondent resumed seeing Dr. Haney in April, 1986 but due to Dr. Haney's, or Respondent's oversight, an evaluation was not submitted until July 30, 1986. However, on July 1, 1986, Ross had recommended Respondent's dismissal to the superintendent based solely on Respondent's failure to provide the evaluation by May 31, 1986 without any further notice to Respondent other than the letter of April 8, 1986. Respondent learned of Ross's recommendation of dismissal sometime around July 16, 1986 when Ross notified her by letter. The letter also informed Respondent that this recommendation would go to the school board on August 5 1986. During Dr. Haney's treatment of Respondent in 1986, she prescribed medication for her mental condition which had no detrimental side effects on the Respondent. Dr. Haney's report of July 30, 1986 made no recommendation as to Respondent's ability to return to the classroom but left to the school system the interpretation of her findings. Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, Respondent's treating psychiatrist, began treating Respondent in October, 1986. Dr. Gonzalez's opinion was that while Respondent does have a mental condition, it is treatable with medication and does not affect Respondent's ability to teach. Dr. Gonzalez prescribes the same medication for Respondent as did Dr. Haney. From his observations, the Respondent takes the medication as prescribed. It was also Dr. Gonzalez's opinion that Respondent understands the need for medication. It was the opinion of Dr. Haney that Respondent better understood the need for medication after her second hospitalization in April 1986 then she had after the first hospitalization in 1985. It was the opinion of both Dr. Haney and Dr. Gonzalez that Respondent's mental condition would not prevent her from being effective in the classroom and that her presence as a teacher would not endanger the welfare of the students. Respondent was a concerned teacher, interested in her student's welfare. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that Respondent had emotional outbursts in the presence of her students. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that, due to Respondent's action, the students in her third grade class were deprived of minimum education experiences. Respondent substantially performed her duties as prescribed by law. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that there was a constant or continuing intentional refusal on the part of Respondent to obey a direct order given by proper authority.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Muriel Krueger. It is further RECOMMENDED Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Hernando County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2001 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 11-13. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraph 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23 except for the last clause which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 17-19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, except for the one occasion on March 12, 1986 which would not be described as a chaotic condition. That classroom management was discussed with Respondent is adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. That students took discipline slips and filled them out is adopted in Finding of Fact 24, the balance of paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 24-27. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Rejected as not being relevant or material because that was Dr. Haney's provisional diagnosis which was changed when she made her final diagnosis. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. The balance of paragraph 31 is rejected as not being relevant or material in that although Respondent admitted being acquainted with those school board policies there was credible evidence that Respondent was not aware at the beginning of the school year of Ross' or the Superintendent's specific instruction in regard to maintaining attendance records, grade books, etc. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. 20.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 as clarified. Rejected as not being a finding of fact but only a restatement of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 25.-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34 and 35 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 Susan E. Hicks, Esquire Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997
Findings Of Fact Prior to the commencement of the 1977-78 school year, the position of Assistant Principal at Hardee High School became vacant. The vacancy was properly advertised, and very little interest was shown in the position. The Petitioner, Jerry Kapusta, was at that time employed at Hardee High School as a Physical Education teacher, Head Football Coach, and Head Track Coach. Kapusta applied for the vacant position. The Principal of Hardee High School recommended that Kapusta be hired as Assistant Principal. Acting in part on the basis of the Principal's recommendation, and in part upon his own independent examination of Kapusta's qualifications, the Superintendent of Public Instruction recommended to the School Board that Kapusta be hired as Assistant Principal at Hardee High School. A motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendation was defeated at a School Board meeting by a vote of 2 to 2. One member of the Commission was absent. Subsequently, the Superintendent made a decision to replace the position of Assistant Principal with the position of Dean of Students. The Superin tendent recommended that Kapusta be hired for this position. At a School Board meeting conducted approximately two weeks following the earlier meeting, the Board rejected the recommendation by a vote of 3 to 2. Members of the School Board who voted against the recommendation testified that they did so primarily because Kapusta was not properly certified by the State Board of Education in the fields of supervision and administration. School Board member Barlow testified that she voted against the recommendation because Kapusta was not certified, because she felt he was doing a good job as football coach, and that he should stay in that position, and because she felt that Kapusta's lack of certification would hinder the Board's efforts to get the schools accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. School Board member Knight testified that she voted against the recommendation because of Kapusta's lack of certification, and because he was doing a good job as football coach. School Board member Gilliard testified that he voted against the recommendation due to the lack of certification and because be wanted Kapusta to remain as football coach. Sometime during May, 1969, the School Board adopted policies which were included in the Board's policy book. The qualifications for the position of Assistant Principal were among the policies adopted. One of the qualifications was as follows: Candidates for assistant principalships. . . must hold a rank II or higher certificate covering administration and supervision at the level for which the applicant is to be employed or covered by a special permit. Similar qualifications were adopted for other administrative positions. This policy was readopted by the School Board each time that it readopted its policy manual. Since the policy was adopted the School Board has consistently ignored it. Joint exhibits 6 and 7 list persons who were hired by the Board to fill administrative positions since the policy was originally adopted. The overwhelming majority of persons hired for administrative positions since the policy was adopted were not properly certified according to the policy. Certification of administrative personnel as administrative personnel is not among the requirements for accreditation set out In the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' "Standards of the Commission on Secondary Schools." The Petitioner, Jerry Kapusta, has adequately performed his duties as Physical Education Teacher, Head Football Coach, and Head Track Coach at Hardee High School. Kapusta is certified as a physical education teacher and health instructor for Kindergarten through twelfth grade, and for junior colleges. He is not certified as a supervisor or administrator. He would require approximately twenty-one (21) hours of additional course work in order to obtain such certification. It is Kapusta's intention to enroll in courses that would lead to his certification as an administrator. Kapusta is the most qualified person to have applied for the position of Dean of Students at Hardee High School. Other than his lack of certification, and the desire that he remain as Head Football Coach, no testimony was presented which would establish that Kapusta is other than qualified for the position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RRECOMENDED: That a final order be entered accepting the Superintendent's recommendation that the Petitioner/Appellant, Jerry Kapusta, be appointed to the position of Dean of Students of Hardee High School, and appointing him to that position. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Burton, Esquire Burton, Patarini & Collins, P.A. Post Office Box 420 and 605 Wauchula, Florida 33073 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue Whether there is "just cause" to terminate Respondent, Edward Starcher, from employment as a teacher in the Collier County School District.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of physical education, recreational dance, and driver's education. On August 18, 1986, the School Board hired Respondent as a teacher. Since being hired in 1986, Respondent taught continually in the Collier County public school system, except for a one-year leave of absence. Respondent began his career at Highland Elementary School and taught there for approximately two to three years. He then taught for nine years at Village Oaks Elementary School. Respondent, subsequently, taught at Gulf Coast High School, where he also served as a basketball coach. In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent was employed at NHS as a physical education teacher, driver's education teacher, and head basketball coach for the boys' varsity basketball team. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was a driver's education teacher and head coach of the boys' basketball team at NHS. Throughout his teaching career with the School Board, Respondent received positive evaluations and was recognized for having a passion for coaching. Prior to the disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by the School Board. At all times relevant herein, A.K., a female, was a high school student in her senior year at NHS. In January 2003, A.K. was enrolled as a peer tutor under the direction of Respondent, along with two other students--A.D., a female, and A.F., a male. A.K., A.D., and A.F. were enrolled as peer tutors during the fourth block, which commenced at 12:45 p.m. As peer tutors, they assisted Respondent with doing the laundry, folding towels and T-shirts, and delivering them to the storage closet. At the beginning of fourth block, the peer tutors would typically meet Respondent in his coaching office or outside of it, and he would give them their assignment for the day. On Monday, February 10, 2003 (February 10), A.K. reported to Respondent's office during fourth block for her peer tutor responsibilities. A.D., another peer tutor, was absent that day, but A.F. and K.C. were present. K.C., an NHS student, was not assigned as Respondent's peer tutor, but he sometimes assisted Respondent and his peer tutors during the fourth block. On February 10, as Respondent and the peer tutors were exiting Respondent's office to walk to the laundry room, Respondent "put [A.K.] in a little bit of a headlock," in a playful manner. After arriving at the laundry room, Respondent and the peer tutor folded laundry. At some point, Respondent handed A.K. a pile of towels and told her to take it to the storage closet. Respondent also took a pile of towels or jerseys and both A.K. and Respondent proceeded from the laundry area across the gym to the boys' locker room. On this trip to the storage closet, only A.K. went with Respondent across the gym to the storage closet area. A.F. remained in the laundry room because Respondent told only A.K. to come with him. The storage closet was located in the boys' football locker room on the opposite side of the auxiliary gym from the laundry room. On February 10, there was a physical education class with at least 20 students and an instructor on the gym floor playing volleyball. The physical education class was divided into two groups at the opposite ends of the gym so that when the peer tutors and Respondent took the laundry across the gym floor to the storage closet, they would pass between the two groups. Respondent and A.K. entered the boys' locker room area and proceeded to the storage closet to drop off the towels and/or jerseys. A.K. entered the storage closet area first followed by Respondent. After A.K. put the towels down, she noticed Respondent shutting the door quickly, turning the lights off and on, and then opening the door. A.K. asked Respondent what he was doing, and he replied that he was just joking around. During the first trip to the storage closet, as A.K. was walking through the locker room, she saw J.C., a NHS student, near his locker. Some time after Respondent and A.K. walked through the locker room, J.C. walked around to the bench near the storage closet doorway to put on a knee brace. Thereafter, J.C. saw Respondent in the doorway of the storage closet, and Respondent introduced him to A.K. J.C.'s locker was adjacent to the storage closet wall, and he had to walk to the end of the wall and around the corner to get to the doorway of the storage closet. Due to the location of his locker, there was a period of time when J.C. was not near the doorway of the storage closet and could not see that doorway. At some point while A.K. and Respondent were in the storage closet, Corporal Ronald Byington (Coach Byington), the NHS youth relations deputy and an assistant football coach at the school, walked through the locker room from the adjacent coaches' room. Coach Byington stopped and talked to Respondent about a minute and a half. During his very brief conversation with Respondent, Coach Byington did not observe anything out of the ordinary. After briefly talking with J.C., Respondent and A.K. returned to the laundry room. After a short period of time, Respondent handed A.K. a bag of jerseys to take with her to the storage closet and proceeded alone with her back across the gym to the boys' locker room. J.C. was not in the locker room when Respondent and A.K. returned to the storage closet. When A.K. and Respondent returned to the storage closet with laundry a second time, Respondent again followed her into the storage closet, closed the door, and turned off the lights. Respondent then kissed A.K. on her neck and lips, grabbed her leg, and pushed it up against his side. A.K. pushed Respondent away from her, after which he turned on the lights, grabbed himself and remarked, "This is what you do to me." As A.K. approached the door to walk out, he placed A.K.'s hand on his groin. A.K. described the manner in which Respondent kissed her on the neck as "more of a sucking" than a kiss. After the incident described in paragraph 16, A.K. returned to the laundry room followed by Respondent. Upon returning, A.F. and K.C. noticed that A.K.'s neck was red and told her so. When A.F. and K.C. commented about the red mark on her neck, Respondent stated that it was because he had put her in a headlock. After the brief discussion about the red mark on A.K.'s neck, A.K. returned to the boys' locker room a third time, this time with A.F. and Respondent. A.K. had to wait outside the locker room since there were football players in there changing for weight training. Because A.K. could not enter the locker room, she handed the laundry she was carrying to A.F. and/or Respondent. Upon returning to the laundry room from the third trip to the storage closet, Respondent "kind of stopped [A.K.]" as they were walking across the gym floor. He then had A.K. hold her hand up while he did the same and intertwined his little finger with hers while he asked her to "pinkie swear" (promise) she would not tell anybody, and she agreed to do so. However, Respondent then told A.K. that he could not promise that it would not happen again. This brief exchange took place out of A.F.'s earshot. Moreover, given the considerable activity in the gym, it is reasonable that A.F. did not hear this conversation. A.K. returned a fourth time to the locker room to get her book bag and left school. She was in a state of shock, drove home, changed, and left for work. That evening A.K. did not tell her parents about the incident with Respondent because she was embarrassed and uncertain as to how they would react. The next morning, Tuesday, February 11, 2003 (February 11), A.K. was sitting in her car in the NHS parking lot waiting for the first-block bell to ring when her friend, E.W., a senior at NHS, approached her. E.W. noticed that there was something wrong and asked A.K. what was the matter. A.K. started to cry and told E.W. that Respondent had kissed her. As they walked to class, A.K. told E.W. more of what happened. A.K. told E.W. that on the first visit to the storage closet Respondent shut the lights off. A.K. asked him what he was doing and he turned them on. A.K. also told E.W. that on the second visit, Respondent shut the lights off and imposed himself on her, including kissing her on the neck and lips and grabbing her leg. Sometime during the course of the day, A.K. told E.W. about Respondent's having her touch his penis area. On the morning of February 11, soon after A.K. told E.W. about the incident, E.W. asked A.K. whether she had told anyone. A.K. replied that she had not. E.W. then told A.K. that she needed to report the incident to Mary Ellen Bergsma, the school guidance counselor. Although A.K. agreed to do so, she was hesitant and embarrassed to discuss the incident with Ms. Bergsma or anyone. At the beginning of the first block, E.W. accompanied A.K. to Ms. Bergsma's office. Ms. Bergsma invited both girls into her office and shut the door. Initially, when she went into Ms. Bergsma's office, A.K. was visibly upset, choked up, and unable to speak. After being encouraged by E.W., A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident with Respondent. A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that Respondent had "hit on her," meaning that he had kissed her. In response to her question, A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that the event occurred in the storage closet area and then explained what happened in more detail. During this time, A.K. continued crying and had a hard time talking. After A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident, Ms. Bergsma informed A.K. that she would have to talk with Gary Brown, the principal of NHS, about the incident. Later that morning, Ms. Bergsma accompanied A.K. to Mr. Brown's office. Although A.K. appeared uncomfortable and nervous and was crying, she told Mr. Brown basically what she had told Ms. Bergsma. At the end of the day, E.W. went to Ms. Bergsma to report some of the additional details that A.K. was too embarrassed to tell Ms. Bergsma, including Respondent's putting her hand on his genital and saying, "This is what you do to me." Over the next few weeks, Ms. Bergsma had follow-up conversations with A.K. to see how she was doing. She found that A.K. was having difficulty concentrating at school, not sleeping well, and, overall, was "having a tough time." On February 11, after A.K. reported the incident to Ms. Bergsma, she decided to remove A.K. from Respondent's peer tutor class. At 9:02 a.m. that morning, Ms. Bergsma e-mailed Respondent advising the following: "FYI – A.K. is out of your class 4th block." The e-mail was opened by Respondent at 9:05 a.m. and deleted by him at 9:05 a.m. Five minutes later, at 9:10 a.m., Respondent prepared a separate E-mail stating, "Thanks for the info. Have a great day." Respondent never contacted Ms. Bergsma to find out why A.K. was no longer in his fourth-block class. Respondent testified that the e-mail was no big deal to him and that it might have meant A.K. was out just that day since the e-mail from Ms. Bergsma did not have the word "permanently" contained in it. Between approximately 12:00 to 12:30 p.m., on February 11, Mr. Brown told Respondent in person that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Brown's office at about 2:00 p.m. When Respondent met with Mr. Brown in his office that afternoon, Mr. Brown asked Respondent if he knew why he had been called to his office. Respondent seemed to think about the question and replied that it must be a parent complaining about his basketball program. He thought up several possibilities until Mr. Brown told him it had nothing to do with basketball. Mr. Brown then told Respondent that the meeting pertained to a complaint from a female student who had peer counseling with him and related to inappropriate physical contact that Respondent had with the student. After progressing through each of his classes and being informed by Mr. Brown that it regarded a complaint from the fourth block the preceding day, Respondent stated that the complainant had to be A.K. because she was the only female present that period on February 10. After Mr. Brown informed Respondent of the allegations, Respondent's head dropped down. He had tears in his eyes and stated that he could not believe this was happening to him. Mr. Brown then asked Respondent if he could think of any reason why A.K. would make such an accusation against him. Respondent told Mr. Brown about an incident at the NHS basketball game on January 31, 2003, which involved A.K. Respondent stated that he had spoken with A.K. on February 3, 2003, about her conduct at the game. Respondent then retrieved a letter from his brief case and presented it to Mr. Brown. The letter was dated February 3, 2003, and was addressed to Coach Byington. Respondent had authored the letter and typed it on a computer. The letter stated that during half-time of the January 31, 2003, basketball game, while Respondent was outside for "a breath of fresh air," he saw A.K. and two other NHS students, K.S. and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., outside. In the letter, Respondent indicated that the students appeared to be intoxicated and under the influence of drugs or alcohol; that two of the students approached him; and that A.K. then began making derogatory comments about two NHS assistant football coaches, one of whom was Coach Byington. Also, the letter indicated that on February 3, 2003, Respondent spoke to A.K., during fourth block about her being intoxicated. According to the letter, Respondent told A.K. that she and those with her on January 31, 2003, were "lucky that [Respondent] was in the middle of a game and [they] had not been caught." In addition to information about A.K.'s being intoxicated at the game, Respondent included statements in the letter which were unrelated to the January 31, 2003, incident. Apparently, referring to his February 3, 2003, conversation with A.K., Respondent wrote in the letter: It was during this conversation that I figured out [A.K.] was extremely bitter about coaches at NHS. After further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted. [A.K.] on several occasions accused Byington and the football staff of starting rumors about her . . . and she claimed people had given her a hard time about being a senior dating a freshman. I had never heard of such rumors and felt that she was overplaying this to an extreme. After refusing to discuss any more of these matters with her, she became very irate and said that I [Respondent] was just like the others. In quotes "jerks". [sic] Just wanted you to have this information on file. Respondent told Mr. Brown that he had never given the letter to Coach Byington because he did not want to get A.K. in trouble. Coach Byington never received Respondent's letter dated February 3, 2003, nor did Respondent speak to Coach Byington about its contents. If a letter with allegations like the ones made in the letter dated February 3, 2003, were brought to his attention, Coach Byington would look into the matter or take some action. The letter dated February 3, 2003, accurately states and it is undisputed that (1) Respondent saw NHS students, A.K., K.S., and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., on January 31, 2003, during half-time at the basketball game that evening; (2) the students, including A.K., were intoxicated; and (3) on February 3, 2003, Respondent talked to A.K. about being intoxicated at the basketball game. The letter dated February 3, 2003, falsely and inaccurately states when Respondent saw A.K. on January 31, 2003, she talked to him about her dislike for two of NHS football coaches and said derogatory things about them. Rather, after exiting the gym at half-time, A.K. and K.S. spoke to Respondent only briefly, about a minute. During that conversation, A.K. asked Respondent about his daughter, Callie, and how the basketball game was going; she also wished him luck in the second half. A.K. and K.S., along with S.W. and J.W., continued to walk to A.K.'s friend's car to have a few shots of alcohol during half-time. On the evening of January 31, 2003, A.K. never said anything to Respondent about Coach Byington or any other coach at NHS. In light of the purpose for which Respondent claimed he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent's inclusion in the letter of the statement that "[a]fter further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted and that A.K. said that Respondent was jerk [sic], just like the other coaches. Since becoming a peer tutor for Respondent and prior to January 31, 2003, A.K. had talked to Respondent on several occasions and told him that she did not like Coach Byington. The reason A.K. did not like Coach Byington was that she believed that he gave preferential treatment to football players and had made A.K. the butt of jokes because she was dating a freshman football player. A.K. made no secret that she "did not care" for Coach Byington and candidly admitted her feelings about Coach Byington at hearing. There were no other coaches at NHS who A.K. disliked or told Respondent that she disliked. The letter dated February 3, 2003, also inaccurately and falsely stated that when Respondent talked to A.K. at school on February 3, 2003, about being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game, she became irate. Respondent's testimony at hearing regarding this conversation is not credible. Contrary to Respondent's account, the conversation took place in the gym and not in Respondent's office. Moreover, during the conversation, Respondent seemed to be joking with A.K. about her being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game. At no time during that conversation did Respondent talk to A.K. about the kind of people she should hang out with. Respondent also never indicated to A.K., during that conversation or at any other time, that he would report her to school officials or tell her parents that she was intoxicated. Respondent provided confusing and contradictory testimony in connection with the letter dated February 3, 2003. First, despite the date on the letter, it is not clear when Respondent wrote the letter. Respondent testified that he prepared the letter on Monday, February 3, 2003, but also testified that he could have finished it later that week. This testimony is consistent with a letter Respondent wrote in March 2003, in response to the report of the School Board's investigator. Respondent also testified that even if he did not finish the letter on February 3, 2003, he would not have changed the date because he did not consider the letter an official document. During the investigation of A.K.'s complaint against Respondent, the School Board's computer system technicians checked the school's computers and found no record of the letter in the system. If, as Respondent testified, he made changes to the letter over a period of time, the letter would have been saved on the system and the computer technicians would have been able to retrieve it. Respondent's testimony and representations regarding the preparation of the letter dated February 3, 2003, are confusing and not reasonable. In his March 2003 letter to the School Board in response to the investigator's report, Respondent stated that after initially writing the February 3, 2003, letter, he waited to review it before delivering it to Coach Byington. Despite all the time Respondent indicated he took to write, review, and edit the letter, Respondent never gave the letter to Coach Byington, even though Coach Byington's office was only a 20- to 30-second walk from Respondent's office. According to Respondent, the reason was that he had a busy basketball schedule. Respondent testified that the reason he prepared the letter dated February 3, 2003, was to give Coach Byington a "heads up." Yet, Respondent provided no explanation as to why Coach Byington needed a "heads up." Respondent's testimony regarding the reason he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, is not credible. Respondent did not prepare the letter dated February 3, 2003, to give to Coach Byington and did not deliver it to him or discuss it with him. The letter was instead prepared to give to Mr. Brown to undermine the credibility of A.K. At all times relevant to this proceeding, E.M., a male, was a student at NHS. E.M. and Respondent had a close relationship and have known each other for about five years, having first met when E.M. was in the sixth grade and was coached by Respondent. While a coach at NHS, Respondent sometimes gave E.M. lunch money and also hired E.M. to work in summer basketball camps. During the investigation of Respondent, E.M. voluntarily came forward to provide information supportive of Respondent. E.M. told Mr. Brown and testified at hearing that when he was in the boys' locker room on February 3, 2003, he overheard Respondent tell A.K. that she should hang out with better people; that he then saw Respondent leave his office; that he saw A.K. leave the office soon after Respondent left the office; and that he noticed that as she was leaving, A.K. was on a cell phone saying to someone that she hated the coaches at NHS and was going to get back at them. A.K. did not make a cell phone call from school on February 3, 2003. In fact, she does not bring her cell phone to school. Moreover, A.K.'s cell phone records show that no call was made at the time E.M. claimed the call was made. Finally, as noted in paragraph 45, the February 3, 2003, conversation between Respondent and A.K. took place in the gym, not in Respondent's office. The testimony of E.M. was not credible and was refuted by competent and substantial evidence. There is no reasonable explanation for A.K. to file false charges against Respondent. As even Respondent admitted, A.K.'s animus was directed to Coach Byington, not toward Respondent. Prior to the February 10 incident in the storage closet, A.K. liked Respondent and considered him a good friend. She had been a student in Respondent's aerobics class during her sophomore year at NHS. During the first semester of her senior year, A.K. had been an office assistant at NHS and in that capacity, she was required to hand out passes to designated or assigned teachers. Respondent was one of the teachers A.K. had to deliver passes to on an almost daily basis. When A.K. delivered the passes to Respondent, they often had conversations. The second semester of her senior year, A.K. specifically requested to be a peer tutor for Respondent because she thought he was a "cool teacher." As a consequence of the February 10, 2003, incident, A.K., in a consultation with her parents, began seeing Dr. Marta Gallego, a clinical psychologist in Naples, to help her address her fears and concerns. The counseling sessions began on or about February 19, 2003, with the initial intake session involving A.K. and her family, and continued until early May 2003. The therapy sessions with Dr. Gallego focused on A.K.'s reactions to the incident, helping her deal with her reactions, and processing the incident. During the counseling sessions, A.K. exhibited symptoms related to the trauma, was anxious at times, and was depressed. Also, after the February 10 incident, A.K. withdrew from friends and family, had difficulty concentrating at school, and felt pain over the impact that the incident had on her family. Finally, A.K. expressed to Dr. Gallego that she could not understand how a teacher that she trusted could violate her trust.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Collier County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 4th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Jon D. Fishbane, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Third Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Dr. H. Benjamin Marlin Superintendent of Collier County School Board 5775 Osceola Trail Naples, Florida 34109-0919 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven T. George, began teaching in the Bay County school system in the fall of 1977. He was employed as a physical education teacher and as a coach. The Respondent has had an exemplary record as an instructional employee of the Bay County School Board until he encountered personal problems during the 1988-89 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed as a physical education teacher and assistant football coach at Mosley High School. During that school year, his supervisor, Assistant Principal Sarah Cooper, observed his performance deteriorate unexpectedly and in a way which was out of character from his previous level of performance and demeanor. She found occasions when he was not properly supervising his class and when he had not done lesson plans, as required by the school administration. Ms. Cooper had to assist the Respondent in developing a semester examination, however, he ultimately used an examination given to him by another teacher. Thereafter, he administered the examination but did not complete the grading of it and failed to complete his grade book, which responsibility was ultimately performed by Ms. Cooper. Additionally, during the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent was observed to become increasingly isolated from other members of the faculty. His behavior became characterized by unpredictability, excessive arrogance, argumentativeness, anger and verbal aggression, which was entirely different from the personality traits which he had exhibited and which his co-workers and supervisors had observed since he had been with the school system. Indeed, female teachers in the physical education department were reluctant to be alone in the workroom with him because of the advent of these objectionable personality traits. The Respondent, during this period of time, was undergoing a divorce, or the aftermath of one, which involved a very emotional custody dispute with his former wife concerning custody of their daughter. During the 1988-89 school year, he was observed to repeatedly burden his co-workers and school administrators with the details of his personal problems and to exhibit uncharacteristic and rather severe emotional outbursts of both anger and grief. After being counseled by his supervisors concerning what they believed to be rather bizarre behavior, when measured against his prior performance and demeanor in other school years, the Respondent ultimately voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Woods, a psychiatric treatment and evaluation facility. The Respondent spent approximately 5-1/2 months in that facility, underwent treatment in response to his supervisor's advice to "get some help", and returned to Mosley High School to complete the 1988-89 school year. For the remainder of that school year, the Respondent satisfactorily assumed and carried out all of his responsibilities and performed his work as a teacher in good fashion. His temperament and demeanor had returned to that of the friendly and caring teacher and co-worker which he had formerly been before his personal problems developed. His supervisor, Ms. Cooper, gave him a satisfactory annual evaluation at the conclusion of the 1988-89 school year. The Respondent's emotional difficulties and related performance difficulties as a teacher reappeared in the 1989-90 school year. During the pre-planning phase of his teaching and coaching duties for the 1989-90 school year, in August of 1989, the Respondent was observed to be very disruptive, argumentative, and, indeed, hostile to a visiting speaker at a seminar for instructional personnel. He was observed to repeatedly interrupt the speaker with arrogant, argumentative questions and comments, during the course of which behavior he was observed to be pacing back and forth at the rear of the room where the seminar was conducted while all other attendees at the seminar were seated and listening to the speaker. This arrogant, argumentative behavior was so apparent and so inappropriate for the seminar-type setting in which it occurred that his supervisor felt it necessary to apologize to the speaker at the lunch break on that day. Additionally, during this pre-planning phase of the school year, which is before the children arrive for the school year, the Respondent was observed to have difficulties in his dealings and relationships with other coaches arising out of his increasingly arrogant, argumentative attitude and behavior. Because of this and, inferentially, because his supervisors were aware of his emotional difficulties with which they had had experience the previous school year, the decision was made to relieve him as assistant football coach at Mosley High School. A meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Tucker, the Principal, and Mr. Cochran, the head coach, to explain that action to the Respondent and to explain to him that he would still continue as a physical education instructor. In the course of that meeting, the Respondent became very emotional, hostile, and argumentative. He exhibited frequent angry outbursts to the extent that he would not allow Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cochran to adequately explain the basis of the personnel action directed at him. The Respondent ultimately, angrily departed from the meeting before it was completed. On that same day, he left Mosley High School without administrative permission and went to Cherry Street Elementary School on some mission related to his daughter, who was a student at that school. She had been the subject of a bitter custody dispute between the Respondent and his former wife. He is accused of interfering with the operation of Cherry Street Elementary School on that occasion, although the record does not reflect what his conduct was at Cherry Street Elementary School that day. The 1989-90 school year then commenced at Mosley High School with the arrival of the students. The Respondent assumed his regular duties as a physical education instructor. He was observed, early in that school year, on a number of occasions, to fail to control behavior of students in his gym class and to fail to be in his gym class at appropriate times which amounted to inadequate supervision of his students on those occasions. His planning for his classes was observed to become sporadic, with repeated occasions when he failed to have lesson plans prepared. Also, in the fall of the 1989-90 school year, he was observed to forget his keys to the physical education area on a number of occasions. He would, on repeated occasions, forget, from one period in a school day to the next, what he was to teach that following period. He would have to be reminded by his colleagues. He would also forget to call his students in adequate time at the end of the physical education period for them to dress for their next classes. He had to be reminded by his colleagues to do this. He would also repeatedly forget when he had extra duty, such as "door duty" and locker room assignments. His general level of cooperativeness with his colleagues declined markedly. His behavior became harsh and rude to his colleagues and to students. He was observed to be very harsh and rude to a new student coming into his physical education class and spoke loudly, in an abrasive manner to the student in front of the class, embarrassing that student. These problems occurred repetitively and in rapid succession during the first month of the school year in September of 1989. Because of the nature of the problems, the past history of the Respondent's emotional instability whereby he had lost his ability to be a caring, productive, well-performing teacher (which had been his unblemished record of behavior and performance for all the years he taught prior to the 1988-89 school year), Mr. Tucker, the Principal, felt that he had to act quickly to prevent an even worse situation occurring in the 1989-90 school year when he observed that the Respondent's emotional instability of the year before was recurring. Consequently, Mr. Tucker requested that the superintendent, Mr. Simonson, meet with the Respondent in an effort to resolve his difficulties in the matter of his perceived emotional instability and resulting declining performance. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Simonson, and Mr. Tucker on September 30th. At the meeting, the Respondent was confronted with the fact of his displayed emotional instability and related declining teaching performance, at which point he became very belligerent and hostile. He was, alternatively, on the verge of tears and shouting in anger. Because of the above-stated reasons for the meeting and because of the emotional instability which was so apparently displayed by the Respondent during the meeting, Mr. Simonson gave the Respondent three days of sick leave to allow him to remain at home and get some professional attention to try to regain his emotional stability before returning to the classroom. The Respondent's problems persisted, however. Although the precise date is uncertain, at approximately this time, the Respondent announced that he was going to seek election as Superintendent of the Bay County school system in opposition to Mr. Simonson. The Respondent testified himself that he elected to run for this office while he was still a teacher at Mosley High School in part, at least, to save his job because he believed that the Bay County school administration and particularly, Mr. Simonson, would be reluctant to discharge him while he was a political candidate in opposition to Mr. Simonson because of the bad impression that might make on the electorate. Shortly after he made this announcement, again on an undetermined date in the fall of 1989, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the "Baker Act", Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Apparently, the Respondent's family members had him committed although the precise reasons are not of record. The Respondent expressed the belief at hearing that his family members had him committed because of his announcement to run for Superintendent, although that is not established to be the case. The Respondent, at the time he was committed, believed that he did not suffer from a mental condition justifying his commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. The Respondent has since come to understand that he suffered from a manic-depressive condition, also known as a "bi-polar disorder". As a result of this eventuality, Mr. Simonson determined that the Respondent should not be teaching in the school system during such a period of emotional instability. In order to be fair to the Respondent, he did not want to actually suspend him from his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Simonson elected to place the Respondent in the status known as "overused sick leave", which means that the Respondent, although he had used up all of his annual and sick leave, could still be carried on the personnel records as an employee in terms of retaining his retirement and insurance benefits, although he was not paid for the time he was absent from his duties as a result of this decision and as a result of his emotional condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was, in this fashion, removed from his instructional duties and from his job site in the fall of 1989, after his involuntary commitment, pursuant to the Baker Act. Thereafter, in the fall of 1989, the Respondent obtained treatment at the "Life Management Center" in Bay County under the care of Dr. Nellis. Dr. Nellis diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from manic-depression and prescribed Lithium to treat his manic condition. The Respondent responded well to treatment, such that Dr. Nellis, late in the fall of 1989, opined that he was fit to return to work as a teacher. The Respondent apparently accepted the fact of his illness, continued taking his medication after being released by Dr. Nellis, and was returned to his duties with the Bay County school system at Rosenwald Middle School in late January or early February of 1990. Once again, he returned to his "old self", in terms of his adequate performance as a teacher, his emotional stability, good relationships with colleagues and students, and his prior demeanor as a genuinely caring teacher. His performance for the remainder of 1990 through the end of classes in June was good. He worked for the remainder of that school year as a physical education instructor, which is the field in which he is certified as a teacher. The Respondent had also been seen by Dr. Zumarraga beginning in November of 1989, who also found him to be manic-depressive, and who informed Mr. Simonson, by letter presented to Mr. Simonson by the Respondent, that the Respondent was taking medication for his illness and had exhibited acceptable behavior. As a result of those assurances by the Respondent's psychiatrist, Mr. Simonson had allowed the Respondent to return to work at Rosenwald Middle School in approximately early February of 1990. Apparently, sometime in late spring or early summer of 1990, the Respondent had doubts that he was still suffering from his condition and consulted another physician for an additional opinion. Apparently, he quit taking his medication sometime during the summer of 1990 as a result of that consultation. In late August of 1990, the Respondent returned to Rosenwald Middle School as a physical education instructor. Ms. Love, who had been Assistant Principal at the school, had moved up to the position of Principal. In the spring of 1990, the Respondent had been quiet and cooperative, had gotten along well with colleagues and students, and had performed his duties well, after undergoing treatment and being placed on a program of medication for his manic- depressive disorder. In the fall, however, he was immediately observed by Ms. Love and others of his colleagues and supervisors to have reverted to the arrogant, abrasive and extremely assertive attitudes and behavior, which he had exhibited in the fall of 1989, prior to securing treatment. Before these attitudes and behavior had manifested themselves, however, and immediately upon the start of the 1990-91 school year, given his long and worthwhile experience in the physical education field in the county system, Ms. Love asked the Respondent if he would work on a plan for a "middle school olympics" athletic event. The Respondent agreed to do this and immediately began setting about the formulation of a plan whereby all of the middle schools in the county would participate in the olympics athletic event on a given day at Tommy Oliver Stadium. He arrived at a plan to accomplish this and drafted it in memorandum form. Instead of sharing it with Ms. Love, however, he transmitted it directly to the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson. This was a departure from appropriate procedures for the planning of such events because the Respondent did not transmit his plan to Ms. Love for her initial approval before its being communicated to supervisory personnel at the county district level. The Respondent became somewhat obsessed with the idea of planning and conducting the olympics event, devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy to it. In early September, the Respondent brought a student to the office for disciplinary reasons asserting that he had caught the student stealing or "going through the lockers". Upon questioning of the Respondent by Ms. Love, it was learned that he did not find the child in the locker room or dressing room actually invading lockers, but found him in the locker room area where he was not supposed to be. He accused the child of stealing or attempting to steal when he had not actually observed him do this. The Respondent was criticized in this action for not having actually observed the child stealing and yet accusing him of it and for having brought prior behavior of the child up in his disciplining of the child, which Ms. Love felt to be inappropriate. In fact, the Respondent had some justification for suspecting this particular child of wrongful conduct or illegal activity because of past disciplinary violations committed by the child of a similar nature. At approximately the same period of time, in early September, the Respondent was observed to have grabbed a child by the arm in the act of admonishing the child for some alleged miscreant behavior and stating that "I am going to break your little arm". Ms. Love counseled the Respondent about these two instances and gave him an "improvement notice" on September 7, 1990 concerning them. An improvement notice is a disciplinary memorandum or report to a teacher such as the Respondent by which the Principal admonishes a teacher for inappropriate behavior and directs steps for improvement of the situation which led to that criticized behavior. On September 14, 1990, Ms. Love had another formal conference with the Respondent, since she had seen his arrogant, abrasive, overly-assertive behavior with colleagues and students continuing. She discussed with him his inappropriate behavior towards students and faculty and the matter of the Respondent's disciplinary referral of a student to the guidance counselor. He had referred a student to the guidance counselor for discipline and had been overbearing and abusive to the guidance counselor in his communication with her concerning the disciplinary referral. Ms. Love counseled him about the basic procedures involved in referring students for discipline, which specifically do not involve the guidance counselor. Rather, disciplinary referrals should appropriately go to the administration of the school, as delineated in the teacher's handbook, which the Respondent had previously been provided. Additionally, Ms. Love felt that the Respondent had exhibited a pattern of not turning in required documents in a timely manner; therefore, she gave him an improvement notice for these matters dated September 28, 1990. In fact, however, it was not established by the Petitioner that the Respondent had been untimely in turning in any required documents, reports, and the like, other than one report which had been due on a Friday, when he was absent due to illness and which he promptly turned in on the following Monday. During the fall of 1990, the Respondent was observed to frequently share details of his custody dispute and problems concerning his child and problems with his wife or former wife through notes, letters and conversations with other members of the staff in an inappropriate manner. He appeared to be emotionally preoccupied with these personal problems while on duty. On the third day of school in the fall of 1990, Mr. Simonson located his office temporarily at Rosenwald Middle School. He had done the same thing at other schools in the county that were having disruptions caused by on-going construction during the fall. Rosenwald Middle School at this time was undergoing construction work, including work on its air-conditioning system, such that many of the students and teachers did not have the benefit of air- conditioning. Mr. Simonson, therefore, elected to spend a day or so at Rosenwald Middle School on a sort of "Bob Graham Work Day". Ms. Love announced that fact over the public address system during the morning announcements on that day. The Respondent came to Ms. Love's office a short time later carrying the school's daily bulletin in his hand. He seemed hostile and agitated, leaned over her desk and shook the bulletin in her face, stating to her that he wanted her to sign on the bulletin her name and the statement she had made about the reason the Superintendent was at the school on that day. He further stated to her, in effect, that he was "fixing to be fired" and that he wanted Ms. Love to admit and put in writing on the face of the morning school bulletin the real reason, as he felt it, why the Superintendent was at the school that day. Ms. Love refused to do this and considered this behavior to be bizarre and threatening, given that the Respondent obviously felt that the Superintendent had been on campus that day to "spy on him". During late September of 1990, the school embarked, at the behest of Ms. Love and other administrators and teachers, on a "school spirit week" contest. The contest involved decorating the doors of the classrooms by the students, using as themes for the decorations certain words which denoted various aspects of "school spirit". The doors were to be decorated during "trust class time". "Trust classes" are classes which meet for approximately fifteen minutes or so at the outset of the school day, somewhat analogous to what is commonly known as "homeroom classes". The students were allowed to decorate the doors during their trust class time. Ms. Love accused the Respondent of keeping students overtime in their trust class, which required them to miss part of their next class and be tardy to that class in order to decorate his room door. In fact, she gave him an "improvement notice" in the nature of a reprimand for this on September 28, 1990. It was not proven, however, that the Respondent had actually kept students late at his behest for this purpose. In fact, his testimony is that he required no students to stay in his trust class working on door decorations after the time for the trust class to be over and instructed them to obtain permission from their other teachers should they elect to stay overtime to decorate the doors. The Hearing Officer having weighed the testimony, candor and credibility of the witnesses on this issue, including the ability of the witnesses to have knowledge of the facts concerning the time and methods employed to accomplish the door decoration effort, this violation of school procedures was not proven. The door decoration contest was judged on September 28, 1990 and the Respondent's class did not win. The Respondent became very agitated and angry at this result to the point of requesting and obtaining a meeting with Ms. Love concerning it. His temper and emotions were out of control on this occasion. He behaved in a loud, abrasive, and angry manner, even to the point of alternately crying, shaking, and shouting. He accused Ms. Love of penalizing his children by denigrating their efforts in the door decoration contest in order to hurt him, claiming that her actions really were a personal vendetta against him in the course of which the children were victimized. In the midst of his emotional outburst concerning this matter, he refused to listen to any explanation which Ms. Love attempted to give him but repeatedly interrupted her efforts to explain how the contest was judged and its rules. He even attempted to call a newspaper concerning the incident. He was inordinately obsessed with the conduct of the contest and with the result. As this incident with Ms. Love was progressing, Corporal Lassiter, the school Resource Officer, observed and heard part of it. In his view, having observed the behavior of the Respondent on this occasion and being aware of the Respondent's past history, Mr. Lassiter considered the possibility of initiating an involuntary Baker Act hospitalization at that moment, because of the Respondent's behavior. During the course of this confrontation with Ms. Love, Mr. Lassiter or others persuaded the Respondent to step across the hall to a different office to calm down. After he went into the other office with Mr. Lassiter and another administrator, Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's behavior continued to be somewhat bizarre. His demeanor toward Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes alternated from being very angry and upset with them to calling them, and acting toward them, as though they were good friends. At one point, he told Mr. Lassiter that when he got elected Superintendent, all would hear about this incident in the newspaper and the reasons for it all "would become very clear". He stated then that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes would have good employment positions with him when he became Superintendent. Alternatively, before making these statements and also after making these statements, he became angry and hostile to both men, saying, in essence, that they were "all against me", becoming accusatory toward them and asserting, in essence, that Mr. Lassiter, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Love, and others in the administration were seeking to do him harm. Partly at the instance of Mr. Lassiter, the Respondent finally calmed down sufficiently to accede to Mr. Lassiter's recommendation that he call a substitute to take over his classes for the remainder of the day. A substitute was called and Mr. Lassiter then escorted the Respondent to his truck in order to see that he was removed safely from the campus without further incident with colleagues or students. As the Respondent was getting into his truck, preparing to leave the campus, he told Mr. Lassiter to "tell Ms. Love that she can kiss my ass". Teachers are required to be at Rosenwald Middle School by 7:30 a.m. The first bell rings at 7:37 a.m., and the "trust class" begins at 7:45 a.m. On approximately six occasions during September of 1990, Ms. Love had to sit in on the Respondent's trust class because he was late arriving at his class. She gave him an improvement notice concerning this deficiency on September 28, 1990. Additionally, on two separate occasions, Mr. Lassiter handled the Respondent's trust classes when he was late. The next school day after the incident concerning the door decoration contest on September 28, 1990 was October 1, 1990, a Monday. The Respondent was approximately 20 minutes late to school that day. Ms. Love, being concerned about the ramifications of the behavior she had witnessed in the Respondent the preceding Friday, met with the Respondent when he arrived at school for purposes of determining his state of mind and to talk to him about his tardiness. She found him still agitated, although not as much as he had been on Friday, the 28th. He continued to accept no responsibility for those actions and for his tardiness. He denied even being late, and as a result, Ms. Love assigned the school Resource Officer, Corporal Lassiter, to accompany the Respondent whenever he had students with him for the remainder of the day. It should be pointed out, however, that on most of the occasions when the Respondent was tardy to his first class during September of 1990, it was because he did not have a key to fit his office and would have to look for another co-worker to let him in. He was given a key at the outset of the school year which did not fit. Consequently, he disposed of it, ordering another key, the provision of which to him was delayed for unknown reasons. Later that same day, the Respondent brought between 20 and 30 students to the office for being tardy to class. The procedure for handling tardies at Rosenwald Middle School is that if a child is tardy, a teacher counsels with the child at first. The parents are contacted, the child is assigned to "team detention", and a student misconduct form is forwarded to the appropriate administrator upon tardies becoming repetitive. It is unusual to bring a student to the Principal's office for tardiness. The Respondent explained when they arrived at the Principal's office that all of the students were late to class and that Ms. Love should do something about it. This was a departure from normal procedures in dealing with tardy students. It should also be pointed out, however, that the school administration had recently issued a memorandum admonishing teachers that they should deal more severely with tardy students. When this entire group of students proved to be tardy on the day in question, the Respondent volunteered, with the agreement of the other physical education teachers/coaches, to escort the students to the Principal's office for disciplinary reasons concerning their tardiness. The other teachers involved agreed. On that same occasion, on October 1, 1990, when the Respondent had the group of students waiting outside the Principal's office, he apparently had some sort of confrontation with a student named Malackai. Apparently, the student was arguing with him and denying being tardy, which was the reason he was brought to the office. The Respondent offered to wrestle the student after school and "tear him limb from limb". This action caused Mr. Lassiter to step between the Respondent and the student and to send the student to Ms. Love's office to prevent any further such confrontation. Although the student was large for his age, these actions by the Respondent intimidated the student. On that same day, the Respondent was giving a lesson in softball on the softball field. He was being observed by Mr. Lassiter at the time at the behest of Ms. Love, who was concerned about his emotional stability. During this lesson, the Respondent, for unknown reasons, began rather randomly talking about accidents, lions, the dangers of eating red meat, and some sort of discussion of suicide. When he observed a student not paying attention to him, he hit the student on the head with a clipboard. He then continued his rambling discussion. A few minutes later, the same child asked when they would be allowed to play softball; and the Respondent hit him with the clipboard again. The student got tears in his eyes and was intimidated by the Respondent's conduct. When Mr. Lassiter observed that the Respondent might be about to commit the same act for a third time, he stepped between the student and the Respondent in order to prevent this from happening again. Physical education teachers are required to supervise students by direct observation in their locker room where they dress out for physical education classes and then dress in their regular clothes again at the end of classes. This is necessary in order to prevent fights and horseplay in the locker room, which can be dangerous. On October 1, 1990, during the Respondent's period to supervise the boys' locker room, he attempted to telephone Mr. Tucker, the Principal at Mosley High School. While he was on the telephone, he left the locker room class unsupervised and was unable to observe and supervise the locker room from the location of the telephone in the coach's office. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent again left his physical education class unsupervised while he was talking on the telephone for some 15-20 minutes. During the month that the Respondent had worked with Mr. Kent in the physical education department, Mr. Kent felt that although the Respondent generally had handled his duties well, he had spent an excessive amount of time on the telephone, rather than being in his assigned area. October 2, 1990 was the Respondent's last day of employment with the Petitioner. He was suspended with pay and shortly thereafter, the School Board met and accepted the Superintendent's recommendation to suspend the Respondent without pay based upon the conduct described in the above Findings of Fact occurring in August and September of 1990. The Board took the positions that this conduct amounted to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. In the Amended Administrative Complaint, on which this matter proceeded to hearing, which was filed on July 30, 1991, the factual allegations of the Complaint assert that the suspension action was taken based upon "alleged gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office"; however, the Amended Complaint actually charges that the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint violate Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning misconduct in office allegedly so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system and charges incapacity (as a subset of incompetency) alleging violations of Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, after the suspension occurred, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the Baker Act on the day following an apparent arrest for DUI, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and having a concealed firearm. The Respondent was convicted of none of these charges but, rather, pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and to a misdemeanor weapons charge. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In fact, the weapon which the Respondent had in his car was believed by him to be legally possessed since it was merely the 22 pistol with which he used blanks for training his bird dogs. The pistol happened to be on the floorboard of his car when he was arrested by the officer. The Respondent spent a short period of time at Bay Medical Center, pursuant to involuntary Baker Act commitment on this occasion. Also, in 1990, at an undetermined time in the fall, he voluntarily admitted himself to the Rivendell Psychiatric Center for approximately 2-1/2 weeks in order to receive additional evaluation because he was unsure whether he was actually manic-depressive or not. Thereafter, while still suspended from his employment, in May of 1991, the Respondent apparently had an argument with his parents at their home in Bonifay and then left their home to return to his own home in the vicinity of Panama City in Bay County, Florida. Rumors apparently were communicated to law enforcement officials to the effect that the Respondent had threatened to kill his parents and had left their home with a high-powered rifle and was journeying to Panama City to his own home. Apparently, as a result of such reports, after the Respondent was at his own home, to his surprise, law enforcement vehicles and numerous law enforcement personnel, especially the Bay County Sheriff Department Swat Team, arrived in his yard, and, by megaphone, demanded his surrender. A television news crew was present at the scene and filmed the incident, which may have received billing as an "armed confrontation" between the swat team and the Respondent. In fact, this is untrue. When the Respondent observed the law enforcement officers arriving on his premises in a number of vehicles, he telephoned his attorney to inform him of the situation and then went to the door in response to the directive that he come outside. When he went to the door to ascertain why the law enforcement officers were at his residence, he was armed with a fork and a hamburger. He was charged with no crime in connection with this incident, although, apparently, he was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act once again for a brief period of time. The incident was disseminated to the public on the electronic media. However, no armed confrontation was proven to have occurred, nor was there any proof that the Respondent ever threatened to kill his parents. Although Mr. Simonson testified that there would be a great public outcry if he reinstated the Respondent because of this incident and the other incidents, there was no showing by the Petitioner that the incidents occurring at Rosenwald Middle School leading to the Respondent's suspension nor the incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase were ever communicated to the public generally or to parents of students of the Bay County school system or the students themselves. It was not shown by the Petitioner that the Superintendent or other officials of the Petitioner received any complaints from parents or members of the general public concerning the Respondent, his behavior, or his teaching performance. The incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase and the swat team confrontation, delineated in the above Findings of Fact, did not occur while the Respondent was on school premises nor while he was engaged in his duties as a teacher or coach. With regard to either incident, he was not shown to have committed any crime or conduct which can constitute misconduct in office. Both incidents occurred in the Respondent's private life, away from his employment and away from the School Board premises. The only conduct shown to have been disseminated in the public media involved the Respondent being taken into custody at his home by the Sheriff's swat team because the television news crew was there filming the incident. He was charged with no crime on that occasion and was shown to have committed no form of reprehensible conduct. He was merely involuntarily committed shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Baker Act. None of that can constitute misconduct in office, much less misconduct in office which in any way abrogates his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system involved. The Respondent has been taking Lithium and Prozac for his manic- depressive condition since 1989. He is presently under the treatment of Dr. David Smith, a licensed psychologist; and Dr. Ben Pimentel, a licensed psychiatrist, at a facility known as the "Life Management Center", as an outpatient. Both of these professionals opined that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, the symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission, as they are at the present time. Indeed, in the past, since he first began taking medication for his condition in 1989 after being diagnosed as manic-depressive, at those times when the Respondent was taking his medication, his behavior and his teaching performance was up to the good and satisfactory standard which he had consistently exhibited from 1977 through the 1987-88 school year. It is only on those occasions when he has ceased taking his medication, in the apparent belief that his problem was not a chronic one, that he has exhibited the emotional instability, such as that displayed at Rosenwald Middle School in August and September of 1990, which is the subject of this proceeding. Indeed, both Drs. Smith and Pimentel, the only experts testifying in this proceeding, who testified for the Respondent, established that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, his symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission and he will be competent to teach in terms of both his emotional stability and his ability to perform his duties as a teacher. Although Dr. Smith acknowledged that the rudeness exhibited by the Respondent on the occasions at issue in this case and his behavior involving striking a student and offering to wrestle a student might be behavior unrelated to the bi-polar disorder, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that, in the Respondent's case, given the many years of his teaching experience when he was a calm, caring, competently-performing instructional employee with behavior not characterized by such outbursts and aggressiveness, such conduct is, indeed, directly related to the present, active nature of his disorder on those occasions. On those occasions, he was not taking his medication. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent needs to continue his medication. If he does continue his medication, he will be competent to continue teaching or to once again teach because his symptoms will remain in remission. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent may need the motivation of a court order or employment directive or condition to insure that he continues his medication because if he obtains a medical opinion that he is no longer sick, he may not take the medication and stop the treatment. Additionally, Dr. Pimentel finds that the Respondent will require monthly counselling sessions and monitoring of his medication level to make sure it remains at a therapeutic level. Under those conditions, however, he would be capable of resuming his teaching duties. The Respondent, in his testimony, expressed the wish to obtain another medical opinion to make sure, in his view, that he is still manic- depressive, although he accepts the diagnosis that he is manic-depressive and is willing to continue his medication and to submit to monthly monitoring of his medication and monthly treatment by his presently-treating professionals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Steven T. George, be suspended for a period of two years, but that the suspension be abated and the Respondent immediately reinstated to his duties as an instructional employee of the Bay County school district, with all of the rights of a tenured teacher, under the following circumstances which should remain in effect for a probationary period of two (2) years: His psychiatrist shall file monthly with the School Board a detailed report of his attendance at counselling sessions and the result of his monthly blood tests to ascertain if his medication remains at therapeutic levels. He is required to maintain the therapeutic levels of Lithium and Prozac or such medication as his physician and psychiatrist deem medically appropriate. If he fails to attend counselling sessions or to maintain therapeutic blood levels of his appropriate medication for any two (2) consecutive months, then this should be determined to be, at law, willful neglect of duty, subjecting him to dismissal as a teacher with the Bay County school district subject to the Respondent's right to contest such an employment action, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in this forum. There should be no award of back pay in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There should be no award of attorney's fees in light of the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law , and the opinion in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, Florida, 17 FLWD 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA, opinion filed May 15, 1992; Case Number 91-1831). The cases cited by the Respondent seem to accord the Respondent a hearing opportunity on the issue, with award of fees being discretionary. The Werthman decision appears contra in termination proceedings, however. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except that it was not proven that he had "gone through Ms. Love's mailbox". Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 28-29. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 33-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-39. Accepted. 40. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-47. Accepted. 48. Rejected, as not, in its entirety, being in accordance with the preponderant, competent evidence of record. 49-56. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 57-61. Accepted. 62. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 24-30. Accepted. 31-36. Accepted. 37. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 38-41. Accepted. 42-48. Accepted. 49-51. Accepted. 52. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 53-54. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 64-72. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. (Second No. 74). Accepted. 75-78. Accepted. 79. Rejected in the sense that it was proven by the Petitioner that at the time he was suspended, the Respondent was incompetent to teach due to incapacity related to his emotional instability. 80-85. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent P.O. Drawer 820 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, SALE, ET AL. 304 Magnolia Avenue P.O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 David Brooks Kundin, Esq. DOBSON & KUNDIN, P.A. 210 South Monroe Street P.O. Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
