Findings Of Fact Based upon my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 1, 1980, Respondent's mother was advised by Gus Sakkis, Superintendent of Schools, that her son was being temporarily suspended from the Pinellas School System and that he (Sakkis), was further recommending that her son be expelled from the public schools for the remainder of the 1980/81 and the 1981/82 school years for the stated reason that Petitioner committed a battery while on school grounds on September 19, 1980 following a high school football game at Gibbs Senior High School. (Joint Exhibit 1) At that time, Ms. Wynn was also advised of the availability of counselling and alternative placement for Petitioner in an educational facility in Pinellas County. In support of the suspension, Respondent presented witness David Anderson, A fifteen year old student who attends Gibbs Senior High School. Anderson testified that following the football game on September 19, 1980, while leaving the area near the Band room, he was struck with a black umbrella on the back of his neck by Petitioner. There were no witnesses to this incident and Anderson has not been involved in other incidents with Petitioner. Paula Sitzelberger, a Detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department investigated the subject incident and interviewed Anderson to determine the sequence of events. Student Anderson reiterated the events as stated above and also noted that Petitioner was accompanied by a group of at least two other students. Detective Sitzelberger also interviewed Petitioner who denied any involvement with or commission of a battery upon their person of student Anderson and also related that Petitioner indicated that he left the game and attended a party. Petitioner, testifying on his own behalf, left the game in the company of Tondrea Givens and Leroy Jones. Petitioner attended a party on 12th Street immediately following the game and attended a party. Petitioner denied striking David Anderson with an umbrella, as charged. Hope Wynn, Petitioner's sister, also attended the subject game and observed that Petitioner was accompanied by Tondrea Givens and Leroy Jones. Ms. Wynn observed Petitioner leaving the game immediately following the end of the fourth quarter, and later witnessed Petitioner with Givens and Jones at a party on 12th Street. Ella Jones, the sister of Leroy Jones, also appeared at the hearing and indicated that Petitioner was with Tondrea Givens and her brother Leroy Jones during and immediately following the game. Tondrea Givens also appeared and confirmed that he accompanied Petitioner following the subject game to the 12th Street party following the game. Givens also denied that Petitioner was involved in any physical contact with David Anderson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's expulsion of Petitioner be revoked and the student be permitted and afforded an opportunity to make up the school work missed as provided for in Chapter 4(b) (1) (h), Code of Student Conduct, adopted by the Pinellas County School Board. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Margaline Wynn 1527 Scranton Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 William A. Borja, Esqiure Suite 204 501 South Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1981.
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns the appeal filed by Respondent of the school board's assignment of Respondent to J.R.E. Lee Junior High School, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based on the entire record compiled herein, including the testimony of Peter Hoffman, Assistant Principal at Centennial Junior High School, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. On approximately August 26, 1983, Respondent, Tracy Jean Hidalgo, was assigned to attend Centennial Junior High School. Upon arriving for enrollment at Centennial, within six days of her enrollment, four fires were set in the bathrooms at Centennial Junior High School. Respondent admitted setting the fires when questioned by Assistant Principal Hoffman. Once the fires were set at Centennial Junior High, the regular school program was suspended and the students evacuated the building until the fires were brought under control. As stated hereinabove, Respondent or a representative on her behalf did not appear at the hearing to offer any testimony respecting the charges which prompted Respondent's administrative assignment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's appeal of the school board's assignment of her to the school system's opportunity school program at J. R. E. Lee Junior High School be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 10th day of February, 1984.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the school Board of Pinellas County (Petitioner) should dismiss its employee, Clarence Davis (Respondent), from continuing contract for misconduct in office and gross insubordination based upon matters alleged in the Superintendent's letters of March 13 and April 24, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a teaching certificate from the State of Florida, and has been employed by continuing contract with the Petitioner since April 21, 1971. In 1986, he was assigned to Azalea Middle School, where he has since been employed. The parties stipulated that during a prior assignment at Riviera Middle School, the principal of that school had warned Respondent to refrain from aggressively touching students. During April, 1986, Dr. Scott N. Rose, Superintendent of the Pinellas County school system, removed Respondent from a counseling assignment at Pinellas Park Middle school, and transferred him to Azalea Park Middle school as a physical education teacher. The Superintendent issued a warning at the time of this transfer that he would recommend a suspension without pay or termination if Respondent's future actions at Azalea Middle school constituted insubordination. During the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent was assigned to a guidance counselor position at Azalea Middle School, but he again had to be removed by the Superintendent. He was warned again that future problems would result in a suspension without pay or a termination. John Leanes became principal of Azalea Middle School in January, 1988, and in October, 1988, he warned Respondent to avoid touching students. In December, 1988, senior administrative officials and representatives of the Petitioner met with the Respondent, and warned him not to touch students. They told him that if he could not meet the standards and expectations of the Petitioner for teachers in the Pinellas County school system, he would be recommended for termination of his continuing contract. The Code of Student Conduct in effect in the Pinellas County school system at all times material hereto provides, in part, that: No form of physical punishment, other that paddling with a paddle is authorized. Corporal punishment may be used only after careful consideration of the facts by the principal, or designee. In no case shall such punishment be degrading or unduly severe in nature. Around the time of the winter holiday during the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent became involved in an incident with a twelve year old female student named M.S. The student was not feeling well, and did not dress out for physical education class. She was lying down in the bleachers. Respondent yelled at M.S. to come down from the bleachers when he observed her talking to other students at the top of the bleachers. When she complied and approached him, he appeared to the student to be very angry, and threatening. He yelled at her so closely that saliva from his mouth struck her in the face. After yelling at her, he pushed M.S. with both hands, throwing her back onto the bleachers. This incident caused the student, M.S., to be frightened and intimidated by the Respondent. Other students observed the incident, and confirmed the testimony of M.S. at hearing. Respondent's actions in this incident reasonably caused M.S. to feel embarrassment, fear, and the threat of physical punishment. On or about March 7, 1989, Respondent yelled at a male student, J.S., and pushed him in the chest with his finger while yelling at him. It appeared to the student that Respondent was trying to provoke him into a physical confrontation. Respondent testified that he was trying to protect another student, K.W., whom he felt was being bullied by J.S. However, K.W. testified that J.S. was not bullying him on this day, and that he and J.S. are friends. Other students witnessed the incident, which reasonably caused the student, J.S., embarrassment, and fear. It is alleged that on March 8, 1989, Respondent also grabbed a student, R.L., by the shoulders, shook him, and yelled at him. R.L. is classified as an emotionally handicapped student, who has been suspended. Students who testified characterized R.L. as someone who talks alot, says bad things about, and fights with, other students, and is generally a trouble maker. Based upon his demeanor at hearing, as well as the testimony of other students about his character, it is found that the testimony of R.L. is not credible. It is reasonable to infer that R.L. heard about the incident the day before with J.S. and the Respondent, and fabricated his allegations to gain attention. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Scott N. Rose and John Leanes, who were accepted as experts in education, as well as the testimony of Stephen Crosby, director of personnel services for Petitioner, incidents such as those between the Respondent and M.S. and J.S. diminish a teacher's effectiveness by creating an improper role model, teaching students that violence is a way to resolve disputes, frightening students, and causing them to be afraid of school and teachers. This creates a negative educational atmosphere, and could potentially increase the school system's liability. In November and December, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay on two occasions based upon allegations similar to the ones at issue in this case. The period of these suspensions was three and five days, respectively. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing concerning these suspensions, and following that hearing, Hearing Officer Don W. Davis issued a Recommended Order on April 21, 1989, in DOAH Cases Numbered 88-5720 and 89-0344, recommending that the proposed suspensions be dismissed. A Final Order in this prior case has not yet been entered by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from continuing contract with the Pinellas County school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1546 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as irrelevant. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 11. 9-12. Adopted in Finding 5. Rejected as not a finding of fact but a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 6. 15-19. Adopted in Finding 7. 20-24. Adopted in Finding 8. 25-28. Rejected and adopted in part in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. The Respondent did not file specific Proposed Findings of Fact, but incorporated argument in a proposed recommended order. Therefore, it is not possible to address specific findings of fact on behalf of the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue, Southwest Largo, Florida 34640 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent threatened to shoot students with a firearm located in his vehicle that he parked on campus, and whether the acts proved during the administrative hearing constitute just cause to terminate Respondent's professional services contract pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(6)a), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught diesel mechanics at the Ridge Vocational Technical Center (Ridge Center) in Polk County, Florida, for over 12 years. Respondent teaches diesel mechanics pursuant to a professional services contract. By letter dated May 14, 2007, the Superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that she was suspending Respondent from his employment with pay. The letter also states that, on June 12, 2007, the Superintendent would recommend to Petitioner that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On June 12, 2007, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the Superintendent. The letter dated May 14, 2007, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of his employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: On May 11, 2007, an investigation revealed that you had a 9mm pistol in the front seat compartment of your personal vehicle. When asked if you understood that it was against School Board policy to bring a weapon on campus, you indicated that you were aware of the policy. You were arrested by the Winter Haven Police Department for having a weapon on campus. The arresting officer also indicated that further charges may be made against you regarding threatening comments that you allegedly made to the students. * * * Your conduct in this situation is aggravated by the fact that you made reference to the weapon and threatened to use it against students and by the fact that you admitted you were aware that bringing the weapon onto campus was a violation of both state law and Board policy. This was a knowing, intentional act on your part involving students and constitutes just cause for termination. It is undisputed that Respondent possessed a firearm on the Pine Ridge campus on Friday, May 11, 2007. On the morning of May 11, 2007, Respondent placed a 9mm pistol into its holster and put both items into the center console of his truck. Respondent drove the truck to work and parked the truck in the Ridge Center parking lot. The truck was parked approximately 25 feet from the school. The pistol was securely encased and not readily accessible for immediate use within the meaning of Subsections 790.001(16) and (17). The possession of a firearm on the Ridge Center campus violated the written policy of Petitioner. In relevant part, the policy provides: It is the expressed policy of the Polk County School Board that no weapons/firearms shall be taken upon school property by any one other than law enforcement personnel. . . . Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 10. The charging document notifies Respondent of several aggravating factors that are alleged as grounds to support a finding of just cause to terminate Respondent's employment. The document alleges that the violation of the written school policy was a knowing and intentional act; that Respondent made reference to the weapon and threatened to use it against students; and that the possession of the firearm by Respondent was unlawful. The violation of the written school policy was knowing and intentional. Respondent knew of the written school policy prohibiting the possession of firearms on campus but brought the firearm to school in his truck to take with him that night to a weekend job discussed in subsequent findings. Respondent did not make reference to the firearm and threaten to use it against students. The accusing student complains that Respondent referred to the firearm and threatened to shoot students on May 10, 2007. However, there is no evidence that Respondent possessed a firearm on campus on May 10, 2007. The weight of the evidence does not support the testimony of the accusing student that Respondent threatened to retrieve his firearm from his truck and shoot Pine Ridge students on May 10, 2007. On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Respondent was grading papers in his classroom at the Ridge Center. Several male students outside of the classroom were using long broom handles to "sword-fight." Respondent readily admits that he yelled words from his classroom on May 10, 2007, to the effect that, "I'm going to shoot all of you guys one of these days if you don't straighten up." Respondent did not make reference on May 10, 2007, to the firearm he possessed on campus on May 11, 2007. The admitted statement was not a threat to shoot students and did not expose any student to conditions harmful to his or her physical or mental health. Respondent continued grading papers, and Respondent and the students remained on campus until shortly after the school day ended at 2:00 p.m. One of the students playing in the hall on May 10, 2007, testified that Respondent said, "The next one of y'all that breaks a broomstick, I'm going to go to my truck, I'm going to get my nine and come back and shoot you." The student further testified that he asked Respondent, "You're going to shoot them?" and that Respondent replied, "Yeah, I'm going to shoot them." The testimony of the accusing student is not credible and persuasive and conflicts with material facts in the record. Respondent did not possess a firearm in his truck on May 10, 2007, when he allegedly threatened to fetch the firearm. A finding based on the testimony of the accusing student would require the trier of fact to ignore the weight of the other evidence as well as the candor, forthrightness, and cooperative nature of the testimony of Respondent. The accusing student is an older high school student with a history of discipline problems at the Ridge Center. The accusing student did not return to the Ridge Center after May 10, 2007, and, on the date of the hearing, was no longer pursuing a trade or degree in any school. He is hoping to enter a military academy within five months of the date of the hearing. Testimony from the accusing student that he did not return to the Ridge Center for fear of Respondent is not persuasive. The accusing student was a problem for other teachers and administrative staff at Pine Ridge, and the testimony of teachers and administrators shows they preferred that the student had never attended the Ridge Center. Petitioner did not prove that possession of the firearm on campus on May 11, 2007, was unlawful. Rather, the evidence and relevant legal authority discussed in the Conclusions of Law shows that the firearm was in Respondent's truck on Friday, May 11, 2007, for a lawful purpose pursuant to Subsection 790.115(2)(a)3. Respondent was scheduled to work that weekend on a truck delivery route that would take him into Liberty City, Florida, between midnight and 5:00 a.m. Respondent drove directly from the Ridge Center to his weekend job and took the firearm on his truck delivery job for self defense. Local law enforcement officials arrested Respondent for allegedly committing a third degree felony in violation of Section 790.115, Florida Statutes (2006).2 At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, not only were additional charges for threats against students not filed against Respondent, as alleged in the charging document in this proceeding, but the state attorney refused to prosecute Respondent on June 12, 2007. It is unclear from the record whether Petitioner knew of the decision of the state attorney on June 12, 2007, when Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment, in relevant part, for the unlawful possession of a firearm on May 11, 2007, and alleged threats against students. The criminal investigation began on May 10, 2007, when local law enforcement officials received an anonymous telephone complaint sometime concerning the alleged threat by Respondent. On May 11, 2007, an officer from the Winter Haven Police Department (Department) visited the Ridge Center to investigate the complaint against Respondent. The police officer questioned Respondent on May 11, 2007, and Respondent acknowledged that he had a pistol holstered and securely encased in his truck in the campus parking lot. Respondent took the officer to the truck, directed the officer to the location of the firearm in the center console, and otherwise fully cooperated in the investigation. The police officer arrested Respondent for possessing a firearm on a school campus in violation of Section 790.115. The Department conducted a full investigation, Respondent fully cooperated in the investigation, and the state attorney dismissed the charges against Respondent on June 12, 2007. Relevant legal authority is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted evidence intended to prove the presence of several aggravating factors that the charging document does not allege. These un-alleged aggravating factors are that Respondent previously possessed an unloaded hunting rifle on campus in Respondent's truck; violation by Respondent had impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a educator; and Respondent failed to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical or mental health. The charging document does not provide Respondent with notice that Petitioner intended to submit evidence at the hearing of the un-alleged aggravating factors. However, Respondent did not object to questions asked during the hearing pertaining to the un-alleged aggravating factors. The ALJ admitted the relevant evidence and considered the evidence in this proceeding. The evidence supports a finding of only one unalleged aggravating factor in this proceeding. Sometime before May 11, 2007, Respondent possessed an unloaded hunting rifle in the back of his truck while the truck was parked on the campus of the Ridge Center. The events of May 10 and 11, 2007, and the prior possession of a hunting rifle did not expose any student to conditions harmful to his or her physical or mental health and did not seriously impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. The testimonies of the director of the Ridge Center and a fellow teacher show that Respondent has consistently been an effective and competent teacher at the Ridge Center. Respondent has no prior discipline in his employment history.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of December, 2007.
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact This case was presented for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint and subsequent amendment presented by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, State of Florida, against Michael H. Deis, holder of teaching certificate No. 356436, Rank II, post graduate valid through June 30, 1987. The accusations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and its amendment are as indicated in the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. The remaining facts found result from a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, administrative hearing held upon request of the Respondent. The Respondent was born March 7, 1945, and is married and has three children, ages one and one-half, four, and eight. The Respondent has been married since June 17, 1972. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science degree, a Masters Degree in Business Administration and fifty-five hours' credit toward a Doctorate of Philosophy in Education. The Respondent has been employed with the Collier County School System in the State of Florida since February, 1974. Prior to that time, the Respondent had been employed in management for General Motors Corporation and with General Development Corporation for a period of three years in Miami, Florida. After becoming an employee of the Collier County School System, the Respondent taught math in the sixth through eighth grades at East Naples, Florida, Middle School. The range of ages for those students was twelve to fourteen years old. Beginning in the January term of 1975, the Respondent taught adult education in the Collier County School System. In 1976, Respondent moved to Everglades High School where he coached boys' basketball, varsity basketball and girls' basketball. His academic responsibility at that school included the teaching of basic math and other subjects to boys and girls whose ages ranged from fourteen to twenty. The Respondent then moved to Barron Collier High School in September, 1978, as a daytime adult education instructor. The age range for those students was from sixteen to eighty-three. In the school years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the Respondent coached girls' softball, girls' junior varsity basketball and assisted with the track program for girls. The ages of the girls Respondent coached or assisted were fourteen through eighteen. During the school year 1978-79, the Respondent met one Lori Tomaselli, a member of the girls' basketball team. This initial introduction was followed by correspondence of August 1979, addressed to the Respondent from Lori Tomaselli in which she made comment about her summer vacation and related that she had "missed" the basketball program. At that time Tomaselli was fifteen years old. The letter of August, 1979, was followed by an act on the part of Tomaselli on December 20, 1979, in which she walked up to the Respondent, turned him around and gave him a kiss. Deis' reaction was one of sunrise, followed by a comment to the effect that she was his favorite basketball player. She replied that she had cared for him since the first basketball meeting in October, 1978, when she was fourteen years of age. On December 30, 1979, Tomaselli wrote Deis while she was vacationing in the State of New York. The Respondent did not write in return or contact her. Respondent next saw Tomaselli on January 5, 1980, after she had returned from her vacation and was a participant in a basketball game which the Respondent coached. From the time of this basketball game forward through the basketball season, the Respondent would sit next to Tomaselli on the bus used to transport the basketball team. Approximately two weeks beyond January 5, 1980, the Respondent selected Tomaselli as his classroom assistant or aide. Tomaselli served in this capacity for a period of approximately two months, one hour each day. In the initial part of 1980, the Respondent would also assist Tomaselli with her math and science lessons. Beginning in February 1980, Tomaselli kept the statistics for the girls' softball team which was coached by the Respondent. At the time, Tomaselli was also participating on the girls' track team. The relationship between the Respondent and Tomaselli escalated and on March 7, 1980, Tomaselli kissed the Respondent and gave him a hug. The occasion for this display was that of the Respondent's birthday. Also in the month of March, the Respondent indicated that he began to feel an "interest" in Tomaselli. Prior to the spring school break for 1980, the Respondent paid Tomaselli $50.00 to assist in painting his home. During that same vacation, the Respondent met Tomaselli at a local beach, he coincidence. At one of the track events at which the Respondent was assisting and the young woman Tomaselli was participating, Tomaselli hugged Deis in the presence of her parents. During the time period of the track season, the Respondent drove Tomaselli to her home after school on three occasions and explained his reason for doing so as being one, that a girl friend of Tomaselli's car had broken down; two, that her parents would not pick her up and three, that Tomaselli had asked him for a ride. These rides took place before April 14, 1980. On Sunday, April 13, 1980, the parents of Lori Tomaselli had a discussion with Deis and through this conversation expressed the desire that Deis cease his relationship with their daughter to the extent of not associating with her. Among his responses, the Respondent indicated to the parents that if their daughter were eighteen years old and single, he would ask her out. On that same date, the Principal at Barron Collier High School called the Respondent to inform Deis that the Tomasellis had complained to the Principal. Deis then indicated that he would resign his coaching position effective the next morning. On Monday, April 14, 1980, the Respondent met with the Principal and a Mr. Munz, Assistant Superintendent of the Collier County School System, and as a result of that conference, was given a memorandum which instructed him to have no further contact with Lori Tomaselli. At that meeting, Respondent explained to the school officials that he had a strong emotional attachment for Lori Tomaselli. On the next morning, April 15, 1980, Tomaselli went to Deis' classroom and was shown a copy of the aforementioned memorandum and Deis told her "they would have to cool it." After Tomaselli left his classroom, the Respondent immediately went to see the Principal and told the Principal that he had shown the memorandum prohibiting contact to Tomaselli. As a result of this conversation with the Principal, the Respondent received a second memorandum from Assistant Superintendent Munz which reminded Deis that he was under direct order not to talk to Tomaselli and telling him that the conversation which Deis had had with Tomaselli about the meeting of April 14, 1980, was, by its terms, a violation of the Assistant Superintendent's instructions. The Respondent became angry about the second memorandum in that he thought it was unnecessary. He felt that he was being harassed. As a result of this attitude Respondent began to write to Tomaselli, and she in turn would reply. This letter writing activity continued on a daily basis. In some of these letters, the Respondent instructed Lori Tomaselli, when questioned by the Principal, "to keep cool" and further instructed Tomaselli that when she met with her mental health counselor that she should not indicate that she had been with the Respondent. The letters also indicated to Lori Tomaselli that the Respondent intended to divorce his wife and marry Tomaselli. In addition to the letter writing, Tomaselli began to call the Respondent as much as twice a day, using the cafeteria phone in the school to speak to the Respondent. In May, 1980, the Respondent accidentally saw Tomaselli at a local skating rink while there with his daughter. On May 14, 1980, Deis met with the School Superintendent, Dr. Thomas Richie, and through that conversation agreed to take personal leave. This leave was taken and the Respondent sought psychiatric counseling from Dr. Frank Dennis at the behest of school officials. The leave of absence was from the period May 15, 1980, through May 29, 1980. Dr. Dennis' fees were paid by the Collier County School Board. (During the month of April, 1980, the Respondent had had another meeting with Dr. Richie in which he expressed the opinion to Dr. Richie that he realized his relationship with Tomaselli had become too personal and that he had failed to take steps to correct the situation, and further that he was personally responsible for continuing the development of this relationship.) On May 16, 1980, Tomaselli mailed a letter to the Respondent expressing her affection for him. Around May 18, 1980, Tomaselli ran away from her home and a friend of hers took her to a location where the Respondent, acting as a real estate salesman, was showing a model home. At that time, the Respondent did not want Tomaselli to come into that location and resisted this encounter. The follow-up to the May 18, 1980, meeting was a series of calls from Tomaselli to the Respondent at a residence of a friend of the Respondent's, in view of the fact that Deis had moved from his home. On May 30, 1980, Respondent was called by Tomaselli to ask him to pick her up. The Respondent agreed and after picking up Tomaselli and being afraid of being detected with Tomaselli in his automobile, a circumstance developed in which Tomaselli exited his van and was slightly injured. The Respondent left the area where Tomaselli had jumped from the van and he then removed her property from his automobile. Sometime during the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent had returned Tomaselli's affection by kissing her and expressing his affection for her to the extent of telling Lori Tomaselli that someday she would be Lori Deis, meaning that she would be the Respondent's wife. On July 29, 1980, the Respondent resigned his teaching position in the Collier County School System. After his resignation, there have continued to be letters and telephone communications between tie Respondent and Lori Tomaselli. Those communications were as recent as March 24, 1981, at which time a letter was received by the Respondent from Lori Tomaselli. The relationship between the Respondent and Lori Tomaselli took place at a time when the Respondent was having marital problems and Lori Tomaselli was having difficulty with her parents. Those circumstances continued to exist at the time of the hearing. Nonetheless, the relationship was contrary to the expressed prohibition by the School Administration. The existence of such a relationship was such that it reduced the effectiveness of Deis as a teacher in the Collier County School System and did not provide a proper example for the students, nor allow the Respondent to practice his profession at the highest ethical standards.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1 on or about January 8, 1976, by possession of marijuana on school grounds.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 16 year old, 11th grade high school student attending Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida. On January 8, 1976, Respondent was found in possession of 32 grams of marijuana on the grounds of Marathon High School. (Stipulation of the Parties) On April 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida, accepted Respondent's plea of guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana, withheld adjudication as a delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months under the supervision of a Youth Counselor, State of Florida Youth Services Division. Conditions of probation included a curfew, weekly meetings with the counselor and part-time employment while attending school. (Testimony of Seale) At the time of his apprehension, Respondent admitted possession of marijuana to authorities and cooperated with them by divulging its source. Respondent denies any prior arrests and, in the opinion of the Youth Counselor, he is not likely to commit an offense of this nature in the future. He has evidenced remorse and desires to continue attendance at the high school. The Youth Counselor feels that it would serve no useful purpose to prevent him from further attendance. (Testimony of Seale, Collins) Respondent is not a problem student nor is he considered to be incorrigible or a socially maladjusted child. An alternative to expulsion exists at Marathon High School in the form of a rehabilitative program for socially maladjusted children that is supervised by one instructor who exercises close supervision over the students in the program. A student who is expelled from high school may enter an evening adult education program whereby he can acquire necessary academic credits by attending evening classes. The principal of Marathon High School recommends that Respondent be expelled because of the seriousness of his offense as evidenced by the unusually large amount of marijuana. (Testimony of Gradick)
Recommendation That Respondent, Gordon Collins, be expelled from Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida, effective June 8, 1976, for violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1, by possession of marijuana on the school grounds on or about January 8, 1976. DONE and ENTERED 14th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn Archer, Jr. Assistant Superintendent Post Office Drawer 1430 Key West, Florida 33040 Peter Lenzi, Esquire Post Office Box 938 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue Whether Respondent committed any of the acts alleged in Petitioner’s Amended Administrative Complaint; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background on Mr. Alden Mr. Alden began working as an educator in 2004 when he was hired to work at the Clark County Alternative School in Athens, Georgia. When that school closed in 2009, Mr. Alden relocated to Clark Central High School. After taking a year off to care for his terminally ill mother, Mr. Alden relocated to Florida and took a position with Gateway High School in Osceola County in 2011.3 In 2017, Mr. Alden took a teaching position with Lecanto High School (“Lecanto High”) in Citrus County, Florida. During the 2018-19 school year, Mr. Alden was an economics and government instructor at Lecanto High. He also taught one section of world history. Allegations by students regarding Mr. Alden’s conduct led to the initiation of an investigation in September of 2018 and the issuance of a written reprimand on September 25, 2018. A second investigation began on May 2, 2019, but was closed on May 9, 2019, due to Mr. Alden’s resignation from Lecanto High. Mr. Alden worked as a sixth-grade world history teacher at Liberty Middle School in Marion County, Florida, during the 2019-20 school year. As explained in more detail below, two incidents during the 2019-20 school year led to Mr. Alden not being recommended for reappointment. 3 Mr. Alden holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1186313, covering the areas of Educational Leadership, Elementary Education, Gifted, and Social Science, which is valid through June 30, 2022. Findings as to Whether Mr. Alden Referred to Students as “Dumb,” “Stupid,” or Words to that Effect S.H. was a senior at Lecanto High during the 2018-19 school year and was in Mr. Alden’s economics class. S.H. has a learning disability and reported in September of 2018 to her case manager, Karen Harper, a math teacher at Lecanto High, that Mr. Alden would become angry with her for asking questions. Mr. Alden supposedly displayed that anger by sighing heavily and telling S.H. that she didn’t know what she was talking about.4 S.H. offered the following testimony during the final hearing: Q: Tell us about what your concerns were in Mr. Alden’s class. A: Well, I was – not repeatedly, but I have heard him putting down students. On top of that I was making a statement about something he said and he said that I didn’t know what I was talking about and that I was stupid. Q: Okay. Now, did that bother you what Mr. Alden said to you? * * * A: Yes, sir. Q: When he called you stupid, did he say this in front of other students? A: Yes, sir. Q: What you just told us here today, was that some of what you told Mr. Harper? 4 Ms. Harper also acted as a case manager for a student named A.M., who stated to her that Mr. Alden referred to him as stupid and a failure when he sought assistance from Mr. Alden. Because A.M. did not testify during the final hearing, the portion of Ms. Harper’s testimony concerning A.M.’s allegations is uncorroborated hearsay that cannot support a finding of fact. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020)(providing that “[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.”). A: Yes, sir, * * * Q: Okay. You say he has put you down when asked questions. What do you mean by that? What did he do? What was going on? * * * A: Like anything I would say – and, honestly, it sounded pretty dumb in my mind as well, my questions, but I could understand why he put me down, but it’s still unacceptable. But I was just saying things that provoked it. So. He put me down, like, you know, called me, you know, stupid, tell me I wasn’t – I didn’t know what I was talking about. Like that. Q: Okay. So even if you felt like you asked a dumb question, you didn’t expect him to call you stupid in front of your peers? * * * A: Yes. Because my other teachers don’t do that. Q: Okay. How did that make you feel for him to call you stupid? A: Not good. It just made me feel kind of depressed, like I wasn’t good enough for his class. Just did not feel good about it. Other former students of Mr. Alden’s from the 2018-19 school year did not corroborate S.H.’s testimony. For example, J.S. testified that Mr. Alden implied that particular students were dumb or stupid but never directly said so. However, J.S. did not explain how that implication was expressed. K.S. did not remember Mr. Alden using the words “dumb” or “stupid.” M.M. could not recall any instances in which Mr. Alden demeaned a student. C.S. denied ever observing Mr. Alden disparage a student or call a student “stupid” or “dumb.” B.S. never heard Mr. Alden call a student “dumb” or “stupid” and did not recall Mr. Alden disparaging or embarrassing any students. S.C. never witnessed Mr. Alden disparage or belittle any students and never heard Mr. Alden call any students “stupid” or “ignorant.” M.J. never observed Mr. Alden disparaging any students or call a student “dumb” or “stupid.” R.C. denied ever observing Mr. Alden disparage a student. When asked if he remembered Mr. Alden explaining the difference between “stupid” and “ignorant,” R.C. gave the following testimony: A: I remember the comment. If I believe. I mean, it’s been two years, but to my best knowledge I believe that the comment was made on the note that, as long as you’re – as long as you’re trying and you’re asking questions and you’re trying to be engaged and learn, that you can’t be stupid. But if you’re choosing not to learn and you’re choosing not to try and give no effort, then you’re just ignorant. But you can’t be stupid as long as you try. Q: Okay. And did you ever observe Mr. Alden, you know, directly, call a student stupid or dumb? A: No, sir. Mr. Alden vehemently denied Petitioner’s allegation that he referred to students as “dumb” or “stupid”: A: I spent 15 years in the classroom working with kids that have been disparaged by their community and their families. Came to me using I am stupid as their – as their – as an excuse for not putting effort into their education. They had to – they had been convinced that there was no point in trying because they weren’t – they were going to fail. I spent 15 years, from the minute I walked into the classroom, trying to convince these kids that they were not stupid, that they were, in fact, more than capable and trying to deprogram them from the belief that there was no point in trying. I made, every year, the first day of the – the first day of class I made a point to illustrate to the kids that there was a difference between ignorant and stupid. Because a lot of them conflated those two terms. I would point out that ignorant means you have not learned and stupid means you cannot learn. And to drive the point home, especially with the age group that I worked with, I went into a little conversation about human growth and development and the formation of the prefrontal cortex and that that’s the part of your brain that allows you to make rational decisions and it doesn’t finish forming until your early-to-mid 20s. * * * I also used the secondary working definition of stupidity that ignorant means you don’t know any better and stupid means you know better, but you do it anyway. And I use that to short circuit what a lot of these kids would interpret as a disparaging remark from other adults. That when an adult might say, that was stupid, they weren’t talking about you as a person, they’re talking [about] your actions. * * * Q: How often would you have to have that sort of discussion with your students? A: Well, as I said, I would do it at the beginning of the term, just to sort of begin that deprogramming process. I would also reiterate the lesson at every available opportunity. If I heard a kid say, I’m stupid, I would stop the world and point out to them, no, you’re not, you can’t be. It’s physiologically impossible and all the rest. If I heard a kid disparage another student, say that was stupid or are you stupid or don’t be stupid, I would clarify for both the student making the comment as well as the student the comment was towards, that that’s not how you want to say that. You want to say, that was careless, that was thoughtless, that was reckless. Not that that was stupid. And stress to the student that was – that had engaged in observable behavior that could be defined as a stupid action and say, look, you’re not stupid. You knew better. Think about what you’re doing before you do it. And, you know, you don’t have to worry about people coming to the wrong conclusions. Findings as to Whether Mr. Alden Told His Students That a Class Was Divided Into “Smart” and “Dumb” Sections S.B. was a sophomore at Lecanto High during the 2018-19 school year and had Mr. Alden for world history. When asked about how Mr. Alden seated students in his classroom, S.B. gave the following testimony: A: He would separate the classroom. Smart people would be in the back of the classroom and then the dumber kids, or what he would refer [to as] the kids who failed the test or didn’t make good enough grades, he would put them in the front and refer to them as dumb. Q: How did you know Mr. Alden was putting the smart kids in the back? A: He had said it. Q: And the not so smart or dumb kids in the front? How did you know that? A: He had said it himself. A kid has asked why we were being separated and he just said that he had separated the kids because the smart kids go in the back and the dumb kids go up front, is what I had overheard in the class period. Q: Okay. Did that make you feel any particular way when he would put – separate kids like that? A: Yes. Because that’s not how a teacher should be speaking to their students. So I don’t think that was right. * * * Q: Now, even though you’re in the smart group, did you feel bad for the kids that were in the, what he described, as you say, the dumb group? A: Yes, of course. Because he would always repeat and make it known that those were the dumber kids. Q: Okay. And what did he tell you he based putting the smart kids in the smart group and the dumb kids in the dumb group? How did he – did he tell you how he made that determination as to which kids were going to go in any particular group? A: Usually it would be because of the quiz grades or the test grades that we had received [that] day. J.D. was a senior at Lecanto High during the 2018-19 school year and was one of Mr. Alden’s students. J.D. offered the following testimony about Mr. Alden’s method of seating students: Q: Okay. Let’s start talking about [allegation] 3-A. Tell us what you know about 3-A. A: All right. So 3-A, it says that in the classroom he referred to students as dumb or stupid. I never heard him actually refer to any individual student individually as dumb or stupid, but I know that he did refer to people collectively as not willing to learn. But I do not know that he actually referred to any [ ] particular student as dumb or stupid. Q: Did you hear him use those words toward any group of students as being dumb or stupid? A: Implied, yes. But not directly. Q: Okay. What do you mean when you say implied? A: So, like, in the next part, in 3-B, when he divided the section into smart and dumb students. And smart students were in the back and dumb students were in the front. That did happen and that does imply that he thought that those kids were not as smart as the kids in the back. Q: Okay. So, by the way, were you in either one of those groups? A: Yes, I was. I was in the back. Q: Okay. So, you were in the smart kids’ group; is that right? A: Exactly. Q: Okay. Now, how did you – did you – did that make you feel in any way? How did you know that the smart kids were in the back and the dumb kids were in the front? I mean, how did you know that? A: Because it’s what the other kids were saying. The other kids in the class. It made them feel that the kids in the back were better than they were. And those were – those are words from the students. Like, when I was – so, in the class, I was in the back and me and another student in the back would – we would, you know, bicker and argue. So I asked Mr. Alden to move me to a different setting so that we just wouldn’t bicker and argue anymore. And when I was sitting with those students, they would always refer to me as the smart kid in the group. And it made a distinction. It actually, in a way, segregated the class based on the level of intelligence. * * * Q: Okay. Did Mr. Alden tell you that [was] why he was separating [students] into different groups? The kids who scored well on the exams were put in the back and the kids who didn’t score well, they were put in the front. A: Exactly. That is how he explained it in the beginning of the school year. Q: Okay. And you were talking about the interaction between the kids. Based on the way he had told you all he was segregating you with the kids that scored well in the back and kids that didn’t score well in the front, did that cause some tension or problems between the students in the classroom? A: I wouldn’t say tensions, but it did ostracize people who sat in the front, people who sat in the back. And then when you, like, try to talk to people from a different area, it was, like, you were either below them or above them. Q: Okay. And that was discussions among the students based on where they were placed; is that correct? A: Right. And that is my experience from sitting in a different group. K.S. was aware that Mr. Alden based students’ seat assignments on their class performance. However, he testified that Mr. Alden “never said that we were either stupid or smart in one place or another.” R.C. gave the following testimony about the seating arrangement: Q: How was the seating arrangement in Mr. Alden’s classroom, if you recall? A: It varied. Normally we could sit kind of wherever we want[ed] when we came in. But then, after test days, we would be split into groups where the first row back, if I recall, the highest test grades would be in one area and the lowest test grades in the other. We’d talk and go over the test and then we would be split into groups based on lowest test grades with the highest test grades put together and all mixed out so that everybody could help each other and help each other learn. Q: Okay. And did you find this effective? A: I believe so. Because some days I had a bad test and someone else did better and they could help me. Then if I had a better test and someone else didn’t, I could help them. You got to know everybody in the class better and I feel, again, it was just very productive overall. Q: Did the seating arrangement ever cause you any embarrassment? A: No, sir. C.S. testified that the seating arrangement helped “students that weren’t really doing well on their tests by putting students that had lower grades on tests up in front. That way [Mr. Alden] could do one-on-one with them, if needed.” When asked if the seating arrangement ever caused him embarrassment, C.S. testified that, “I actually really enjoyed it since there would be certain lessons I didn’t understand that well and so being up closer to him, it allowed me to, like, get his attention and be, like, can you help me understand this.” When asked about the seating arrangement in Mr. Alden’s class, B.S. testified that “he just put it to where he thought would be the best for people that needed to learn a little bit better. But it wasn’t like anything like embarrassing or anything like that. Like it was what he thought was the best seating arrangement to do.” S.C. seemed to agree when asked if Mr. Alden ever announced that he was dividing a class “between dumb students and smart students.” However, S.C. testified that no one took any offense and that the seating arrangement never caused him any embarrassment. M.J. did not recall students being seated based on test scores, but she did remember that students who needed more help were placed closer to the front of the classroom so that they could get Mr. Alden’s attention. She denied ever hearing Mr. Alden state that he was dividing a class into smart and dumb sections. Mr. Alden readily acknowledged that he placed students in different sections of his classroom based on test scores during the time in question and had used this method during seven school years: After the first unit test, they were grouped by their test score. So the highest performing students were in the back of the room. They were – my independent learners were in the back of the class. And the lowest scoring kids in the group were my dependent learners and they needed more support from me and I put them in – not necessarily in the first group because the very first group was closer to the door to the classroom. The second and third – the second, third – no, wait. One, two, three. The second, fifth and fourth groups were the ones closest to my desk. And that’s where I arranged the students that needed more help with the content. And sometimes it was a bad test taker or sometimes they were having trouble with the read – with reading comprehension. Sometimes it was an issue with communication with their peers. And having them closer to me allowed me to observe their interactions and, where necessary, step in and provide one-on-one support and determine if I had to address a learning deficiency or if it was a struggle – they were struggling with a particular piece of content. Mr. Adlen denied referring to students as being in “a dumb section or stupid section”: Whenever the students would make comments to that – to that end, I was vehement and immediate in my correction of it. I made – on numerous occasions I would say that the kids in the back of the room might have gotten a hundred percent on the test and the kids in the front of the room might have gotten a 90. That I only have limited amount of space and I can’t put every A in the back of the room. I don’t have enough room to put everybody in the back of the room. So everybody’s got to go somewhere and it -- ending up in the front of the room does not mean you’re low performing. It doesn’t mean you have a poor performance. There’s no such thing as good enough grades. * * * The folks in the front are the folks that need support. The folks in the back are – I’m able to leave to their own devices. Findings as to Whether Mr. Alden Used Profanity in the Classroom S.H. testified that Mr. Alden uses the words “bitch” and “shit” in class. S.C. read from a prior written statement in which he stated that Mr. Alden is “very blunt, uses uncalled for words. He speaks about other students, but doesn’t use specific names, like mistakes they have done. He cusses, such as words as damn, shit and hell. He’s used the n-word before. Does not think before he speaks.” S.B. testified that Mr. Alden “would curse a lot” and used the words “bitch,” “shit,” and “ass.” That made S.B. uncomfortable because she thinks that teachers should not be using such language around students. J.S. testified that Mr. Alden used the words “bitch,” “shit,” and “hell” in class. J.S. added that Ms. Alden expressed his preference for Milton Friedman’s economic theories by stating that John Maynard Keynes “didn’t know shit.” O.L. was a senior at Lecanto High during the 2018-19 school year and was in Mr. Alden’s economics class. She testified that Mr. Alden told a joke5 to a student in which the set-up was “what is the difference between a bitch and a ho?”6 K.S. remembered Mr. Alden using the term “shit” at least a couple of times. He also remembered the joke described by O.L. R.C. testified that Mr. Alden occasionally used profanity in the classroom. However, according to R.C., Mr. Alden did not use profanity in a derogatory manner and did not direct any profanity toward any students. C.S. denied hearing Mr. Alden ever say anything inappropriate. Mr. Alden7 conceded during his testimony that he had a relaxed attitude toward profanity: Q: The Amended Administrative Complaint in 3-C states, specifically, Respondent used profanity in the classroom, including the words bitch, shit and hell. Could you respond to that accusation? A: Incidental profanity was not a thing that I made a big deal about. It was more that the students engaged in it than that I participated in it. I did participate in it, but very infrequently. 5 The Amended Administrative Complaint did not mention the joke at issue, but Mr. Alden did not assert that he was not on notice that testimony regarding the joke would be used to substantiate the allegation that he used profanity in the presence of students. 6 I.G. did not testify at the final hearing but a written statement from her was accepted into evidence as part of Petitioner’s Exhibit 6. I.G. wrote that “Alden said ‘this is a joke’ and asked the class not to tell, because I believe some other students were making jokes about being called a whore, then he said ‘What’s the difference between a whore and a bitch? A whore gets with everyone and a bitch gets with everyone but you.’” Even if I.G.’s statement was offered to prove that Mr. Alden made the statement at issue, I.G.’s statement supplements and corroborates O.L.’s testimony. Accordingly, I.G.’s statement is admissible. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020)(providing that “[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.”). 7 As noted in the Preliminary Statement, Mr. Alden is deemed to have admitted using profanity in the classroom. It originated with students in the class using that language without sign of disquiet. They – I remember distinctly one student saying to me, Mr. Alden, I really like your class because you talk to us about real shit. And I was, like, whoa. But he showed no signs that he was aware that he had said something inappropriate and nobody in the class showed signs that it was an inappropriate thing to say. At that point I noticed that it was – it was not an infrequent thing among the students. So rather than make it – I mean, I worked at an alternative school where I dealt with juvenile felons. I worked in a school where we – our number one problem was kids getting into gang fights. So in my career there had just been bigger fish to fry and more important issues to address. So, at Lecanto, when the students informed me, through their behavior, that incidental profanity was not a thing that they were going to get bent out of shape about, I tried to manage it in what I thought was the best way possible. I made very strict rules. Nothing over – nothing more than PG-13. Nothing that you would not hear on commercial television in prime time. And the f-word – never in anger, never towards another person, never used to aggress against another student, never used to disparage or insult another student. And the f-word was forbidden. Mr. Alden denied ever using the n-word. With regard to the testimony that he told a joke with the words “bitch” and “ho,” Mr. Alden offered the following context: I had a senior girl that was in crisis. She was being accused of being a whore by the ex-girlfriend of her current boyfriend. The agitator was a junior. My girl was a senior and she was about to graduate. She was within just a few short weeks of graduating. She came into class [visibly] upset, surrounded by a group of girls who were egging her on and she kept saying she was going to beat her. I tried to intervene to calm her down, kind of talk her off the ledge. * * * So, I did the last thing I could think to do. I just said, hey, do you know what the difference is between a b_ _ and a ho? Because that was the topic that she was upset about. Being called a whore. That got her attention. * * * And I said, so what is the difference. Tell me what the difference is. And it took a little while to kind of talk her through it, but she got the point that it wasn’t about the behavior, it was about the perception of the behavior. That it wasn’t about the person who was acting, it was about the outside observer and their judgment of the person’s behavior. Karen Harper is a teacher at Lecanto High and explained why teachers using profanity in the classroom could be harmful to learning: Q: Now, in your career, do you use those kinds of words in your classroom? A: No. Q: Do you believe – is there any particular reason why you don’t use those words in your classroom? A: It’s not professional. I know that during -- whenever you’re hired, you have to go to – the beginning of school or when you get hired by a county, you have to go through an orientation and they talk about code of ethics and things that they, you know, as a teacher, this is what’s expected of you. And that was just something that was – I know that it’s a code of ethic[s] you shouldn’t be doing that. Q: Well what about just in terms of how – based on what you know about students, how using those kinds – that kind of language impacts students? A: Some students are – you never know. Just like in [the] general population. You don’t know who you’re going to offend, who you’re not going to offend. So it’s best just to avoid it and not say them. * * * Q: Okay. So, but if the teacher wants to characterize a person in a history book as a bitch or something that they did in the context of history as . . . If the teacher, then, wants to say that something that the queen or the king did was shitty, in your professional view, is that an appropriate context to use those kinds of words? A: No. Teachers and students at Lecanto High are prohibited from using profanity. Findings as to Whether Mr. Alden Embarrassed J.S. by Engaging in a Religious Debate and Stating That a Belief of J.S.’s Was “Demonstrably Fallacious” M.M. was a senior at Lecanto High School during the 2018-19 school year, and Mr. Alden was his economics teacher. On a day in early May of 2019, M.M. disclosed to classmates sitting at his table during economics class that he was transgender, and that led to his classmates asking several questions about M.M.’s family life and religious views. When M.M. expressed a favorable view about Jehovah’s Witnesses, J.S. approached the table where M.M. was seated, stood over him, and inserted himself into the conversation. M.M. described the ensuing events as follows: I can’t remember exactly what brought up J.S. joining this conversation. I do remember that I started with saying my own opinion on Jehovah’s Witnesses, stating that it was a truer religion than most that I have viewed. And I remember him walking up to my desk, standing less than a foot over me while I was seated. And I am a very, very short, small man. Very, very scared of many people, especially in high school. He stood over me and he told me right off the bat that I was wrong. And I said, it’s okay, man, no problem. Conversation over. We’re done. And I just acted as if I was going back to my assignment. He was like, no, no, no, you are wrong. And I want to tell you that you are wrong and that Jesus and God are one and the same. And I was, like, okay, that’s your belief, my belief is different. Just, that’s it. He was, like, no, no, man. And I was, like, I don’t want to – I don’t want to deal with someone pushing someone’s beliefs on me right now. You know, I’m in school, I just want to finish my assignment. And he was like, I’m not pushing my beliefs, I’m enlightening you. And as he’s talking to me he is in a way towering over me, is how I viewed it. I’m assuming that Mr. Alden saw that I was getting very uncomfortable and Mr. Alden came to the other side of me, looked at Mr. J.S. and said, you are wrong for doing this to him, you need to back off. And at that point, the conversation diverted, while it was over me, still to J.S. going after Mr. Alden with the same phrases and repeating the exact same argument that he was doing to me. Mr. Alden kindly enough diverted the argument away from my desk and got sort of to the other side of the classroom at that point. J.S. described the events in question as follows: So they were talking about that topic and they were talking – kept talking about, you know, mainstream Christianity. So I walked over there and I wanted to share my belief, since they were already on that topic, to inform them of that in case they were not aware of a different way of thinking, a different way of believing. So I walked over there and I made the comment, I said, did you know that Jesus is God. And after I said that comment, Mr. Alden walked over to me and he said, don’t say that Jesus is God. That’s demonstrably fallacious. And Jesus is God is one of the core beliefs of my faith. The fact that [he] believes that Jesus is God and that God is the Holy Ghost and that all of them are one person is one of the founding principles of what I believe. So in essence, he was saying, don’t say what you believe is true, because it’s clearly and evidently based on something that is false. * * * And after that, he engaged me in a whole debate, trying to prove what I believe to be wrong in front of all of [my] peers. Q: Okay. So his demeanor towards you while he was telling you that what you believe was demonstrably fallacious, what was his demeanor like? A: It was cocky, it was arrogant, it was – it seemed like he thought no one could ever prove him wrong. And even when you tried to use the sources that you draw your faith from, such as the Bible, I was – when we were talking, I was trying to use scriptures that I believe to be doctoral scriptures from the Bible. And he said – he told me that I could not use the Bible because it was inaccurate and false, due to the Council of Nicaea. So he not only was disparag[ing] my faith, but he disparaged the spiritual book that I draw my faith from. Q: Okay. Emotionally how did that make you feel? A: Emotionally, I was embarrassed. I was upset. I was angry. But I was just going to let it -- I was just going to let it go. I was just going to let it roll off – roll off like water on a duck’s back. The undersigned does not credit J.S.’s assertion that he was embarrassed. During his testimony, J.S. presented as a very outgoing and opinionated young man who has no inhibitions about expressing his views and engaging in debates. In fact, J.S. testified that “I am a, you know, I hate to say it, but I am an opinionated person and that tends to get me into discussions based on different topics, such as, you know, politics, opinions, the whole nine yards.” Mr. Alden’s description of this incident corroborates M.M.’s testimony, and his description of J.S. matches the opinion formed by the undersigned: [J.S.] was aggressively opinionated. And I had to remove him from two groups at the request of the members of his groups because he would not acquiesce ever. A big part of the class was they would take quizzes as a collaborative group and they would discuss and debate what was the best evidence for their answers on the quiz. And J.S. would not keep – J.S. would get his opinion on what was the best evidence and he would not hear anyone nay-saying it. So, two different groups of kids said, could you please remove him because we can’t have a debate with this guy. He was also very aggressive about his religious beliefs. And I, on more than one occasion, reminded him that belief is individualized. You cannot require anybody else to agree with your beliefs. If it’s just a matter of a difference of opinion on beliefs, on faith, then you have to agree to disagree. It’s unjust. Otherwise it’s unjust. The particular incident involving M.M. – M.M.’s characterization of the interaction is a lot more intimidating than I thought it was. I just – I just saw J.S. in the back of the room with a group that had asked him to be removed from them. And I stepped up to just sort of reestablish that boundary. That, you know, this is -- this is a group of kids that really doesn’t – they got a problem with you, there’s a personality conflict or something going on here. I had no – I didn’t know that M.M. was feeling bullied at the time. And I – when I stepped to M.M. or when I stepped to J.S., I heard him – all I – I heard him say that Jesus and God are literally the same thing. And I heard M.M. very gently disagreeing, but clearly not wanting to get into a debate – a debate with J.S. I certainly did not want to get into a debate about religious beliefs, so I employed the Socratic method and I just asked J.S., what do you base that on. And J.S. said, I base it on the Bible. And I said, okay. Let me just ask you questions based on your source material and let’s see if we can figure out if that’s an accurate claim. Like, can you make that claim using your own sources. And I just asked him a few simple questions about the biblical nature of God as defined by the Bible and the nature of Jesus as outlined in the Bible and showed the contrast between God of the Bible and the Jesus of the Bible to show him that, okay, that claim, you can’t defend. You can’t make that claim based on the source material. Findings Regarding the Allegation that Mr. Alden Grabbed a Student’s Hair Mr. Alden taught world history at Liberty Middle School in Marion County, Florida, during the 2019-20 school year. K.R.H. was a student at Liberty Middle School that year and had Mr. Alden for eighth-grade history. On approximately October 8, 2019, K.R.H. was walking into Mr. Alden’s classroom and Mr. Alden was positioned near the entrance. K.R.H. had long hair and was wearing it in a ponytail. She testified that Mr. Alden “pulled my hair pretty roughly and it made my head go back a little.” K.R.H. did not say anything to Mr. Alden. However, when she looked back at him, she testified that he was laughing and did not offer an apology. K.R.H. called her parents about the incident, and her father then called the school. Melissa Forsyth, the principal of Liberty Middle School, fielded the call and began an investigation. In addition to interviewing K.R.H., Ms. Forsyth interviewed two other students who witnessed the incident and corroborated K.R.H.’s assertion that Mr. Alden pulled K.R.H.’s hair.8 Ms. Forsyth and her assistant principal viewed security camera footage of the incident9, and Ms. Forsyth discussed the incident with Mr. Alden: And we saw Mr. Alden’s hand go around her ponytail and kind of -- it went up and then her head tilted back as she was walking into the room. Q: Okay. Did you talk to Mr. Alden about that? A: We did. Q: What did he tell you? A: So at first he said that he oftentimes greeted students at the door. High fives, fist bumps, elbows. And he never pulled anyone’s hair. I did take that opportunity and reminded him that there were security cameras in the hallway. And then he said, he swatted at K.R.H.’s ponytail jokingly to flip it and a finger got caught in a tangle. Q: So is it your testimony that when you first talked [to] Mr. Alden about it, he denied ever pulling the student’s hair? A: Yes, sir. Q: And then when you informed him that you had video and you had seen him grab the student’s hair 8 Neither of the alleged witnesses testified at the final hearing. 9 The security camera footage was not offered into evidence during the final hearing. and pull her head back, did he – that’s when he told you what he did was swat at her head? A: Right. I didn’t tell him I saw anything. I just reminded him that there were video cameras in the hallway. Q: Okay. And then that’s when he changed his story about what happened? A: He swatted at her ponytail jokingly to flip it and a finger got caught in a tangle. Q: Okay. Now, is that what you saw when you observed it yourself? A: It did not appear that way. Q: Okay. It appears as you’ve described, that he grabbed her ponytail and pulled her head back; is that correct? A: That it was – that it was around the hand – the hair and then her head tilted back after it went up. While denying that he grabbed and pulled K.R.H.’s ponytail, Mr. Alden testified that his hand accidentally got entangled in K.R.H.’s hair: I was standing at – I was standing in the doorway on the hallway side, greeting students as they came in. The doorway was inset about three feet from the wall. So, if I’m standing in the doorway observing the hallway, I couldn’t clearly see into the classroom. As K.R.H. came in I said, hi, she said hi. And as she – I put my fist out to bump her and as she walked by I – I assume she didn’t see me with my hand out or she was distracted. As she walked by, I swatted at her ponytail, just like, oh, you’re going to ignore me. Okay. Swatted at her ponytail. I wear a ring on my little finger and it got caught – my finger or the ring or some combination got caught in her hair and that’s – that’s why on the camera it appeared to flip up and then get pulled back down because that’s how gravity works. You hit a thing, it’s going to fall back down. Got my finger caught and her head came back and I got my finger out. She kind of jerked. I said, my bad. I couldn’t really say a lot to her because there was another student right in front of me that was in the moment trying to get my attention. So, just – it was just an incidental movement that got taken wildly out of proportion. Findings Regarding the Allegation that Mr. Alden Embarrassed a Student by Touching His Forehead and Saying “Think.” Kayla Palacios was an assistant principal at Liberty Middle School during the 2019-20 school year, and she was conducting a formal observation of one of Mr. Alden’s classes on February 25, 2020. She testified that Mr. Alden was standing at the front of the classroom and directing questions to specific students. When A.C. was unable to answer the question posed to him, Ms. Palacios testified that “Mr. Alden poke[d] A.C. in the forehead with two fingers and A.C.’s head went back.” Ms. Palacios discussed the incident with Mr. Alden later that afternoon and relayed that it is inappropriate for teachers to touch students. According to Ms. Palacios, Mr. Alden “acknowledged it and we moved forward from that conversation.” Because she considered the incident sufficiently significant, Ms. Palacios informed Ms. Forsyth about it the next morning. Mr. Alden described the incident as follows: On this particular day I was being observed, so I wanted to make a good impression on Ms. Palacios. So, I went to A.C. on a difficult question that I was sure he would have the right answer to. And he didn’t. He kind of flubbed the answer a little bit. And when I didn’t give him that immediate, you’re right, he got flustered. And because he was, you know, the teacher’s pet and because he was the guy that always had the right answer, his peers were starting to kind of snicker. There was a little bit of tension between him and the rest of the class that didn’t really bother him, usually. But on this day, when his friends were snickering and he felt like he had it and then realized he hadn’t, he got a little flustered. To try to focus his attention on me and ignore the rest of the class, I very delicately placed two fingers on his forehead, while he was looking up at me. He did not have his head down. He was looking me in the face, trying to figure it out. And I just – and I just – to focus him, stop, think, think about what you’re doing, you know this, you’ve got this. And he did. He came up with the correct answer. And he beamed when he got it right. A.C. did not testify at the final hearing, and there was no evidence as to whether Mr. Alden’s action embarrassed him. Ultimate Findings Regarding Petitioner’s Allegations Petitioner’s first two allegations are closely related. The first alleges that Mr. Alden referred to students as “dumb,” “stupid,” or words to that effect. The second alleges that Mr. Alden told his students that his class was divided into one section for “smart kids” and another for “dumb kids.” Petitioner presented testimony from S.H. and S.D. that clearly supported the first two allegations. Because the other witnesses who testified about these allegations contradicted the testimony given by S.H. and S.D., the undersigned is not left with a firm conviction regarding these two allegations. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the first two allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In contrast, Mr. Alden’s own admission and the witness testimony clearly and convincingly established that Mr. Alden used profanity in the classroom. Moreover, Ms. Harper, a teacher at Lecanto High, persuasively testified why teachers using profanity in the classroom is harmful to learning and would reduce a teacher’s effectiveness. However, there was no persuasive evidence that any students were seriously harmed by Petitioner’s use of profanity. Petitioner also alleged that Mr. Alden embarrassed J.S. by engaging J.S. in a religious debate and telling J.S. that one of his religious beliefs was “demonstrably fallacious.” Even if Petitioner could prove that Mr. Alden characterized one of J.S.’s religious beliefs as “demonstrably fallacious,” Petitioner has not proven that the debate between Mr. Alden and J.S. embarrassed the latter. After having the opportunity to observe J.S.’s demeanor, the undersigned does not credit J.S.’s assertion that he was embarrassed. As for the allegation that Mr. Alden grabbed K.R.H.’s hair and caused her head to be pulled backwards, there is no doubt that one of Mr. Alden’s hands made contact with K.R.H.’s ponytail and caused her head to be pulled backwards. The only question pertaining to this allegation is whether Mr. Alden grabbed K.R.H.’s ponytail or inadvertently got entangled with it. Other than Mr. Alden and K.R.H, Ms. Forsyth was the only witness to testify about the incident. However, her testimony was based on her observation of security camera footage, and Petitioner did not attempt to move that footage into evidence. As a result, there is no way to ascertain whether the footage was detailed enough for Ms. Forsyth to accurately distinguish whether Mr. Alden grabbed K.R.H.’s ponytail or inadvertently got entangled within it. In other words, the absence of that footage and the absence of testimony from other witnesses at the scene of the incident precludes the undersigned from finding that Petitioner proved this allegation by clear and convincing evidence.10 10 This finding should not be construed as the undersigned accepting Mr. Alden’s version of events. Even if Mr. Alden simply swatted at K.R.H.’s ponytail, he exhibited poor judgment by doing so. He also exhibited poor judgment by using profanity in the classroom. Petitioner also alleges that Mr. Alden embarrassed A.C. by touching A.C.’s forehead and saying “think” when A.C. was initially unable to answer a question. While the evidence clearly and convincingly established that Mr. Alden touched A.C.’s forehead, there was no evidence as to whether A.C. was embarrassed thereby because A.C. did not testify. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and 14 Rule 6B-11.007 was last amended on December 10, 2019. None of the provisions relevant to the instant case changed. section 1012.795(1)(j) through rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be placed in probationary status for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2021. Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
