The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practice Commission should grant Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed February 22, 1995, Petitioner requested an initial two-year nonrenewal temporary teaching certificate and a two-year part-time coaching certificate. The application discloses that Petitioner was born July 24, 1960. A question on the form asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic accident (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. The additional information requested on the form, if the "yes" box is checked, provides spaces for the following information: "city where arrested," "State," "Charge(s)," and "Disposition(s)." In response to this question, Petitioner checked the "yes" box and filled in the three spaces provided. Petitioner disclosed that, in East Williston, New York, in 1978, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." (This would mean driver's license because Petitioner answered in the negative the next question on the form, which asks whether he had ever had a teaching certificate revoked or otherwise disciplined in another state.) Petitioner also disclosed that, in Roslyn, New York, in 1979, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." Last, Petitioner disclosed that, in Mineola, New York, in 1986, he was charged with "Disorderly-Conduct" and the disposition was "Plead Guilty/Paid Fine [and] Placed on Probation." On a separate sheet of paper attached to the February 22 application and entitled "Arrest/Revocation Record," Petitioner disclosed: In addition to the records I have provided you, I was arrested several other times around the year 1980, and I don't recall the exact dates and dispositions--they were misdemeanors for disorderly conduct, and the charges were either dismissed or reduced and a fine paid. In signing the application, which is acknowledged by a notary, Petitioner attests that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed March 11, 1994, Petitioner requested only a two-year part-time coaching certificate. This application is identical to the first except in the disclosure of convictions. In the March 11 application, Petitioner disclosed the East Williston and Roslyn offenses, although the years changed to 1979 and 1980, respectively. Instead of a Mineola offense in 1986, Petitioner listed an Old Westbury offense in 1986. The Old Westbury offense was also for disorderly conduct and the disposition was a guilty plea and payment of fine, although the probation was omitted. Petitioner did not disclose on a separate sheet or otherwise the additional material disclosed on the separate sheet attached to the February 22 application. Petitioner has passed the relevant portions of the examination required of teachers and has met the conditions for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate except for issues in connection with his criminal history. By letter dated February 23, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application for a Florida teaching certificate had been denied. The letter refers to an accompanying Notice of Reasons. The Notice of Reasons recites that Petitioner filed an application for a Florida teaching certificate in March 1994. The Notice of Reasons notes that Petitioner disclosed only three of ten criminal convictions and concludes that the nondisclosures and convictions themselves constitute violations of the statutes and rules cited in the Preliminary Statement above. On February 19, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, driving under the influence, and operating a vehicle without a license. This and all other arrests took place in Nassau County, New York. On May 10, 1979, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charges of disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $500 fine, alcohol rehabilitation, and restriction of his driver's license to business and school. On September 27, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and two counts of criminal mischief. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a reduced charge of two counts of disorderly conduct. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $75 restitution payment or 10 days in jail and conditionally discharged him. On November 25, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and driving under the influence. The former charge was dismissed. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, driving under the influence. The court sentenced him to a $200 fine and revocation of his driver's license. On January 12, 1982, Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault. On April 12, 1982, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of harassment. The court deferred disposition and conditionally discharged Petitioner pending payment of $32 restitution. On May 19, 1984, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. On April 1, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charge of attempted criminal mischief. The court unconditionally discharged him. On May 26, 1985, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and resisting arrest. On June 12, 1986, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the charges. The court sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation. On November 5, 1986, Petitioner was arrested and charged with harassment and resisting arrest. On December 1, 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, both charges. The court conditionally released Petitioner. Petitioner is recovering from dependencies on alcohol and drugs. In 1987, he entered a rehabilitation clinic on Pine Island where he underwent a month's treatment. He then entered a halfway house in Ft. Myers for three months. He regularly attends Alcoholic Anonymous meetings and obtains counseling. Prior to obtaining treatment, Petitioner attended St. Johns University and the Berklee College of Music, evidently without obtaining any degrees. Since treatment, Petitioner obtained in 1989 an Associate Arts degree from Edison Community College in Ft. Myers and in 1992 a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Emerson College in Boston with a major in acting and a minor in literature. While in Boston pursuing the BFA degree, Petitioner taught writing to gifted high school students and voluntarily performed for high school students plays that Petitioner had written and produced. He also tutored inner city students in reading. In April 1994, Petitioner obtained a statement of eligibility from Respondent. This allowed him to teach for up to two years, during which time he had to apply for a temporary nonrenewable teaching certificate. In August 1994, Petitioner was employed to teach seventh grade social studies and reading at Cypress Lake Middle School in Lee County. After a month, he was transferred to the special education department where he taught students in the middle-school drop-out prevention program. While at the school, Petitioner served as an assistant coach on the girls' basketball team and the boys' baseball team. The principal of the school terminated Petitioner's contract February 21, 1995, evidently when he learned that Respondent would be denying him a Florida teaching certificate. Petitioner has since been employed as a teacher by a private school in Lee County. Petitioner relied on advice from a well-meaning friend when he filed a second application a couple of weeks after filing the first application. The friend had told Petitioner that he could apply for a coaching certificate without applying on the same application for a two-year temporary teaching certificate. The innocent filing of two separate applications generated confusion for both Petitioner and Respondent. When denying Petitioner's request for a teaching certificate, Respondent inadvertently omitted mention of the first application. Similarly, when filing the second application, Petitioner inadvertently failed to include the separate sheet that he included with the first application. However, Respondent already had the separate sheet from the first application. It would be as disingenuous for Respondent to claim lack of knowledge, as to the second application, of the disclosures contained on the separate sheet attached to the first application as it would be for Petitioner to claim that the denial of the second application is not also intended to be a denial of the first application. The adequacy of the disclosures on the separate sheet is a separate matter. The two applications refer to two of the three 1979 arrests and report sentences of revocation of driver's license. The three 1979 arrests actually resulted in convictions for disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol (February 1979 arrest), disorderly conduct (September 1979 arrest), and driving under the influence (November 1979 arrest). The actual sentences were, respectively: $500 fine, driving restrictions, and alcohol rehabilitation; $75 restitution; and license revocation and $200 fine. The first two disclosures do a fair job of revealing Petitioner's first three convictions, especially given the fact that they took place 15 years ago when Petitioner was 18 and 19 years old. Obviously, one arrest/conviction is missing, but it appears that the court disposed of the second and third arrests at the same time and possibly in a consolidate proceeding. This may account for Petitioner's recollection that the second and third arrests were a single case. Also, the separate sheet addresses omissions. The dates are a little off, but the first arrest was early in 1979, and the consolidated disposition of the second and third arrests was in 1980. As reported by Petitioner, the charges are roughly correct, and the dispositions suggest the seriousness of the offenses. It is hard to tell which conviction the third reported arrest signifies. After the three 1979 arrests, there were four more convictions for which Petitioner had to account. To his credit, Petitioner identified 1986 as the year of the arrest, so as not to suggest that his criminal problems were further behind him than they really were. Although none of the actual arrests or convictions is for disorderly conduct, which is what Petitioner reported on the application forms, all four of the convictions could be fairly described as disorderly conduct. The reported and actual dispositions do not preclude the possibility that Petitioner was identifying any of the four arrests. Thus, Petitioner was probably disclosing the November 1986 arrest on the application forms, and he did a reasonably complete job of doing so. The disclosure question is therefore whether the separate sheet adequately accounts for the convictions arising out of the 1982, 1984, and 1985 arrests. These arrests took place "around the year 1980," as Petitioner reported on the separate sheet. "Disorderly conduct," as stated on the separate sheet, roughly describes the nature of the offenses, although less so the nature of the arrests, which is what Petitioner claims on the separate sheet to be describing. In fact, Petitioner paid restitution of $32 once, was unconditionally discharged once, and was placed on probation once. The reported fine in each case serves as reasonable disclosure, at least where no jail time is involved. On balance, Petitioner's disclosures did more than place Respondent on inquiry notice. The disclosures were reasonably accurate and detailed. They gave a fair picture of the kind of trouble that Petitioner got into at that point in his life. Respondent's case is based on Petitioner's unfitness to teach based on his alleged dishonesty in the application process and his past criminal behavior. Once the question of dishonesty in the application process is resolved in favor of Petitioner, the remaining focus is on his behavior 9-15 years ago when he was 18-26 years old. The number of arrests and convictions is troubling. But the dispositions do not suggest offenses of extreme gravity. Petitioner is now 35 years old. He has rehabilitated himself in terms of intoxicants, as well as educationally. For many years, he has demonstrated a clear commitment to teaching and evidently is skilled in the profession. He has served his communities well and seeks to continue to do so as a teacher in Florida. Given the nature of the offenses, their age, and the age of Petitioner at the time he committed the offenses, there is no basis in the record to find that Petitioner is morally unfit to teach.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Education Practice Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner's February 1994 application for a Florida teaching and coaching certificate. ENTERED on October 6, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 6, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19-22: adopted or adopted in substance. 23-27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Attorney Jerry L. Lovelace 909 SE 47th Terrace, Suite 201 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Ronald G. Stowers Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The substantive issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondents Florida teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked based upon the allegations of Petitioner's complaint dated June 4, 1987. Respondent has raised various procedural issues in his written documents and in a telephone motion hearing held on November 10, 1987. Those issues include whether he has already surrendered his teaching certificate, whether the investigation was proper and whether the formal hearing was properly scheduled.
Findings Of Fact Based upon a consideration of all evidence properly made part of the record in this proceeding, the following findings are made: David Cunningham is now, and was at all times relevant, certified as an elementary school teacher under State of Florida Certificate No. 468382. The certified copy received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 reveals a date of issue of April 14, 1986 and an expiration date of June 30, 1990. No competent evidence was presented to support Respondent's allegation that the certificate was invalid or otherwise lawfully relinquished or revoked. David Cunningham was employed as an elementary teacher at Caley Elementary School in Orlando, Florida during school year 1983-84, until March 1984, when he was placed on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. Dynell Harrell was a fifth grade student in Cunningham's reading class during the first semester of 1983-84 at Caley. Dynell was twelve years old at the time. During the second semester of 1983-84, Dynell transferred to another school, but began having contacts with Cunningham outside of the school setting. The two went to amusement parks and to restaurants. On only one occasion they were accompanied by Dynell's siblings. Dynell began spending weekends at Cunningham's house. Cunningham gave him presents of clothes, shoes, and money - - $20 or $30 at a time, for an eventual total of at least $500. On the occasion of the second weekend visit, Cunningham got in bed with Dynell. Later, during the night, he began touching and rubbing the youth and took his clothes off. In response to Dynell's question of what was going on, Cunningham responded with a reminder of their friendship and all the things he had done to benefit him. They engaged in oral sex at that time. After that, the sexual contact was routine on the weekend visits, once or twice a month. Cunningham engaged Dynell in oral and anal sex and gave him vodka and cigarettes. Dynell was afraid to tell anyone as he thought he would lose his friend. He also felt he owed Cunningham a favor. During this time, Dynell's mother noticed a withdrawal of her son from his close relationship with her. She was somewhat suspicious of Cunningham's interest but Dynell denied that Cunningham had ever asked him to do anything that he didn't want to do. She believed him because she felt he would be candid with her. At the beginning of the seventh grade, Dynell went to Illinois to live with his grandmother in Illinois. Cunningham called him on the phone, but his grandmother was suspicious and didn't let Dynell talk. On one occasion, Cunningham stopped at the grandmother's house on his way to North Dakota. The grandmother let Cunningham take Dynell out to eat, but only in the company of Dynell's cousin. Dynell also wanted his cousin to come along as he figured nothing could happen if they were not alone. Cunningham told Dynell he wanted to continue seeing him, but Dynell did not want that and responded that he would be in Chicago and would not be able to see Cunningham. Dynell has had no further contact with Cunningham, even after the youth's return to Florida in eighth grade. Dynell has received mental health counseling to help him deal with the relationship with Cunningham. Dynell has been reluctant to associate along with male students and adult males, and refused to participate in his church's Big Brother program unless one of his friends is able to accompany him. John Hawco, administrator of Employee Relations for the Orange County School Board, would not recommend that Cunningham ever be employed in any position in which he would be exposed to children. His effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously impaired by his conduct toward his former student. He exploited his professional relationship with that student in return for personal gain and advantage. By certified letters and through contacts with Cunningham's prior attorney Jerry Whitmore, consultant for the State Department of Education, provided notices to Cunningham regarding the complaint and investigation. Cunningham sent his original teaching certificate to the investigator, stating that he should not be investigated as his certificate was no longer valid. The investigation continued, again with notice to Cunningham. He declined to participate in an informal conference and refused to indicate on the Election of Rights form provided to him which option he chose in response to the complaint: voluntary surrender for permanent revocation, admission of allegations and request for informal hearing, or dispute of allegations and request for a formal hearing by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Instead, he appended a separate statement to the form disputing the allegations and arguing that he was not a valid certificate holder as his certificate was based on a correspondence course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that David Martin Cunningham's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire RIGS BY & HOLDER 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. David Cunningham 8775 20th Street, #921 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (e), or (i),2/ as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educator Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795 and related rules. At all times material to the allegations in this case Respondent held Florida Educator’s Certificate 1023593. The certificate covers the area of chemistry, and is valid through June 30, 2019. Respondent became a full-time high school teacher in the Seminole County School District (SCSD) during the 2006-2007 school year. At all times material to the allegations, Respondent was employed by the SCSD as a teacher at Seminole High School (High School). In or around October 2013, Respondent was asked if she would be interested in working with the Hospital Homebound program (HH).6/ The HH offered to compensate Respondent for the time she spent assisting students. Respondent agreed to be involved with the HH. Respondent was assigned to tutor C.P. During the 2013-2014 school year, C.P. attended the High School, and was a student in one of Respondent’s classes. C.P. candidly testified that he had scoliosis.7/ In late November 2013, C.P. had surgery to correct his spine. The surgery included placing rods in his back to straighten it. In early December 2013, Respondent went to C.P.’s home to begin the tutoring. On her initial visit to C.P.’s home, she brought C.P. a Slurpee, and found him resting in his bed. C.P. understood that Respondent was to help him keep current in all of his classes. C.P. did not show Respondent his back and did not tell Respondent that he had rods or wires in his back. C.P. did not discuss with Respondent a need for food or that he needed a new mattress. A short time later, Respondent left C.P.’s residence, and later returned with fried chicken, books, Cheez-it crackers, and a poinsettia flower. Respondent went to Principal Collins and expressed concerns about C.P.’s health and his family’s financial situation. Respondent opined that C.P.’s family was “poor.” Respondent told Principal Collins she had taken food and other items to the family. Respondent also told Principal Collins there were wires coming out of C.P.’s back and thought a better mattress would help C.P. Respondent wanted to know if the school could help the family. Principal Collins appreciated the concern Respondent had for C.P.’s circumstances, but it was not something the High School could provide. Ms. Guy works in the front office of the High School. Respondent told Ms. Guy there was no food in C.P.’s home. Ms. Guy did not inquire about C.P., and did not know why Respondent discussed private student information with her. D.D. was in Respondent’s sixth-period class at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. D.D. credibly testified that Respondent spoke of a student whom she was tutoring. Respondent told the class that the student was ill, could not walk and did not have any food in the home, so she brought chicken to the family. D.D. heard that Respondent spent $40 on C.P.’s family. Respondent later stated C.P.’s name to the students. C.M. was in Respondent’s first-period class at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. C.M. is not one of C.P.’s “immediate friends” and had no knowledge of C.P.’s surgery before Respondent spoke of it. C.M. credibly testified that Respondent told students that C.P. did not look well, and she could see wires on C.P.’s back. M.R. was in one of Respondent’s classes at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. M.R. credibly testified that while other students were in the classroom, Respondent told the students that C.P.’s family did not have food, and he was too weak to get out of his bed. M.R. testified that she, E.B., C.P., Student J, and Student C were friends. M.R. also testified that C.P. shared with his friends about his upcoming back surgery. E.B. was in Respondent’s sixth-period class at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. E.B. credibly testified that Respondent told the class about C.P.’s physical condition. E.B. acknowledged that he and C.P. were friends, almost like brothers. After Respondent made the statements in class concerning C.P., E.B. immediately texted C.P. regarding her comments. Following Respondent’s comments in class, E.B. had other students coming to him, inquiring about C.P.’s well- being. When C.P. heard what Respondent had said in her classes, C.P. was “saddened, a little bit angry and upset.” C.P. then texted his mother at work, who became upset upon hearing what information was shared about her son. Ms. C.P. is a single working mom. The family lives in a four-bedroom, two-bath, and two-living room house. Ms. C.P. has paid the mortgage on the house for over 20 years. Ms. C.P. took time off from work to go to the High School. Initially Ms. C.P. spoke with Ms. Guy and expressed her rage at the private information shared about her son. Ms. C.P. spoke with an assistant principal about what Respondent had said in her classes. Ms. C.P. and C.P. went to the High School after C.P. heard more of what Respondent had said about C.P. Prior to going to the High School, Ms. C.P. went to the bank, withdrew $40 and gave it to C.P., so he, in turn, could give the money to Respondent. While on the High School campus, C.P. went to Respondent’s classroom, and gave the $40 to Respondent. C.P. wanted to give Respondent the $40 as he did not want to be portrayed as poor. C.P. credibly testified that “I’m not poor in my eyes so I felt it was necessary to reimburse her [Respondent] for what she claimed that she spent in food for me.” As part of an investigation into the allegations made by Ms. C.P. and C.P., Principal Collins invited students from Respondent’s classes to provide statements regarding any comments made by Respondent about C.P. The statements, written by individual students who testified at the hearing, and which were ratified as true when written, demonstrated that Respondent had specifically referenced C.P., his medical condition, Respondent’s thoughts that C.P. was poor, and that Respondent had brought food and a flower to him. During the 2013-2014 school year, Mr. Bevan served as an Assistant Principal (AP) at the High School. Following reports of confidential student information being shared with other students, AP Bevan interviewed several students. He then attempted to provide Respondent with an opportunity to discuss the circumstances from her perspective. Respondent became somewhat distraught and AP Bevan offered to obtain coverage for her class. Respondent calmed down and declined the offer of coverage. Respondent left AP Bevan’s office and went to the media center where her class was to meet. Respondent did not stay with the class, but instead left the campus. Following the investigation, Principal Collins determined there were inappropriate confidential matters about C.P. shared with other students and staff. As a result, on December 18, 2013, Principal Collins issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent. The Superintendent recommended and the SCSB approved a two-day suspension as a result of Respondent’s conduct. Respondent was on medical leave beginning on January 7, 2014, through March 10, 2014. Respondent served the suspension on April 15 and April 22, 2014. Respondent’s disciplinary history also includes an October 25, 2013, letter of reprimand for using profanity with a student.
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 (j), and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (e), and (i). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission place Respondent’s educator certificate on probation for two years. The Education Practices Commission shall establish the terms and conditions of Respondent’s suspension and probation, which may include the cost of monitoring the probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 2016.
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against the Respondent for sexual misconduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 686332, covering the area of emotionally handicapped education, which was valid through June 30, 2002. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Bayonet Point Middle School in Pacso County School District. A.Y. was an emotionally handicapped student who had been a student of the Respondent in the 1999-2000 school year. Between June and December 2000, when A.Y. was 13 years old, the Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with A.Y. This relationship included kissing, fondling, and on more than one occasion the Respondent's digital penetration of A.Y.'s vagina. On or about December 15, 2000, the Respondent was observed meeting A.Y. at a library when she got into his car and drove away. He later claimed he was counseling her. The Respondent was charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor as a result of his behavior with A.Y. On November 26, 2001, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both counts. The Respondent was adjudicated guilty on both counts, and sentenced to eight years in prison, followed by seven years of probation, concurrently on each charge. James Davis, the Director of Human Resources for the School Board of Pasco County where the Respondent taught, testified. Mr. Davis was a certified teacher with many years of experience and testified about professional standards and the impact of the Respondent's acts upon the school system. For a teacher to enter into a sexual relationship with a student, especially a young, emotionally handicapped student, is very harmful to the student emotionally and academically. A.Y. became defensive, and then felt guilty that she had caused the Respondent to get into trouble. Furthermore, such conduct destroys the faith the parents and other community members have in the educational system. There were articles in the newspaper about the situation which were adverse to the educational environment. The parents of A.Y. were very angry about the acts committed by the Respondent. The Respondent, when questioned by administrative staff for the Pasco School District, admitted he made an error in meeting A.Y., but denied any other inappropriate conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered permanently denying the Respondent a teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 James C. Howard Gulf Correctional Institution 500 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 34655 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue An amended administrative complaint dated February 22, 1992 alleges that Respondent violated several provisions of Section 231.28(1), F.S. and Rule 6B- 1.006(5), F.A.C. Those alleged violations are based on incidents of criminal conduct in 1978 and 1989, and Respondent's failure to disclose the incidents on various employment or teaching certificate applications. The issue in this proceeding is whether the alleged violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donny R. McCoy (McCoy) currently holds teaching certificate number 431066, in the areas of childhood education, mental retardation, elementary education and English as a second or other language. His recently- renewed certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. McCoy submitted applications for extension of his Florida teacher's certificate, signed and notarized October 1, 1982 and December 8, 1987. He also submitted an application for addition to his Florida teacher's certificate signed and notarized July 30, 1985. McCoy's application for a professional position with the Brevard County School District was dated September 1, 1990. In each of these applications, he responded "no" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" McCoy was hired as a kindergarten teacher at Gardendale Elementary School in the Brevard County School District from July 15, 1991 until September 20, 1991. As a result of his employment, the school district ran a background check and through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) learned that McCoy had been involved in two criminal proceedings, one involving illegally importing parrots and the other involving charges of indecent exposure. McCoy resigned from his position effective September 20, 1991, and the Department of Education, Office of Professional Practice Services was notified. That office commenced an investigation consisting primarily of gathering court documents regarding the criminal cases. The investigation addressed three issues: the arrest and conviction for importing parrots, the arrest for indecent exposure, and McCoy's failure to acknowledge the incidents on his applications described above. McCoy was twenty-three years old on January 29, 1978 when he and a friend were arrested and charged with illegally shipping two parrots from Mexico to the United States. The Judgement Order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, reflects that McCoy had counsel, pled guilty and was adjudged guilty. A fine of $100.00 was imposed. McCoy was scared and remembers only going to court and leaving. Discussions were held between the attorney and the magistrate and McCoy has no recollection of the guilty plea. He felt the case was dismissed; someone else, his friend or the friend's father must have paid the fine. From 1979 until 1991, McCoy worked as a teacher in various places, including Broward County, Florida; Tokyo, Japan, for the Department of Defense; Alachua County, Florida; and St. Louis, Missouri. He claims he has been fingerprinted and had background investigations for these positions and never before has he been informed of the smuggling conviction on his record. He has told people about the parrot incident, but never put it on his application forms because he believed the case was dismissed. The application forms clearly inquire about convictions or adjudications withheld, not arrests. After the Brevard County background check, McCoy's attorney obtained an F.B.I. identification record on Donny McCoy. That record, dated 9/3/91, and provided to McCoy after he resigned from his Brevard County teaching position, reflects that the parrot charge was dismissed. On January 25, 1989 in Tazewell County, Illinois, McCoy was charged by information with three counts of "public indecency" in that he publicly "exposed his sex organ in a lewd manner." (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Two of the counts were dismissed and the third was reduced to disorderly conduct. McCoy pled guilty to the count of disorderly conduct and adjudication was deferred on February 27, 1990. He was placed on twelve months supervision, was required to attend counselling, and was fined $100.00, plus $80.00 in court costs. After he complied with all the conditions of supervision, the case was dismissed on February 5, 1991. The case had not been dismissed as of September 1, 1990, the date of McCoy's Brevard County School District application. As of that date, he was still under supervision and adjudication was deferred. His "no" response described in paragraph 2, above, was untruthful. At some time prior to the hearing in this proceeding, McCoy, or his attorney sent to the Department of Education an affidavit that he had executed on February 7, 1992 and the copy of a polygraph report dated April 3, 1989. The polygraph report is referenced in the affidavit. The substance of these documents is an admission by McCoy that he had exposed his underwear and, at most, his pubic hair, but not his penis, to a high school youth he encountered on the street. He had done this on more than one occasion for the purpose of determining whether the individual might be gay. He did this because someone had done it to him. He participated in counselling and understood the reason for his behavior. He disavowed any desire to repeat the behavior. Throughout his teaching career, McCoy has received a series of excellent recommendations and commendations. He admits that none of the authors of those letters is aware of the Illinois incident. A criminal record does not automatically reduce a teacher's effectiveness or make him ineligible for licensure. The Department of Education, Office of Professional Practices Services looks beyond the criminal charge and disposition to the underlying incident and circumstances. In this case, it had McCoy's own explanation of the Illinois incident and it had the applications which he had submitted. These documents and the agency's long- standing policy of taking very seriously any sexual charges involving teachers, a policy reasonably based on the expectations of the public that children should be safe with people employed in schools, resulted in the agency's determination that McCoy is unfit to hold a teaching certificate in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that a final order be entered finding that Respondent, Donny McCoy violated Sections 231.28(1)(c), (f) and (h), F.S., and Rules 6B-1.006(5)(a), (g) and (h), F.A.C., and imposing the following penalty: three years suspension, followed by two years probation, under terms to be specified by the Educational Practices Commission, which terms should assist in insuring that Respondent does not represent a threat to the safety or well-being of students under his responsibility. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 9th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, DOAH CASE NO. 93-2250 The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by each party: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5 to the extent that the referenced exhibit reflects those findings. However, other evidence conflicts with, or supplements the disposition of the case. Adopted in paragraph 9. and 6. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 4. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 4, except that it was not established the resignation was "forced". Rejected as unsubstantiated by evidence. Reflected in the Administrative Complaint and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 5. Rejected as to the Illinois incident; adopted as to the Texas incident, see paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Chaires, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jill M. Boyd, Esquire Bond & Boyd, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas H. Lanham, Esquire 1900 South Harbor City Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32901 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center, Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 422775 (graduate, rank 3), which expires on June 30, 1984. She is certified to teach biology and health education at the secondary (grades 7-12) school level. She is now employed by the Duval County School Board as a teacher at Douglas Anderson Middle School. (Testimony of Cobb; Prehearing Stipulation; P-4.) In January, 1974, Respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor crime: the obtaining of public assistance by fraud in violation of Section 409.325, Florida Statutes. On January 28, 1974, the County Court of Duval County adjudged her guilty and placed her on probation. (P-1.) On November 23, 1976, the State Attorney of Duval County filed a criminal Information charging Respondent with petit larceny. Essentially, he alleged that, on November 21, 1976, she took merchandise belonging to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., without paying for it. On November 30, 1976, she entered a plea of nolo contendere to the petit larceny charge; she was adjudged guilty by the County Court of Duval County and sentenced to pay a $50 fine and court costs. (P-2.) In July, 1978, Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate. Section V of the application asked: "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation"? By marking the appropriate space, she answered "No". (P-3.) She executed the application before a notary public on July 14, 1978; she expressly certified that: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 F.S.) I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. Pursuant to her application, and in reliance upon the representation that she had never been arrested or involved in a crime, the Florida Department of Education issued her the teacher's certificate which she now holds. (Testimony of Lee; P-4.) At the time she completed her application, Respondent was aware of her criminal record and knew that she had been involved in at least one criminal offense--the 1976 offense of petit larceny. At hearing, she could not explain why she denied any past involvement in a criminal offense: Q.: [Counsel for Commissioner] : So, you knew [when you applied for a teacher's certificate] that you had been involved in a criminal history or had had an involvement with the law? A.: [Respondent]: In '76, yes. Q.: Okay, why didn't you put, "yes"? A.: I just didn't. Q.: But you . . . you knew you had been involved in a criminal offense. A.: In '76, yes. : So then why didn't you put, "yes"? A.: I just didn't. (Tr. 126.) It must be concluded that Respondent knowingly falsely represented to the Department of Education that she had no prior involvement in any criminal offense; that she misrepresented her criminal record in order to obtain a Florida teacher's certificate. (Testimony of Cobb; P-1, P-2, P-3.) Whether an applicant has ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense is a material factor in the Department's evaluation of an application. An application may be denied if the applicant has committed acts which would justify suspension or revocation of a teaching certificate; it is likely-- although not certain--that, if the Department was aware of Respondent's past criminal record, her application would have been denied. (Testimony of Lee.) When Respondent submitted an application for employment with the Duval County School Board on July 24, 1978, she falsely answered "No" to the question: "Have you ever been arrested for any other offense other than minor traffic violations"? (Tr. 49.) She knew her answer was false 2/ . Had her criminal record been revealed, she would not have been recommended for employment. (Testimony of Epting, Cobb.) From October 7, 1978, to November 11, 1978, Respondent obtained unemployment compensation even though she was employed by the City of Jacksonville. She obtained the unemployment compensation by falsely indicating she was not employed. Consequently, a criminal Information was filed on April 29, 1980, by the State Attorney of Duval County charging her with unemployment compensation fraud. On June 4, 1980, she pleaded guilty to the charge; however, the Circuit Court of Duval County withheld adjudication, placed her on probation for one year, sentenced her to three weekends in county jail, and directed that she make complete restitution of the funds wrongfully collected. (P-6.) Respondent acknowledges that she knew her action was wrong, that she knew she was not entitled to the unemployment compensation funds. She explains that she was in financial need and behind on her house payment; she feels her actions were justified, under the circumstances, because Jacksonville (her employer) had promised that she would continue to be employed. Instead--after she had incurred long-term financial commitments--Jacksonville terminated her employment. She has now made full restitution for the wrongfully taken funds. (Testimony of Cobb.) Respondent has been an effective and satisfactory teacher during the 1980-1981 school year. Her ratings have been the highest possible; she has shown initiative and established rapport with her students. Her principal recently promoted her to chairman of the science/health department and recommended that she be reemployed for the 1981-1982 school term. (Testimony of Poppell; R-1.) Teachers in Duval County are held to a high standard of character and conduct. A teacher's involvement in crime would tend to violate those standards; parents would be unwilling to entrust the education of their children to such an individual. (Testimony of Poppell.) The Commissioner's proposed findings of fact have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's Teacher's Certificate, No. 422775. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1981
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, as well as matters officially recognized and the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board from approximately 1980 to November 6, 1987, when he resigned his position. Since his resignation, Respondent has not been employed as teacher. At all times during his employment with the Dade County School Board, Respondent held Florida teaching certificate 467693, which covered the areas of elementary education, early childhood education and motor disability. Respondent's teaching certificate expired on June 30, 1989, without Respondent having made any effort to renew it. Respondent is 34 years of age. He has been married to Marcia Carter- Wright since December 13, 1985. They no longer live in the same household, however. Marcia has a sister, M.R., who suffers from cerebral palsy and is developmentally disabled. At all times material hereto, M.R. has lived with Marcia. In September 1986, while he was still living with his wife and her sister, Respondent had sexual intercourse with M.R. Although she was 40 years of age at the time, M.R. was incapable of engaging in consensual sexual activity because of her developmental disability. Respondent's liaison with M.R. produced a child, J.W., who was born on July 7, 1987. Respondent was subsequently arrested and charged by information filed in Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 87-36763 with sexual battery upon a mentally defective person in violation of Section 794.011(4)(f), Florida Statutes. The matter was reported in the newspaper. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Respondent pled no contest to the charge and, in turn, adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on ten years probation. Among the terms and conditions of probation to which he agreed was that he surrender his teaching certificate and refrain from teaching. Respondent did not formally surrender his teaching certificate. He believed that, inasmuch as he had already resigned from his teaching position, letting his certificate expire would suffice. Respondent had difficulty finding a well-paying job while on probation. He became despondent and depressed. In June 1989, approximately one year after he had been placed on probation, Respondent admitted to his probation officer, Hazel Cooper Shepp, that he was using cocaine. Respondent hoped that Shepp would be able to provide him with assistance in dealing with his drug problem. Shepp subsequently filed an affidavit in Dade County Circuit Court alleging that Respondent had violated the conditions of his probation. On August 28, 1989, Respondent's probation was revoked and he was adjudicated guilty of sexual battery as charged in the information filed in Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 87-36763 and sentenced to five years of imprisonment, with credit for 250 days for time served. Respondent was released from prison on May 31, 1991. He currently lives with his mother, but visits his wife, M.R., J.W. and his other two children on a regular basis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts II and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) barring him from applying for a new teaching certificate for a period of 10 years pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(g), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed an application for a Florida educator's certificate with the Respondent on June 17, 1989. In Section III of his application, Petitioner indicated that he held a permanent teaching certificate from the State of New York that entitled him to teach nursery, kindergarten and grades one through six. Petitioner signed his application for certification under oath, and thereby certified that all information contained therein was true, correct and complete. On October 14, 1988, the Petitioner was served with a formal notice that proceedings were being instituted by the Commissioner of Education for the State of New York based on allegations that he had falsely claimed to the Greenport Union Free School District where he was employed in New York that he held certification as a school administrator and supervisor. Rather than participate in a formal hearing on this charge, Petitioner stated his intention to voluntarily surrender his teaching certificate in the State of New York by letter dated December 16, 1988. However, when he failed to surrender his official credentials and file a statement of surrender, the Petitioner was informed by letter from the New York Department of Education dated January 13, 1989, and delivered to his last known address by certified mail, that his teaching certificate would be revoked unless he surrendered his certificate and filed the required statement. Petitioner did not comply with this request, and as a result, his New York teaching certificate was revoked on March 28, 1989. The evidence in the record establishes that at the time Petitioner filed his application for Florida certification on June 17, 1989, he did not hold a valid teaching certificate in the State of New York. He had attempted to surrendered his teaching certificate on December 16, 1988, rather than participate in a formal hearing on charges of misconduct. When he failed to comply with the requirement of the New York Department of Education that he relinquish his actual teaching certificate and file a letter of surrender, his certificate was formally revoked on March 28, 1989. Petitioner knew, or should have known, that the information he provided, under oath, in Section III of his application for a Florida educator's certificate was untrue, incorrect and incomplete. Petitioner never challenged the action of the New York Commissioner of Education regarding the revocation of his teaching certificate in that state. He had been placed on notice that his failure to relinquish his teaching certificate and to file a letter indicating his desire to surrender his certificate would lead to revocation. Although the Petitioner sought in this case to discredit and contradict the allegations made against him in New York, the finality of the action taken in New York cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. The merits of those allegations were never litigated in New York because Petitioner chose not to proceed to hearing. He cannot now, in Florida, attempt to litigate the allegations which he had every opportunity to contest in New York, but which he decided not to contest. His New York certificate was revoked due to his failure to surrender his credentials and to file a letter of surrender, as he had agreed to do on December 16, 1988, and that action is final and not subject to challenge in this proceeding. At hearing, Petitioner claimed that he had moved from New York to Virginia in early 1989, and never received the letter dated January 13, 1989, from the New York Department of Education warning him of the revocation of his New York license if he did not relinquish his credentials and file a letter of surrender, as he had stated he wished to do. However, this letter was sent to his last address of record in New York, by certified mail, and was signed for by a "J. Brown." Section VII of Petitioner's Florida application provides a character reference on Petitioner's behalf by "James G. Brown" who represents himself on said application to have been a friend of Petitioner's for 16 years, and whose address is shown as the same as Petitioner's last known New York address. Therefore, notwithstanding Petitioner's denial of having received the letter dated January 13, 1989, warning of revocation of his New York certificate, it is found that such notice was delivered to his last known address, and was received by the same person that Petitioner would have Respondent accept as a character reference on his behalf. Notice of the actual revocation of his New York license was also sent to Petitioner's last known address in New York. It can only reasonably be inferred that Petitioner's friend of 16 years, J.Brown, told him of the certified mail he had received and that, therefore, Petitioner had knowledge of the actual status of his New York certificate at the time he gave false information on his Florida application. Petitioner only reluctantly admitted, at hearing, that the information he provided in Section III of his Florida application was incorrect and untrue. Instead, he insisted that he had not intended to be misleading, but had simply not read the application carefully and had been hurried when he completed the form by signing it on June 17, 1989. By his demeanor and testimony, it is clear that Petitioner does not appreciate the importance of providing true, correct and complete information on an application for a Florida educator's certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's denial of the Petitioner's application for an educator's certificate be AFFIRMED by the Education Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-1405 Petitioner filed a Summary of Evidence, which has been considered, rather than Proposed Findings of Fact on which specific rulings can be made. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4 and 6. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Adopted in Findings 2 through 5. Adopted in Findings 3 and 6. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 1408 North Piedmont Way Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Clifford J. Evert, Sr. 8420 S.W. 3rd Court Apt. 201 Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Karen B. Wilde, Exec. Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 West Gaines Street, Room 352 Tallahassee, FL 32399
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this case, Respondent, Bruce M. Williams, held Florida teacher certificate number 414669 authorizing him to serve as a substitute teacher. On March 21, 1984, after a trial by bury in the County Court of Alachua County, Florida, on Case No. 83-4274-MM-A , Respondent was found guilty of the offense of trespass after warning. On April 30, 1984, the Judge of the County Court entered a Judgement of Guilt and placed the Respondent on one year's probation with the stipulation that, among other things, he not go onto the University of Florida campus unless his probation officer gave him prior permission. This judicial determination of guilt. It was the culmination of a series of events involving the Respondent and his repeated entrances onto property owned by the University for which he was repeatedly warned and directed not to return. Respondent contends that he had legitimate reasons to be on the University property each of the times in question and contests the use of these reports branding them a violation of his rights. He overlooks the fact that the conviction came after several instances of unauthorized entrance and that the conviction was based on proven violations. Nonetheless, it appears that on December 30, 1982, Respondent was observed by Kenneth E. Solomon, an investigator with the University police department, in the parking lot of Diamond Village, a University married students' housing area not open to the public. Mr. Solomon attempted to identify the Respondent who was at first reluctant to identify himself but who finally agreed and indicated that his wife was inside doing their laundry. Since this is an area reserved for university students and their families, Mr. Solomon issued a warning to Respondent not to trespass on University property and thereafter filled out and filed a report of the incident. Thereafter, on March 15, 1983, Keith B. Reddick, who was at that time an officer with the University police was called to University Hospital (Shands), where he was met by a Mrs. Fugate and a guard who had Respondent in custody. Mrs. Fugate advised at that time that Respondent had previously been at the hospital on March 7 with no legitimate reason for being in the area. On that occasion, when asked why he was there, Respondent indicated he had been given permission to be there by a member of the medical school faculty, Dr. Cruz. Dr. Cruz categorically denies ever having given Respondent permission to be where he was. In fact, she met him only once when he stopped her and asked her about the possibility of a job with the hospital. At that time she told him there were none available except for fellowships for which an applicant had to be a physician already. Nonetheless, he gave her a resume and she believes he indicated he was involved in research. With this one exception, she has had no contact with him and never gave him authority to work with patients in her department or be there for any reason. On this latter occasion, when asked what he was doing there, Respondent replied that he had become lost while looking for a laboratory. He also said he was looking for a doctor friend whose name he could not remember and as a chemistry major, was working on his thesis. On this occasion, Officer Reddick took Respondent to the police station, showed him a map of the campus, told him where he could and could not go on the campus by pointing to the map areas, and told him not to return again to the university unless on official business or for public functions. The following day, on March 16, 1983, Respondent was observed in the Shands Hospital cafeteria by Officer Rogers of the University police. When asked for his identification and reason for being there, Respondent indicated he had paid a bill in the laboratory, so Rogers let him go. When Rogers checked the story out, however, he found that the bill which was alleged to have been for unauthorized use of the hospital copying machine, had in reality been paid three hours before the Respondent was contacted. Rogers again saw Respondent on March 29, 1983 in the hub area of the University book store on campus. Rogers had been notified by Reddick that Respondent was on campus and when he had approached the Respondent, Respondent walked off and into the book store. Rogers and three other officers contacted Respondent in the book store where Respondent indicated he had met with a Mrs. Greene, a University affirmative actions officer and upon receiving that explanation, the officers let him go. Respondent was again identified on July 6, 1983, by officer Edward Miles who observed him in an off-limits gynecological area on the 4th floor of the University hospital. When Miles arrived at the scene, a contract security officer was talking with Respondent. This officer had seen Respondent in the area and had asked for identification in response to which request, Respondent showed a student identification card which was no longer valid since Respondent was no longer a student. Asked what business he had in this particular area, Respondent indicated he was looking for work but when, after 30 minutes, he could not verify this story, Officer Miles placed Respondent under arrest and took him to campus police headquarters. From all of the above, it is clear that though Respondent may have felt he had a legitimate basis for being on the campus and, in fact, may have had when he went to speak with Mrs. Green and went to pay the bill at the hospital, he stretched these occasions into several unauthorized occasions even after he had been warned with full knowledge that his presence on the campus was not authorized. The conviction in County Court was not contested at the time and on the basis of the above evidence, appears to have been warranted. On July 8, 1983, an arrest warrant was issued out of the Circuit Court for the 8th Judicial Circuit in Alachua County alleging sexual battery in violation of Section 794.011, Florida Statutes. This warrant contained allegations that Respondent had committed a sexual battery against his 9-year- old stepdaughter. However, Respondent was tried on a reduced charge of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and at his trial he entered a plea of no contest. Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years probation the terms of which required him to undergo mental health counseling among other requirements. Respondent continues to deny his commission of the offenses to which he pleaded no contest at the trial. However, in a statement he made at the time of his arrest, he admitted several factors which contradict that. He admitted that he had a very physical relationship with his stepdaughter; that he appeared nude in front of her many times; and that he would be in bed with her laying on top of him while both were nude with the child's mother there as well. He also admitted having French kissed his stepdaughter (she indicates he taught her how to do this) but denies having any sexual intercourse with her. Respondent contends that these charges are all a plot to deprive him of the close relationship with his family, instituted by someone unnamed and unidentified. The fact remains that Respondent is delinquent in his probation and has made little progress in the required mental health counseling because of his continued belief that he has done nothing wrong but is the victim of this conspiratorial plot. Sometime in or around February 1984, Respondent entered the restaurant owned and operated by Mrs. Vlahopous, in Gainesville, and asked to speak with her daughter, Alex, who apparently had come to the blood center at which he worked. At this point Respondent identified himself as "Dr. Bruce. When she asked him for his office address and phone number since Alex was not there, he said he didn't have an office, but he wrote his name and phone number on one of her cards for her. After Mrs. Vlahopous thought about this over night, she went to the blood bank where Respondent had said he worked and asked for Dr. Williams. At this point she was told by blood bank personnel that Williams was not a doctor, had been fired, and would be rejected if he came there again. Be that as it may, Sharron A. Sturdevant, an official of the blood bank where Respondent had been working, does recall that at times Respondent was referred to as Dr. Bruce at the center. This was, however, only a term of affection or friendliness and was not in any way intended to authorize him to hold himself out to the public as a doctor. Respondent did work for the City of Gainesville in a conservation project in May and June of 1984 but he was terminated because he had not listed his full police record on the application form. This termination was a matter of necessity under city personnel policies which required termination of anyone who intentionally falsified an application form. It had nothing to do with Respondent's performance or anything that took place while he was employed by the city. Mr. John Middleton, Principal of Ft. Clarke Middle School, knew Respondent as a paraprofessional at the alternative school when Mr. Middleton was principal there and Respondent was employed for approximately a month and a half. While Respondent was working at the alternative school he was working as aide to another teacher. He was apparently unable to accept the fact, however, that when a teacher and a paraprofessional (aide) are in the same classroom, it is the teacher who always is in charge. Respondent was discharged from his employment at the alternative school because of an incident where it was alleged he had usurped the authority of and changed the orders of the teacher for whom he was working, in front of the class. The investigation report, which Mr. Middleton received from the teacher and students who observed the incident indicated that the Respondent was loud and boisterous at the time of the incident. Since these students at the alternative school were emotionally handicapped to start with, a fact which Respondent knew, his misconduct was even more serious than it would have been in a normal situation. These students need calm more than noise. In the situation here, Respondent's actions served only to upset them. Mr. Middleton had observed that prior to this incident, Respondent's dealings with the students aggravated rather than helped them. As a result, this incident was only one factor in the decision to terminate Respondent from employment and after the incident took place, Mr. Middleton wrote an unsatisfactory performance report on the Respondent. Based on his personal observation of the Respondent, and what he now knows of Respondent's criminal record, Mr. Middleton is convinced that a teacher with this record could not be effective in the classroom. His effectiveness would be definitely reduced by his misconduct and his conduct would not set a positive example for students. In his opinion, students should not be exposed to anyone with criminal convictions. These sentiments are reinforced by Mr. Wilford A. Griffin, a career service specialist with the Alachua County School Board, who first met Respondent when Respondent left Newberry High School seeking a place in the Alachua County system. Respondent had been terminated at Newberry High School because of some problem with his certification which had nothing to do with performance or misconduct. After the alternative school termination referenced above, Respondent was placed at Eastside High School but was terminated there because of his difficulties with teachers similar to those he had at the alternative school. As an aide, he disagreed openly with teachers in the classroom and in this case, the teacher complained that he would not follow directions and would not do what the teacher wanted done. In all cases, Mr. Griffin counseled with the Respondent about the problem. Respondent obviously felt that the complaining teacher was demeaning him. He felt that he was being helpful and had been rebuffed. Based on his experience with this Respondent, Mr. Griffin would never again try to place him within the school system. Considering Respondent's record in and out of the classroom, Mr. Griffin could not recommend Respondent for employment in the school system. He believes Respondent could not be an effective teacher because of his inability to understand the ramifications of his actions. This does not even consider the convictions which merely aggravate the situation even more. There is no evidence to counter these professional opinions of Respondent's fitness to teach and they are accepted and adopted as fact.
