Findings Of Fact Respondent is a school teacher who has earned an associate's degree from Miami-Dade Community College, a bachelor's degree in education from the University of Miami and a master of science degree from Florida International University. Respondent has a valid and current Florida Teacher's Certificate and is certified in the areas of science and social studies. Respondent has been employed for thirteen years as a teacher by the Dade County School Board. He was employed for one year in 1965-69 re-employed in 1972 and continued his employment until his suspension on July 25, 1984. The Dade County School Board has an official policy of annual performance evaluations of all teachers. The criteria established by the Petitioner for the teacher evaluations are: (1) preparation and planning, (2) knowledge of subject matter, (3) classroom management, (4) techniques of instruction, (5) assessment techniques, (6) teacher-student relationship, and professional responsibility. For the years 1972 through 1983 Respondent was annually evaluated by the Petitioner, his job performance was found to be acceptable, and he was annually recommended for continuing employment with Petitioner. For the school year 1983-84 Respondent received an evaluation of "acceptable" and he was recommended for employment. However principal Henry Pinkney later amended his "acceptable" evaluation recommending that Respondent continue his employment under prescription. During the 1983-84 school year Quentin Collins was a student attending North Dade Junior High School where Respondent was one of his teachers. On May 10, 1984, Quentin Collins was one of approximately 30 students in a class taught by Respondent. On that date Collins was repeatedly talking, misbehaving, and disrupting the class. After several warnings by Respondents the student was directed to go to the teacher's desk in the front of the classroom. For the next several moments while Respondent attended to the other students in the classrooms Collins was at various times sitting, kneeling, squatting and leaning on or against the teacher's desk. After he decided to sit on the floors his back was against the teacher's desk and his legs were extended straight out so as to block the aisle next to that desk. After Respondent finished walking around the classroom and talking with other students, he turned to return to the area of his desk and literally, almost stepped on Collins' legs. As Respondent stepped over (and not on) Collins' legs, Collins raised his knees and grabbed Respondent's legs in such a manner that Respondent feared he was going to be "tripped" by the student. In a brief and sudden instant, Respondent grabbed both of Collins' legs, lifted him in the air, and then lowered Collins back down. During this brief bodily entanglement, Collins' head may have bumped the linoleum floor. The incident was not reported to the school administrators until four days later and Collins did not tell his mother about these events until a later date. Collins was examined by a physician four days after the incident. There is no evidence that the student sustained any injury or has any medical problems as a result of the incident of May 10, 1984. Although Respondent was evaluated as "acceptable" and recommended for employment by the principal of North Dade Junior High School after the incident with Collins and after the principal had been advised of the incident with Collins the May 15, 1984 Annual Evaluation of Respondent was amended by the principal on June 7, 1984 to show that Respondent was unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. Even the "amended" Annual Evaluation fails to recommend that Respondent be terminated from his employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against him reinstating Respondent as an employee of the Dade County School Board and awarding to Respondent full back pay for the period of time that he has been suspended from his employment DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1986, at Tallahassee Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder Esquire 2750 Galloway Road Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami Florida 33165 Dan J. Bradley Esquire 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Coconut Grove Florida 33133 Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132 APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony, argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 5 have been rejected as not being supported by the evidence herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or as modified to conform with the evidence or style. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as being immaterial. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 15 and 16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitations of the testimony, argument of counsels or conclusions of law.
The Issue Whether Lee Mace struck Suarez and is thereby guilty of misconduct in office contrary to the provisions of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert L. Blubaugh, is the superintendent of the School District of Brevard County, Florida. Respondent, Lee Mace, is a member of the instructional staff of the School Board of Brevard County, Florida, employed pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. On or about May 10, 1977, at a meeting of the School Board of Brevard County, Florida, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that Respondent be dismissed from employment. This recommendation was based upon reports that Respondent had, on or about April 22, 1977, struck a student, George Suarez, on the premises of Melbourne High School in Brevard County, Florida. The Board acted upon the Petitioner's recommendation and suspended the Respondent with pay pending an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes 231.36(6), upon the allegations asserted by the Petitioner. The School Board further voted to seek the appointment of a hearing officer the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the Petitioner's allegations. The School Board's action was set out in a complaint and request for hearing, dated May 18, 1977, and forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned Stephen F. Dean as Hearing Officer in this matter. Notice of formal hearing was given for a hearing to be conducted on June 30, 1977. George Suarez was a student at Melbourne High School in Brevard County, Florida. He had been a member of the track team at Melbourne High School coached by the Respondent. Immediately prior to April 22, 1977, Suarez quit the track team. This was Suarez's third resignation from the team during the 1977 school year. On April 22, 1977, the Respondent entered the classroom of Ned Brown between second and third period at approximately 9:30 a.m. He asked George Suarez to come into the hall, and Suarez refused. Respondent then sought permission of Ned Brown to enter his classroom and speak with Suarez. He was granted this permission and spoke to Suarez concerning his return of track equipment issued to Suarez. Suarez refused to return the track equipment alleging that the Respondent had entered his track locker and given away his personal belongings to other members of the track team. The Respondent told Suarez that his belongings had been removed from his track locker but had been placed in Respondent's file cabinet in his office where he could pick them up upon return of his track equipment. During this exchange, the discussion became more heated and following New Brown's suggestion, Mace began to leave the classroom. At this time, Suarez called out to Mace words to the effect, "Why don't you beat me up like you said you would?" The Respondent, continuing to leave the room, said to Brown words to the effect, "Scum like him isn't worth beating up" and continued to leave the classroom. At this point, Suarez shouted at Mace, "You are the scum." Mace questioned Suarez concerning what he had said. The testimony of the various witnesses concerning what occurred immediately thereafter is somewhat conflicting, but there is general agreement that Suarez, who had been sitting, jumped to his feet and while doing so or immediately thereafter, Mace struck him cuting Suarez's lip. The witnesses' testimony indicates that Suarez aggressively jumped from his seat to confront Mace, and that Suarez had a reputation for being quick tempered and for fighting. However, Mace admits that Suarez never struck at him. The witnesses' testimony generally agreed that the Respondent had not struck Suarez a deliberate forceful blow, based upon their observations and the fact that the Respondent, a man with the strength and build of a professional athlete, would have severely hurt Suarez had that been his intention. There is no dispute concerning the relevant facts concerning what immediately followed the physical contact between the Respondent and Suarez. Lee Mace enjoys a good reputation as an instructor and coach at Melbourne High School among the students, faculty, and parents. His reputation is based upon his working with student athletic teams and bringing the members of these teams together in activities which build character and which are morally uplifting. The evidence in this case indicates that he had given a great deal of personal attention, and had arranged to provide special coaching to George Suarez in an effort to keep him interested in athletics as a means of self expression to overcome Suarez's disciplinary and academic problems. Mace had also spent many hours of his own time in repainting the football stadium at Melbourne High School and making improvements to the student locker rooms.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend to the School Board that Lee Mace be suspended without pay for a period of thirty (30) days. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 William C. Walker, Esquire 3435 S. Hopkins Avenue Post Office Box 1084 Titusville, Florida 32780
Findings Of Fact During the 1981-82 school year the student was enrolled as a seventh grade student at H. H. Filer Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. On October 21, 1981, the student left his home carrying a knife, with the intention of not attending classes on that day. The student met his girl friend and a friend, Ivan Martinez, at a cafeteria adjacent to the campus of H. H. Filer Junior High School. Upon learning that his girl friend intended to attend classes that day, the student, while still off campus, gave the knife to Ivan Martinez to keep for him, with the understanding that Martinez would not attend classes that day. Thereafter, Martinez decided to go to class, and gave the knife to Eddie Hidalgo to keep. Hidalgo then decided to attend class also, where he was discovered by a teacher in possession of the aforementioned knife. Hidalgo was sent to the principal's office after the knife had been discovered and, during questioning by the principal, implicated the Respondent. Although the Respondent admitted to the principal that the knife belonged to him, he denied having the knife on his person on the school grounds. However, the student was suspended for ten days and, on November 20, 1981, was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. While serving his ten-day suspension as a result of the knife incident, the Respondent was charged with trespassing on the campus of H. H. Filer Junior High School. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding concerning either the facts surrounding or the disposition of this trespass charge or several other trespass charges which occurred after Respondent had been administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North and which are, therefore, immaterial to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner called the principal at H. H. Filer Junior High School as its only witness in this proceeding. The principal had no direct knowledge of any incidents of disruptive behavior engaged in by the Respondent prior to the date of his assignment to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. None of the students' records were produced at final hearing, nor were any teachers or other witnesses who might have direct knowledge of any incidents of disruptive behavior called to testify. The principal testified generally about the student's excessive rate of absences during the 1980-81 school year, and noted poor conduct grades for the student during that same period. Indeed, these earlier incidents appear not to have had any effect on the decision to seek the student's reassignment for, when questioned about whether the student had the above-described knife in his possession on campus the principal testified ". . . there was evidence . . . to indicate that the knife was in his possession on school grounds, or we would not have made the recommendation based on what we made the recommendation on." It therefore appears that the sole triggering cause for seeking Respondent's reassignment to Jan Mann Opportunity School North was the allegation that he possessed a knife while on school property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leonard Lawrence Buxton, currently holds a Rank II (Masters) teaching certificate (number 154610) expiring on June 30, 1989. In September, 1980, the Respondent was a teacher of Spanish students at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida) Mr. Buxton was appointed class sponsor for the "class of 83" a short time after the beginning of the school year and after the initial orientation of sponsors. Some time soon after being appointed class sponsor, Mr. Buxton received authorization to conduct a class candy sale for money-raising purposes. The school treasurer, Mrs. Person, as well as Aaron Brumm, the director of student activities, instructed Mr. Buxton on financial matters concerning the candy sale and Mr. Brumm personally delivered all the subject boxes of candy to Mr. Buxton at the commencement of the sale activity. The record is not clear as to whether Mr. Buxton was instructed to turn in all monies derived from candy sales on a daily basis, weekly basis, or in some other fashion. The Respondent experienced difficulties soon after the beginning of the sale on January 20, 1981, involving collecting monies from students and missing boxes of candy. The missing candy disappeared while in Buxton's custody, since Brumm accounted for every box upon delivering it to Buxton. The Respondent's collection problems with his students concerning the proceeds of candy sales caused the sale to extend over a three month period. At the urging of Mr. Brumm, as well as his principal Lonnie Coleman, Respondent ultimately attempted to resolve the matter of collection of money and the missing boxes of candy, finally writing a personal check in the approximate amount of $302.40 payable to the school. That check was returned for insufficient funds by the payer bank. The Respondent contended that the account the check was written on had insufficient funds because his foster child, unknown to him, had withdrawn approximately $800 from that account, leaving insufficient funds to cover the check. In any event, the Respondent's principal, Lonnie Coleman, became aware of the deficiency and had a conference with the Respondent. Mr. Coleman told the Respondent to make the check good and "nothing will ever happen, there will be no problem". The Respondent paid the check and the principal considered the incident closed and initiated no negative job action toward the Respondent, merely orally reprimanding him. The principal felt this was an adequate remedy for any wrong the Respondent had committed in this instance, and following the incident, the principal recommended the Respondent for continued employement at his high school and found all his behavior as a teacher to be acceptable. The principal established that Buxton's personal problems did not render him ineffective as a teacher. Indeed, the principal found the Respondent to be a highly motivated, quite effective teacher, especially with Spanish-speaking students, and the principal would rehire the Respondent at the present time. It has been the practice in Dade County in the past for negative job action to only be initiated upon the principal's initial recommendation. On or about December 30, 1980, the Respondent was a passenger in his 1972 Pontiac which was being driven by an acquaintance, James Dausey, a young man who performed mechanical work on the vehicle. While Dausey was driving, the car was struck by a vehicle driven by Mrs. Ida LaPlant. Mrs. LaPlant offered to settle any damage claim Mr. Buxton might have "on the spot" or after he had obtained an accurate estimate of the damage to his car. The two parties negotiated for a time discussing the amount and the method of reaching the amount. Mrs. LaPlant offered approximately $500 to Mr. Buxton, but Mr. Buxton demanded $1,000 as he represented to Mrs. LaPlant that that amount was needed to cover any injury to Mr. Dausey as well as damage to his car. Mrs. LaPlant expressed the desire that they go to a body shop and obtain an estimate. He refused and demanded that she pay him $1,000 or he would call the police to investigate the accident. She did not want the police to become involved, so ultimately, at the Respondent's insistence, they went together to her bank where she withdrew $1,000 and gave it to the Respondent. The driver, Mr. Dausey, never complained of any injuries in her presence. In any event, the Respondent ultimately filed a claim for payment for damages sustained to his vehicle with his own insurance company representing that he had received no monies in payment for any damages sustained in that accident. Because of his misrepresentation concerning his reimbursement for damages sustained to his vehicle, the Respondent was prosecuted by the State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit on, a two-count information charging the Respondent with filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim contrary to Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, and a count of grand theft pursuant to Section 812.014, Florida Statutes. On or about September 30, 1981, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both counts and was placed on probation for a term of three years, although adjudication was withheld. He was ordered to make restitution to the Allstate Insurance Company in the amount of $294.00. The Respondent maintained he was attempting to get money from his insurance company to reimburse Mrs. LaPlant some of the money she had given him. In any event, it is uncontroverted that Mr. Buxton misrepresented to his insurance company the fact that he had received monies from Mrs. LaPlant, hence the prosecution. In March, 1979, the Respondent received from an employee and friend at the Salon of Music, located in Palm Beach County, a Sony radio "on approval". His friend who was employed at the store asked the Respondent to leave a check with him to hold "as security" while the radio was in the Respondent's possession. Respondent left a check for $436.75 with the Salon of Music, indicating at the time that there was probably not enough money to cover the check in the account. The two of them envisioned the check primarily as a receipt to secure future payment for the radio should the Respondent elect to buy it rather than present payment for the radio. After taking possession of the radio, the radio was stolen from the Respondent's apartment. The Respondent informed his friend at the Salon of Music and the check was then presented to the bank for payment and returned for insufficient funds. This check later became one of a number of checks for which the Respondent was criminally prosecuted in Palm Beach County, with the result that a plea of guilty was entered, with adjudication withheld and a full restitution made in the matter. Some time in May or June, 1980, the Respondent's life became emotionally and financially awry. The Respondent had been recently divorced, apparently without custody of his son. The Respondent became involved in an "affair of the heart" with a married woman who lived next door. This relationship apparently was concluded rather abruptly when her husband presented himself on the premises one day threatening the life of the Respondent and, being armed with a gun, demonstrating the present ability to carry out those threats. With some aid from the Boca Raton Police Department the Respondent precipitously and permanently vacated the area, and "went into hiding" for approximately one month. The Respondent "hid out" for approximately a week at an establishment called "the Bridge Hotel", later moving to the Florida Keys for the remainder of the month he was "under cover". The Respondent was obviously frightened and in fear of his life. As described by the psychiatric social worker with whom the Respondent counselled for approximately one year, the Respondent, during this period of hiding, made a series of precipitate "inappropriate decisions". The Respondent in effect, lived for the month he was under cover, at least in part, on checks written for cash, or directly for shelter or incidentals, to hotels and small commercial establishments in Palm Beach and Monroe counties, which proved to be invalid. In some instances the Respondent believed he had sufficient funds on deposit or could "cover" the checks before presentment. In at least one instance, a motel operator took his check with knowledge of its invalidity, allowing him time to secure its payment. The charges involved herein, or all but two of them, each relate to one of those invalid checks. The Respondent has admitted, in the pretrial factual stipulation, that he entered pleas of guilty to the criminal charges in Palm Beach and Monroe counties which stemmed from those various checks which had been written on insufficient funds. Both the judges in Palm Beach and Monroe counties accepted those guilty pleas, withheld adjudication of guilt in each case and established restitution schedules as part of the probation they imposed on the Respondent. The checks relating to Palm Beach county have all been paid. The Respondent is meeting all his probation requirements and is making regular payments as scheduled on the restitution plan imposed on him. His probation officer has found him very cooperative and making a genuine effort to reorganize his life and live it on a more positive and responsible plane. The genuineness of the Respondent's effort at personal improvement is borne out by the fact that he voluntarily sought aid from a psychiatric social worker, Cynthia Leesfield. Ms. Leesfield testified on behalf of the Respondent. She established him to be highly motivated and genuinely remorseful at the offenses he committed. She demonstrated those offenses to be unique and peculiar to the period of mental and emotional stress he was experiencing at the time. Ms. Leesfield established that the Respondent had engaged in a number of unfortunate illegal acts, but that he did not truly do so with a criminal intent, rather, during a stressful period when he was under fear for his life, he simply fled his apartment with his belongings and checkbook and wrote checks in order to live while he was in hiding and not earning any money. Ms. Leesfield had been a teacher with seven years experience prior to embarking on her present career. Her expert opinion, after counseling and treating the Respondent over a period of approximately one year, was that none of the behavior she had seen manifested by the Respondent made it inappropriate for him to return to a classroom setting. The episodes involving the invalid checks were not a planned pattern of misconduct, but rather related to his fear and anxiety concerning his personal life at the time. Two individuals with direct knowledge testified regarding the charges pertaining to the School Board's original action which thus only relate to the issue of dismissal. They were the Respondent himself and Lonnie Coleman, the Respondent's principal at American Senior High School. Regarding the incident charged involving kicking a student, Mr. Buxton readily admitted the incident. He stated that the kick was merely "in jest" or in the form of good-natured horseplay, and that he had, both before and after the incident, an excellent rapport with the student (a "mariel refugee") and the student's sponsor. Mr. Coleman, the principal, was aware of the kicking incident and orally reprimanded Mr. Buxton for it. He did not feel the incident was serious. He felt that such a reprimand was an adequate admonishment for this occurrence and established that there was obviously no intent to injure the student. No negative job action was suggested by the School Board at the time of the incident and after the discussion between the principal and Mr. Buxton regarding that matter it was considered closed by both of them. Indeed, a number of months later, after the incident was well known to Mr. Coleman, he still recommended Mr. Buxton for continued employment at American High School. Pat Gray, a personnel administrator in the school system, admitted that it was very unusual to bring charges against a teacher on an incident such as kicking a student unless the principal himself suggested such an action. The Respondent's principal, Lonnie Coleman, was the only witness other than the Respondent himself, to testify regarding the Respondent's competency and effectiveness as a teacher. He performed the annual evaluation on Mr. Buxton for the 1980-81 school year. He gave him a favorable evaluation. He found even after the incidents in question that he would continue to recommend Mr. Buxton for a position in instruction at American Senior High School. He found his behavior and record as a teacher to be consistently superior. Mr. Buxton performed well in the classroom and experienced problems only with his personal life. Mr. Coleman did not find the Respondent's personal problems of a sufficiently serious nature to alter his recommendation for continued employment. Mr. Buxton is an exceptional teacher, very effective at getting students interested in his subject matter, and in his preparation before his classes. Mr. Coleman was fully informed regarding the "candy sale charges" and the "kicking incident", and counselled with Mr. Buxton about those two situations and considered them closed without the necessity for any negative job action, and he is still of that opinion. The Respondent was recommended for summer employment in the school system after each of the acts charged against him in this case had occurred and were matters of record. Mr. Coleman initially recommended him for half-time work in the school system's summer program. Subsequently, at the request of the principal at Miami Springs Summer School where he was teaching half-time, he was asked to work full-time for the remainder of the summer. Mr. Buxton has held no other job in his adult life except teaching positions. He remains a highly effective and dedicated teacher, both in his preparation for and presentation of his subject matter, his conduct of classes, as well as his relations with his fellow professionals and his students. He presently works as a substitute teacher and does private tutoring during the period of his suspension. He is earnestly attempting to rehabilitate himself and keenly desires to continue his profession as an educator.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending teacher's certificate number 154610 issued to Leonard Lawrence Buxton for a period of one year, provided however, that the imposition of that suspension be stayed so long as the Respondent remains in compliance with the terms of his probation as determined by the Circuit Courts in and for Palm Beach and Monroe counties, Florida, and is guilty of no other violations of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, during the suspension period. Should those courts revoke his probation for any reason, or should he be found guilty of such violations, that stay should immediately be lifted and his license suspended for the remainder of the suspension period. The final order should provide that if he successfully completes his term of probation then these proceedings shall be dismissed. It is further recommended that the School Board of Dade County reinstate the Respondent in his position of employment, but retain his back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Ruffolo & Wilson 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jesse McCrary, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33137 Elizabeth J. Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education The Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Carolyn Colebrook, was employed by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a paraprofessional in the school system of Dade County, Florida. At the time of the incident which precipitated Petitioner's action against Ms. Colebrook, she was assigned to Bunche Park elementary school. In 1960, prior to emigrating from the Bahamas, Ms. Colebrook visited the United States for the first time, after graduating from high school in Hatchet Bay, in the Bahamas. She visited the Unites States with four girlfriends who also went shopping together. At the time of the visit in 196o, Ms. Colebrook was eighteen years old. During her American holiday, after a shopping trip with her companions, Ms. Colebrook was found to be carrying stolen merchandise of minimal value in her straw tote bag. Ms. Colebrook does not know how the merchandise came to be in her bag, but surmises that it was placed there, as a spiteful act, by one of her travelling companions to whom she refused to lend money. Nevertheless, Ms. Colebrook was arrested on charges of petty larceny and held for eighteen days until her parents could come for her, travelling from their residence in Hatchet Bay, Bahamas. Arriving with an attorney, Ms. Colebrook's parents arranged her release and thereafter accompanied her immediately to the airport, and back to their home in the Bahamas. Ms. Colebrook's parents told her that her record had been sealed or expunged. In 1972, Ms. Colebrook immigrated to the United States along with her family. As part of the immigration process, she underwent fingerprinting and other investigation procedures which she understood to be supervised by the American counsel. No problems or criminal records of any kind blocked Ms. Colebrook's immigration, and she entered the United states permanently in 1972. After that, Ms. Colebrook was under the reasonable impression that the incident surrounding her arrest in 1960 had, indeed, been removed from her record, if any existed. Six months after her arrival, Ms. Colebrook was hired by Petitioner. Petitioner's employment application contained a question asking whether the applicant had ever been arrested. In response to this question, Ms. Colebrook answered "no". In making that representation, she had no intention to deceive or misrepresent the fact that she had been arrested. Instead she was relying on her reasonable impression that her arrest in 1960 had been expunged and was of no consequence. On the morning of March 7, 1989, during the breakfast period, Ms. Colebrook was quietly summoned to the school office by Mr. Footman, a security employee at Bunche Park. Mr. Footman told Ms. Colebrook she had an emergency telephone call. Ms. Colebrook's specific duty at that time was to care for a student who was an autistic child and profoundly mentally retarded. The child required the full time care of Ms. Colebrook and was dependent upon her. Ms. Colebrook and the child were in a classroom setting with other students including a teacher and another paraprofessional. When Ms. Colebrook was unable to assist the student, one of the other adults in the classroom assumed the responsibility along with their existing assignments. When Mr. Footman approached Ms. Colebrook, her student charge had finished her meal, and Ms Colebrook started toward the office, taking the child with her. However, seeing the approach of her colleague, Spelma Williams, Ms. Colebrook, as was the custom, asked Ms. Williams to take charge off the child to free Ms. Colebrook to take the phone call. Ms. Williams agreed, and Ms. Colebrook proceeded to the office, leaving her student in the care of Ms. Williams, who is a teacher's aide in Ms. Colebrook's classroom. Arriving in the school office, Ms. Colebrook took the emergency call, which was from her sister. During the phone call, Ms. Colebrook was notified that two detectives were "coming for" her at school. Ms. Colebrook did not wish to be approached or interrogated by these detectives while at her school for both personal and professional reasons. Specifically, she did not want to be personally embarrassed, nor did she wish to bring further embarrassment upon her school, which had just begun a widely reported program of School Based Management. In reaching her decision, Ms. Colebrook was sensitive to the fact that a shooting, involving a teacher, had taken place on Campus in the recent past and was concerned that the potential disruption caused by her impending arrest would interfere with the learning environment. After Ms. Colebrook ended her conversation with her sister, she asked for her principal and was told that she was out. Advising members of the office staff that she had an emergency at home, and had to leave, she left the office. At the entrance of the office, Ms. Colebrook saw her assistant principal, Dr. Schultz, standing with another administrator. As she passed him, Ms. Colebrook told Dr. Schultz that she had an emergency and had to leave right away. Ms. Colebrook hurried to her classroom where she told another individual about her emergency and her need to leave immediately. Thereafter, Ms. Colebrook left the school. The school policy requires that all personnel sign out before leaving the school. In previous emergency situations, the assistant principal has signed out personnel. Ms. Colebrook did not take the time to complete the necessary paper work which would have signed her out, and no other school personnel, including the assistant principal did it for her. After Ms. Colebrook left Bunche Park on the morning of March 7, 1989, she immediately telephoned the detectives and the courthouse, and was notified of three warrants issued in her name. Thereafter, she hired an attorney to represent her, and resolved, without criminal conviction, all criminal charges against her. The first charge, Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Florida, Criminal Case NO. 83-11822, involved an arrest for the receipt and cashing of unemployment checks while employed. At the hearing, Ms. Colebrook represented that before she had cashed the checks she contacted the unemployment compensation office and asked what to do with the checks now that she was employed. Ms. Colebrook stated that a representative from the unemployment compensation office had told her the checks were hers and to cash them. The representative of the unemployment compensation office was not present to testify at the hearing. Nevertheless, a finding of guilt based on a plea of nolo contendere was entered against her, but adjudication was withheld, resulting in no conviction. Ms. Colebrook was placed on probation on June 7, 1984. Ms. Colebrook's probation was conditioned on her payment of restitution in the amount of $2,400 and the completion of 500 hours of community service. Ms. Colebrook failed to meet the requirements of her probation. At the hearing, Ms. Colebrook said that the reason she stopped making the payments was that she had suffered personal problems which created financial difficulty. However, she did not make an attempt to clarify the matter with the judicial system. As a result, a warrant was issued for her arrest in July, 1985. However, after she was made aware of the warrant following the March 7, 1989 incident, Ms. Colebrook made full restitution, and her probation was terminated on May 11, 1989. Her failure to timely address her financial situation with the court demonstrated irresponsibility and a failure to sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Whether Ms. Colebrook's actions had an effect on the respect and confidence of her colleagues, her students, the students' parents or other members of the educational community, or on her awareness of the importance to maintain such confidence was not demonstrated at the hearing however. In fact, she did ultimately make full restitution, and the matter was resolved. The second charge, Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Florida, Criminal Case NO. 84-66132, involved a check for forty dollars cashed at Winn Dixie. The check was not paid by the bank and was returned to Winn Dixie. When Ms. Colebrook was notified by Winn Dixie, she promptly made full payment of the check plus the service charge for returned checks. However, unknown to Ms. Colebook, the criminal file on the matter was not closed until she inquired after the incident on March 7, 1989. She appeared in criminal court, and the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution on May 26, 1989. The third incident involved Ms. Colebrook's refusal to pay for unacceptable auto repair. Ms. Colebrook had a car accident and sought repair of the automobile. Neither Ms. Colebrook nor her creditor were satisfied with the repair. Ms. Colebrook had written a check for the repair, but when her creditor indicated that the repair was not satisfactcry, she stopped payment on the check. Again, a criminal case was opened against Ms. Colebrook, Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Florida, Criminal Case NO. 89-7942, by the auto repair man when Ms. Colebrook stopped payment on the check. When Ms. Colebrook was made aware of the action against her, again, as a result of the incident on March 7, 1989, she made full restitution in open court and nolle pros was entered May 9, 1989. She made the payment to resolve the matter even though she felt the car was not properly repaired. After Mr. Colebrook left Bunche Park on March 7, 1989, Detectives Angelica and Gonzalez arrived at the school to serve Ms. Colebrook with the three arrest warrants. The officers were dressed in plain clothes, went as directly as possible to the principal and did not discuss the matter with other personnel. All matters regarding Ms. Colebrook were discussed in the principal's office, with the door closed. Nonetheless the circumstances surrounding the officers' visit to the school became known by school personnel, other than the ones in attendance at the private meeting. Following her meeting with the officers and her assistant principal, the principal Ruby Johnson telephoned the school Board's Office of Professional standards to report the incident and request direction. She was told that Ms. Colebrook was prohibited from returning to school until she was cleared for return by Dr. Monroe of the Office of Professional standards. Ms. Johnson relayed this message to Ms. Colebrook then she called the school later in the day on March 7, 1989. Ms. Johnson gave Ms. Colebrook Dr. Monroe's office telephone number. Immediately, Ms. Colebrook began to telephone Dr. Monroe's office to gain clearance to return to school. She telephoned, but was only able to leave messages with a secretary. When Ms. Colebrook finally reached Dr. Monroe on March 28, 1989, he set up an appointment to see her on April 11, 1989, over one month after the Bunche Park incident. At Dr. Monroe's suggestion, Ms. Colebrook agreed to bring any and all documents with her which related to the criminal charges against her. On April 11, 1989, Ms. Colebrook met with Dr. Monroe for a formal conference for the record. During the conference, Ms. Colebrook produced receipts for Dr. Monroe's inspection, proving that she had taken significant steps to resolve her difficulties. Dr. Monroe did not find these documents acceptable because they were not, in his opinion, sufficient to satisfy "the legal mandates". The documents which Ms. Colebrook offered in satisfaction of her criminal charges, on less that two weeks notice, were a copy of a cashiers check to the Department of Unemployment in the amount of $2,174 and a receipt for the check from the Florida Department of Labor and Employment security. She also presented a cashier's check for $1,000 payable to the auto repair man. Dr. Monroe expected Ms. Colebrook to bring court disposition documents, although she had no power to compel immediate court review. Further, at this point, Dr. Monroe believed Ms. Colebrook to be a "fleeing felon", upon the representation by principal Ruby Johnson, and had absolutely decided, by the end of the conference, to recommend Ms. Colebrook for termination. Repeatedly, throughout the meeting, Ms. Colebrook reiterated her desire to return to work. Notwithstanding his immediate decision, Dr. Monroe also testified that, if Ms. Colebrook had satisfied the "legal mandates," he would have given her employment status "due consideration". Dr. Monroe, also, gave Ms. Colebrook the reasonable impression that she would be able to go back to work after she paid the last of the restitution required in a criminal case involving the stop payment on the check issued to the auto repair man and that she could return to work after the spring recess. In reliance upon what she believed to be her agreement with Dr. Monroe, Ms. Colebrook promptly resolved the remaining problem and left substantiating documentation with Dr. Monroe's secretary. Dr. Monroe did not receive the documents. Thereafter, she called Ruby Johnson to advise her that she would return to school after the spring break. Again, Ms. Johnson told Ms. Colebrook she could not return to school until Dr. Monroe had sent word to the school site; Ms. Johnson had not received notice of such clearance. Immediately, Ms. Colebrook telephoned Dr. Monroe's office and learned that he was on vacation. She ccntinued to attempt to reach Dr. Monroe until she received notice of her termination, ordered by the School Board of Dade County, pursuant to Dr. Monroe's recommendation, on April 26 1989, and before the final court dates on the three outstanding criminal charges. From 1972 until April of 1989, except for a brief time, Ms. Colebrook continued in the employ of the Dade County Public Schools. Until the Bunche Park incident, she presented the school system with no problems whatsoever, and Was considered to be a valuable asset, in the opinion of her colleagues and a supervisor at Bunche Park Elementary. Ms. Colebrook is a dedicated and valuable employee. She is a credible individual who has suffered some hard times and been a victim of circumstance since she came to the United States. The judicial system has cleared her of all charges and she met Dr. Monroe's "legal mandates" within a reasonable amount of time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the school Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order reinstating Respondent with full back pay and benefits retroactive to April 26, 1989. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2607 The following represents the Hearing Officer's rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The rulings are listed by paragraph within the proposed findings of fact and indicate the paragraph in the findings of fact section of the attached recommended order which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if deemed appropriate. PETITIONER Rejected as conclusion of law. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted, in part, in paragraph 2:; rejected, in part, as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted, in relevant part, in paragraph 5; in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted, in part, in paragraph 12; in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 12. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted, in part, in paragraph 14; in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected, in part, as not supported by competent substantial evidence adopted, in part, in paragraph :16. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. RESPONDENT Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 18. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted, in part, in paragraph 22; in part, rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 24. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Lorraine C. Hoffman, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Charles L. Smith, holds a temporary state teaching certificate number 514251 issued by the State Department of Education covering the area of physical education. He has been a teacher for fourteen years and holds a master's degree in special education. He is presently the head football coach and a physical education instructor at Stewart High School in Lumpkin, Georgia. This is not respondent's first involvement with a disciplinary proceeding. On June 8, 1983, petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, filed an administrative complaint against Smith alleging that while he was employed as a teacher at Dunnellon High School (Marion County) in school year 1982-83, he made derogatory statements to students and engaged in improper conduct of a sexual nature with a minor female student. The matter eventually culminated in an administrative hearing held on August 11, 1983, where one of petitioner's witnesses was Ruth Annette Edwards, a teacher's aide in Smith's class. Her testimony in that proceeding has been received in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit 3. The testimony can be characterized as damaging, for Edwards gave testimony which tended to corroborate the allegations against Smith. Although the Hearing officer recommended that Smith be found guilty of all charges and that his certificate be revoked for two years, in its Final Order rendered on November 9, 1983, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) expressed "strong doubts that the incident (with the female student) actually occurred" and instead placed respondent on probation for one year and imposed the following conditions: The Respondent will break no laws, nor any rules of the State Board of Education. The Respondent will perform in a satisfactory manner as a teacher, and will cause reports of his performance to be forwarded to the Education Practices Commission. Therefore, under the terms of pro- bation, if respondent violates any state law or EPC rule during the ensuing year, he risks the loss of his teaching certificate. The probation period expires on November 9, 1984. Respondent's contract to teach at Dunnellon High School was not renewed in school year 1983-84. However, Smith's failure to teach there was not due to the EPC disciplinary action, but rather was attributable to his failure to pass the mathematics part of the teacher certification examination. Because of this, he weighed alternative offers from Alachua County School Board and the State of Georgia, and accepted the latter offer because of its higher pay. Sometime prior to 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning, January 29, 1984, the Clara Davis household in Dunnellon, Florida, received a telephone call. Mrs. Davis answered the telephone and was asked by the caller to speak to her grandson, Pretis Griffin, then nineteen years old and a senior at Dunnellon High School who resided with her. Pretis was a former student in Smith's English class in 1982-83, and also knew him from varsity athletics. Mrs. Davis responded that Pretis was still asleep and hung up. The same caller telephoned back a few minutes later and said he was calling long distance from Gainesville and needed to talk to Pretis. She roused Pretis, who answered the call. Pretis testified the caller identified himself as respondent and sounded like Smith. Although Smith denied he made the call, it is found that Smith did indeed telephone Pretis on January 29. After the two made small-talk initially, Smith then asked Pretis if he would do him a favor. Pretis said "yes," and Smith said "I want you to tell Mrs. Edwards something." Pretis asked "What," and Smith replied, "Tell Mrs. Edwards thanks for what she's done, and I will get back at her through her husband." After some more small-talk, the two ended the conversation by Smith saying, "Don't forget to tell her," followed by a "little laugh." After the call ended, Pretis told his grandmother the caller was Coach Charles Smith. The next day, Monday, January 30, Pretis approached Ruth Edwards at school and told her respondent had telephoned him and wanted to convey a message. Pretis then told her "Coach Smith said thanks for what you done and he'll get you back through your husband." Upon hearing this, Edwards simply shrugged and walked away. The following Sunday, February 5, 1984, the Davis household received another telephone call for Pretis prior to 10:30 a.m. According to Pretis, it was the same caller as the previous Sunday, and despite Smith's denial, it is found that respondent made a second call to Pretis on February 5, 1984. After making small-talk, Smith eventually asked if his message had been delivered and what Edwards' response had been. When Pretis responded that he had, and that Edwards had merely shrugged and walked away, Smith commented "Oh, she thought it was a joke," and Pretis said "I guess." The two then discussed an upcoming basketball game at Dunnellon the following Saturday night and the fact that Smith might attend the game. In the next day or so, Pretis told Edwards at school that Coach Smith had telephoned again and that he might attend the high school basketball game that weekend. Edwards gave no visible response to Pretis' comment. Edwards, who readily acknowledged she dislikes Smith, initially claimed that Pretis relayed three separate messages to her from Smith, and also gave a more threatening account of the conversations between Pretis and Smith. However, it is found that only two calls took place, and the substance of the calls was accurately portrayed by Pretis. After Pretis told Edwards that Smith had telephoned a second time, she went to the assistant principal and advised him that Smith had threatened her. Later, Edwards and Pretis were interviewed, and the matter was then turned over to the Marion County School Board, and eventually referred to petitioner. That prompted the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Smith, who has never met Edwards' husband, denied making the calls. He seemed fully aware of the terms of his probation, and recognized that any violation might jeopardize his teaching certificate. He contended it would be "stupid" to threaten Edwards because it would lead to the exact predicament he finds himself in. On the two mornings in question, he claimed he was either at work (as a clerk at a 7-11 store in Gainesville) or in church. However, his wife was unable to confirm this because of the passage of time since January and February, 1984. Until the hearing, Smith has not seen nor spoken to Edwards (or her husband) since the administrative hearing conducted in August, 1983 and has never carried out any threats against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.06(3)(m) and that he be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Arthur G. Haller, Esquire 771 N.W. 23rd Avenue, Suite 1 Gainesville, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
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
