Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent, Frederick Alexander, was a student at Seminole Community College. As such, Respondent was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations of Seminole Community College as set forth in the College's general catalog, Volume 16, April 1981. In particular, Petitioner's Rule 6HX25-4.06 provides as follows: Seminole Community College expects its students to be mature and responsible citizens at all times and places. Any student whose conduct or dress, whether on or off campus, at any time, is in violation of law, is a public nuisance, or deemed improper and detrimental to the College, may be subject to disciplinary action including probation, suspension, dismissal or denial of re-enrollment . . . . While enrolled at Seminole Community College, on or about September 25, 1981, Respondent entered Room J-110 at the College and, while in the presence of Claudette Gover, a secretarial employee of the College, exposed his genitals, and remarked to Ms. Gover, "Do you want some of this black stuff, Baby?" Ms. Gover appeared as a witness at the final hearing in this cause, and positively identified the Respondent from a photograph of the Seminole Community College basketball team. Subsequently, on or about October 26, 1981, Respondent was observed in the ladies shower room in the health building on the campus of Seminole Community College. That shower room is a non-coeducational facility, intended solely for use of female college students and faculty and staff members, and is clearly marked as such. Respondent was observed in the shower room by a female student who had just emerged from the shower and was clad only in her underclothing. Although Respondent made no overt advances to the female student, he remained in the locker room adjacent to the shower room, which also was used only by female students and faculty, until the female student dressed and left the room. Later, when questioned by college officials concerning his entry of the ladies shower room, the Respondent neither admitted nor denied his conduct. The Respondent was, however, positively identified as the individual in the shower room by the female student.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Board of Trustees of Seminole Community College dismissing Respondent as a student at the College. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert & Whigham, P.A. Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32771 Frederick Alexander 1619 West 16th Street Sanford, Florida 32771
The Issue Whether petitioner was "professional staff" within the meaning of Article VII of the University Constitution and therefore entitled to continue as Dean of the College of Education, in the absence of a showing of good cause why he should not continue? Whether FSU breached the 1984-1985 employment contract between the parties when it relieved petitioner of responsibilities as Dean of the College of Education on July 24, 1985? Whether FSU was under a legal obligation to give petitioner notice of good cause for not renewing the parties' 1984-1985 employment contract for the 1985-1986 or subsequent academic years?
Findings Of Fact After James L. Gant announced his intention to step down as Dean of FSU's College of Education, Augustus B. Turnbull, III, FSU's Vice President for Academic Affairs, appointed the College of Education Dean's Search Committee, also known as the Education Dean Search Committee (Search Committee) and named Robert Glidden, Dean of FSU's School of Music, chairman of the Search Committee. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 9. Dr. Turnbull asked that the Search Committee "try to have a new dean on board no later than the fall semester of 1983." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On December 6, 1982, Dean Glidden executed Part A of Form No. SUS/PFR- 001/75 (R3/77), a formal position vacancy announcement prerequisite to any national search. (T.29-30) This form described the "Contract Period" as 12 months; gave July 1, 1983, as the anticipated starting date; stated the position title as "Dean, College of Education"; categorized the position as having regular professorial status; and indicated the "Discipline/Field" as "Administration." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. As part of the national search, the Search Committee caused circulars like Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, "invit[ing] applications and nominations for the position of DEAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION" to be published in periodicals like the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is how the vacancy came to the attention of petitioner Bruce Wayne Tuckman, whose application for the position eventually proved successful. Agreement Reached On April 28, 1983, Dr. Turnbull wrote Dr. Tuckman "to offer [him] the position of Dean of the Florida State University College of Education which carries with it the rank of Full Professor of Education ... effective ... July 1, 1983." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. In the letter, Dr. Turner undertook to recommend Dr. Tuckman for tenure "at the first opportunity, which will be during the 1983-1984 Academic Year." Id. On May 3, 1983, Dr. Tuckman signed the bottom of the letter in the blank provided to indicate acceptance of the offer. In May of 1983, Drs. Turnbull and Tuckman executed an employment contract covering the period July 1, 1983 to August 31, 1983, stating "CLASSIFICATION TITLE/RANK" as "Dean and Professor" and indicating 9040 as the class code. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15. "Dean and Professor" with a class code of 9040 is listed among the general faculty classification titles and codes. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. "Professor" appears on the same list with a class code of 9001. On the strength of the agreement evidenced by Dr. Turnbull's letter of April 28, 1983, and Respondent's Exhibit No. 15, Dr. Tuckman, a much-published scholar, left a tenured position at the City University of New York and moved to Tallahassee from New York in the summer of 1983. On September 1 and 2, 1983, respectively, Drs. Turnbull and Tuckman executed a second employment contract with terms identical to the first, except that it covered the period September 1, 1983 to August 31, 1984, and had a greater number of pay periods, accordingly. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. 1984-1985 Contract Central to the present controversy is the contract executed by Dr. Turnbull on September 2, 1984, and by Dr. Tuckman on September 6, 1984, which provides, in pertinent part: STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 12 MONTH EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT This contract between Florida State University and the employee is subject to the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, the rules and regulations of the Board of Regents... Employee Name: Bruce W. Tuckman * * * 3. Department Name: Dean Education * * * 5. Dates of Appointment: 09-01-84 to 08-31-85 * * * 8. Classification Title/Rank: Dean and Professor Class Code: 9040 Appointment Modifier: B * * * The following statement is only applicable to employees holding visiting appointments; or those appointed for less than one academic year; or (3) those with less than five years continuous service who are on soft money": Your employment hereunder will cease on the date indicated. No further notice to you of cessation of employment is required. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13. "[A]ppointment modifier B ... is for courtesy faculty status." Erb Fontenot v. Florida State University, No. 85-3843 (F.S.U.; Jan. 5, 1987) at page 2. "Persons holding an administrative or services role normally hold a courtesy rank Rule 6C2-1.004(6)(a)7.a. On March 26, 1984, President Sliger had written Dr. Tuckman, advising him that he had been awarded "tenure to be effective Fall Semester, 1984." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Auspicious Beginning At first, all seemed to go well with the College of Education and its new dean. As chief executive officer, Dr. Tuckman was responsible for "all budgetary, fiscal and personnel matters in the College of Education," (T.58) and "had the executive responsibility for helping to set the directions and execute the policies and procedures of the college ... [,] sat as an ex officio member of the Policy Advisory Board ... [and] on a number of [other] committees." (T.50) He tended to "general day-to-day kinds of things ... responding to letters," (T.31), affirmative action and grievance matters. As the University Director of Teacher Education, he chaired FSU's Committee on Teacher Education, "organized conferences and committees on behalf of the College of Education [,] provided interface between the College of Education and the public school districts and schools of the state and other officials of the state ... [and] represented the College of Education to outside constituencies, [including] alumni [and] legislators..." (T.58) On May 31, 1984, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, and again on March 27, 1985, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14, Dr. Turnbull rated Dr. Tuckman "satisfactory," the highest rating possible, on forms on which he characterized his primary duties as Administration." Dean Tuckman performed the duties of dean as described in the By-Laws of the College of Education. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18. Although not required to do so, he also taught every year he served as dean. Complaints Made "[I]n the fall of 84, probably around October, November ... [after it became known that Stephen Edwards was] to assume the position of the Dean of Faculty in January of 1985, faculty members from the College of Education ... [approached him] concerned about the way the college was operating and the kinds of participation in its governance that the faculty were being able to have." (T.377) In due course, Dean Edwards, as he became, relayed these concerns to Dr. Turnbull. Dr. Turnbull had also heard complaints himself from members of the faculty of the College of Education, complaints which he originally dismissed as a normal reaction to somebody who is making necessary changes." (T.229) By the spring of 1985, however, he asked Dr. Tuckman to give him a "list of some of the faculty that he considered to be the future leaders of the college ... not necessarily the old guard or people who for one reason or another would be troublemakers, but a group of faculty on whom he would rely to carry out his policy directions for the college." (T. 228-230) Dr. Tuckman compiled such a list and furnished it to Dr. Turnbull. At a meeting he called in the summer of 1985, Dr. Turnbull discussed matters with "a significant number of" the people Dr. Tuckman had listed, and "asked them to work with [Dr. Turnbull] and the dean to turn the situation around." (T.230) The group struck Dr. Turnbull as noncommittal. At Dr. Turnbull's request, Dr. Tuckman then called a meeting of the Administrative Council, comprised of department chairmen and others. In this meeting, held on a Tuesday, possibly July 16, 1985, it was decided that the Administrative Council would meet again with Dr. Tuckman, without Dr. Turnbull present, and that afterwards the department heads would meet with Dr. Turnbull to "decide where to go from there." (T.231) After the Tuesday meeting, Dr. Turnbull drafted a memorandum addressed to the faculty of the College of Education. He attached this draft to a memorandum to Dr. Tuckman, dated July 17, 1985. In the memorandum to Dr. Tuckman, he referred to the draft as "a draft cover memorandum," solicited Dr. Tuckman's suggestions with regard to the draft, and stated that he "would also like to see a copy of the 'report' from our Tuesday meeting which we can send out with this cover memorandum." Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. Dr. Tuckman wrote Dr. Turnbull a memorandum, dated July 19, 1985. Labelled "PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL," it is now a matter of public record, and reads, in part: I appreciate the gravity of the situation and the difficulty of the position you are in. I struggled through one or two similar crises myself last year, albeit on the department level, where faculty members were opposed to a chairman, and know how hard that is to deal with. I appreciate the consideration you have shown both me and the faculty of the College. It may not need reiteration but I want you to know that I like my job and I want my job. I think you need to keep in mind: the fact that I have only done what I was "brought here" to do and what I said I would do. I have always been honest and forthright with you and with the faculty. I have never been knowingly devious in any of my dealings. the fact that I "inherited" a college suffering from long-term neglect and one which included a number of people who were taking advantage of that situation and of their colleagues. * * * (4) the fact that relatively unused and "rusty" faculty governance structures were not used by me not by choice but because they could not raise quorums and did not have members who wanted to see them used constructively. They are now ready to be used. I was already putting them in readiness when this whole controversy started. * * * I have been less than perfect. I have made mistakes and I am now aware of many of them. But they were honest mistakes and well- intentioned mistakes. I am neither power- hungry nor malicious. Organizations often need to survive conflict in order to coalesce and grow. The essence of the process is having the members accept some of the responsibility for growth and decision-making. I want this to happen. This crisis can be turned from a nightmare into a blessing by a combination of actions by me and you. My job is to "open up all the doors" and let all of the faculty input in. I pledge to you that I will (and have already begun to) use all informal and formal mechanisms to foster faculty participation and involvement. I believe that I am both willing and able to do this. But it will only work if, as I open my doors, you close yours. You need to let it be known that you are satisfied with the plans and directions of the College, that you have helped make sure it is on course, but that its fate depends on it being able to solve its own problems. And, as you know, those problems are many and serious. And, with that decision to let me continue (after all, I have only had two years to deal with problems and habits formed over at least 10 years) , you must step back from the process and let it continue. ... If you step back, the faculty will realize that they must begin to take faculty governance processes seriously and use them constructively to help get us out of this fix. I want faculty involvement and I can get it. If they have nowhere else to go but to faculty committees, faculty meetings and to me, that's where they'll go. But if they can go to you, Steve or Bernie, they'll go there. I ask you personally, professionally and humbly for your help, both for me and for the College. The biggest help you can provide now is to say to the world, let the College of Education solve its own problems if it wants to stay in business. The rest is up to us. Dr. Turnbull felt this memorandum "was too little, too late," (T.236) and that it advocated "the course [he] followed very consistently up until a couple weeks before that." (T.236) On July 22, 1985, the department chairmen, having earlier met with Dr. Tuckman, as agreed, met with Dr. Turnbull. They reported that Dr. Tuckman "still did not understand the seriousness of the situation, and that they were, therefore, not willing to proceed with him to try to change the faculty's mind about the course and direction of the college." (T.231) Resignation Requested Late that day Dr. Turnbull summoned Dr. Tuckman to his office and requested that he step down as dean. Dr. Tuckman asked if he could think it over overnight, and, on the morning of July 23, 1985, told Dr. Turnbull he "wanted to be able to complete this year and have another year; and that at the end of the next year, if [Dr. Turnbull] was ... dissatisfied with [Dr. Tuckman's] performance, then at that time [Dr. Tuckman] would be willing to resign." (T.62) Dr. Turnbull told Dr. Tuckman he was wasting his breath, that he wanted him "out as dean right away." (T.62) When Dr. Tuckman "pleaded with him," id., Dr. Turnbull reportedly said, "A well-worded letter of resignation would resolve [sic] you of all embarrassment or pain." (T.62) But Dr. Tuckman refused to resign, saying, "[Y]ou will have to fire me." Id. No Longer Dean Believing Dr. Tuckman had been insubordinate, Dr. Turnbull wrote a letter to him the following day. The parties stipulated that Dr. Turnbull had full authority to act for FSU's president in these matters. The letter said: Dear Bruce: Effective immediately, you are relieved of your responsibilities as Dean of the College of Education. An alternative assignment for the 1985-86 academic year will be made as soon as possible. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. By memorandum dated July 30, 1985, Dr. Turnbull advised Dean Edwards, "Normal procedures should be followed, except that you will substitute for Dr. Tuckman." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. On or after July 24, 1985, but no later than July 30, 1985, Dr. Turnbull had assigned Dean Edwards "responsibility for the administrative affairs of the College of Education during the transition following the reassignment of Dr. Tuckman." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. By memoranda dated July 29 and 30, 1985, Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 9- 10, and by letter to Dr. Turnbull dated July 29, 1985, Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, Dr. Tuckman made known his view that he had a right to continue as dean, writing Dr. Turnbull, "I cannot accede to your request that I surrender my position," Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, and signing a memorandum dated July 29, 1985, addressed to department heads and ohers, "Bruce W. Tuckman, Dean." Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. On July 31, 1985, Dr. Turnbull sent a memorandum to Dr. Tuckman, with a "blind copy" to FSU's counsel, in form acquiescing to Dr. Tuckman's assertion that he was still dean. This memorandum stated: RE: Revised Assignment of Responsibilities Pursuant to my July 24, 1985 letter to you and our discussion of July 30, 1985, your complete assignment as dean for the period through the expiration of your current contract (August 31, 1985), is as follows: to develop and prepare a written report on the major policy and program initiatives of the College of Education during your tenure as dean along with a summary of your perception of the goals and objectives encompassed in these policies. to provide written recommendations on priorities among these goals, objectives, and plans to implement them, together with any suggestions for alteration as a result of the necessary reduction in College resources. responding upon request to inquiries from Dean Edwards or other appropriate officials about College of Education matters. (Dean Edwards will be assisting during this transitional period in the administration of the College of Education.) This reassignment is not intended to affect your functions and responsibilities as a faculty member. In the best interests of the University and in furtherance of a smooth transition, I am instructing you to vacate the physical quarters of the Office of Dean no later than the close of business on Friday, August 2. An alternative office will be assigned in the Stone Building. Please contact Dean Edwards concerning alternative office space. The practical reality was, however, that Dr. Tuckman did not serve as Dean of the College of Education after July 24, 1985. In September of 1985, Robert L. Lathrop was named interim dean, and he became "continuing dean in January 1987." (T.289) Academic deans customarily serve at the pleasure of university presidents. By memorandum dated February 4, 1964, (but not shown to petitioner before he signed the employment contract), Gordon W. Blackwell, then FSU's president, "instituted" the policy that "Members of the faculty ... hold administrative positions (... dean ...) at the pleasure of the President." Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. This is the norm in the United States. Witnesses at hearing, including academic deans at FSU, testified that FSU's deans served at the pleasure of FSU's president during the time in question. Dr. Turnbull's letter of July 24, 1985, reflected these views, and ended Dr. Tuckman's service as dean, although Dr. Tuckman stayed on as (and remained, at the time of the hearing) a tenured full professor in the College of Education. He received the full salary he contracted for in September of 1984 during the year ending August 31, 1985. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13. Faculty vs. Professional Staff The, Board of Regents, which heads the Division of Universities within the Department of Education, has allocated university employees among three distinct "pay plans." The position "dean and professor," like the position "professor," has been assigned to the faculty pay plan, rather than to the administrative and professional pay plan, or to the plan for "University Support Personnel," formerly career service employees. (T.131, 190, 197). Article VII of the Constitution of the Florida State University, entitled "The Professional Staff," provides: Those persons holding academic appointments within The Florida State University, but not within a college or school, and those persons within a college or school holding academic appointments whose responsibilities do not include teaching, shall be considered members of the Professional Staff. Members of the Professional Staff having appropriate qualifications and responsibilities shall be assigned faculty rank by the President of the University on recommendation of their administrative officers for the purpose of membership in the General Faculty. Members of the Professional Staff shall enjoy the assurance of annual recommendation for reappointment in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes and the regulations of the Board of Regents. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, page 11. Dr. Tuckman first saw this provision in July or August of 1983. (T.86) The text of Article VII, now promulgated as an administrative rule, Rule 6C2-1.004(7), Florida Administrative Code, effective September 30, 1975, has been included in the FSU Constitution since 1959. Similar language may have appeared even earlier as a bylaw, and was originally drafted to authorize conferring faculty rank on librarians. (T.411) As a provision of FSU's Constitution, Article VII is not among the "rules and regulations of the Board of Regents," strictly speaking. By virtue of Article VII or its predecessor, Willis Caldwell, registrar and director of admissions, was given faculty rank, possibly as an associate professor. Catherine Warren, Dean of Women, was "designated as professor," (T.419) under Article VII or its predecessor. Ms. Warren had done graduate work in history at Columbia University, but, like Willis Caldwell, had no academic appointment within a college or school. Article VII was also applied to Robert Pierce, who, as FSU's vice-president for administration from 1972 to 1976 or 1977 (T.417), had no standing in an academic unit. (T.221) It has never been applied to persons who "had faculty status in an academic unit or with tenure." (T.224) When administrators teach, "it's considered part of their responsibility." (T.415) A faculty member who forgoes teaching for research does not, on that account, lose his status as a member of the faculty and become a member of the professional staff. FSU's president, or his designee, has broad authority in assigning administrative responsibilities to FSU's deans, but they are not professional staff, if they have faculty appointments, even if they do not teach. Article VI of the Constitution of Florida State University, Rule 6C2- 1.004(6), Florida Administrative Code, deals at length with faculty members, employees who, like petitioner, have academic appointments. As dean and professor since his arrival at FSU, Dr. Tuckman has had faculty rank all that time. He has enjoyed membership in the General Faculty by virtue of his professorial rank, and has never been a member of the professional staff. Article VII has no application in his case, and was not incorporated by reference in the employment contracts Dr. Tuckman signed.
Recommendation That FSU enter a final order in Case No. 86-2483 declaring the parties' 1984-1985 employment contract, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, breached, effective July 24, 1985, but denying further relief in Case No. 86-2483. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 11th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2483 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 17, 20, 22, and 24 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. IS has only been adopted to the extent indicated by reference to petitioner's remaining proposed findings of fact. With reference to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the FSU Constitution has been adopted as an administrative rule, now numbered Rule 6C- 1.004, Florida Administrative Code. With reference to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 21, Dr. Tuckman saw Article VII in July or August of 1983. The evidence did not show that he relied in fact on Article VII. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23 and 25 were not established by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, Rule 6C2- 1.004(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, makes clear that Article VII can confer membership in the general faculty. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7, FSU contracted in September of 1984 for Dr. Tuckman's services as "dean and professor," not only for his services as a professor. Although deans ordinarily hold professorial rank, there is a difference between being dean and being simply a professor. In executing Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, the parties agreed that Dr. Tuckman would serve as dean through August 31, 1985. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the evidence supports every sentence but the antepenultimate, which is partially an erroneous conclusion of law. The evidence did not show that an FSU vice-president had ever before unilaterally removed a dean, although there was testimony that Robert Lawton had been asked for his resignation. (T. 220) Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 15 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that the evidence was that Dr. Tuckman had appointed three quarters of the Administrative Council, not three quarters of the department heads. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, the number was $6,056. Only the first sentence in respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20 has been adopted as established by the weight of the competent evidence. The first two sentences in respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 23 were established by the evidence. On July 24, 1985, Dr. Tuckman was relieved of his responsibilities as dean. Thereafter, Dr. Edwards acted de facto as Dean of the College of Education. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, the evidence showed that Dr. Turnbull set out to do what he thought was best for the university without any ulterior motive, but the evidence did not show that Dr. Tuckman had breached the employment agreement or that anything else had relieved FSU of its legal obligations under the agreement. COPIES FURNISHED: President Bernard Sliger Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida Gerald B. Jaski, Esquire Linda C. Schmidt, Esquire Florida State University 311 Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Stephen Marc Slepin, Esquire Slepin & Slepin 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent, during the Spring of 1977, supplied beer and marijuana to female students of Seminole Middle School; whether he smoked or permitted them to smoke marijuana in his apartment during this period and whether such conduct constitutes acts violative of Chapter 231.26 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A-4.37 and 6B-1 of the State Board of Education, Florida Administrative Code. Based on the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, including the entire record compiled herein, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the holder of a Graduate Rank III teaching certificate number 318622 and has been employed as a teacher for approximately five years. During school year 1976-1977, he was assigned as a teacher at Seminole Middle School. By letter dated September 2, 1977, from Gus Sakkis, Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, Respondent was advised that he was suspended, without pay, from his duties at Seminole Middle School beginning August 24, 1977, and was further advised that it was the Superintendent's "intention to recommend to the School Board of Pinellas County at their regular meeting of September 28, 1977, that it sustain the suspension and that [Respondent's] contract with the School System be cancelled." Respondent was also advised that he was being charged with misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. As stated, the acts which comprise the alleged misconduct in office by Respondent involve the giving/selling of alcoholic beverages and marijuana, to- wit: beer and marijuana to certain eighth grade students in the Seminole Middle School, Pinellas County, Florida, during the 1976-1977 school year and the summer months of 1977; that the Respondent smoked marijuana in the presence of the same students on several occasions and that Respondent drank beer and/or other alcoholic beverages with the students. To substantiate the allegations contained in the Petition for Revocation of Respondent's Teaching Certificate, the Petitioners presented the testimony of four female students: Stacey Soper, Terri Cotterman, Donna Lombardi and Genine Buckley. Petitioners also presented witnesses Lois Beacham, Douglas McBriarty and Ruth A. McNutt, all employees in the Pinellas County school system. Stacey Soper, a fifteen year old ninth grade student at Seminole Middle School was an eighth grade student during the 1976-1977 school year. She testified that she lived in the same apartment complex as the Respondent and saw him on numerous occasions at the apartment complex, the swimming pool and at football and baseball games. She has smoked marijuana before and drank beer. She recalled having smoked marijuana supplied by Respondent on at least three occasions along with two other students, Terri Cotterman and Genine Buckley. She recalled this incident as having occurred during the Spring of 1977, in addition to one other occasion in which she drank beer with Respondent. She testified that on one occasion she asked Respondent to sell her a "joint" for which she paid seventy-five cents. (She recalled at least one other occasion during the Spring of 1977, when she asked Respondent to give her some "pot." She testified that when the marijuana was smoked, Respondent and two or three other students were engaged in smoking one "joint" at a time. While so doing, she testified that Respondent would close the door to his apartment. Respondent kept marijuana in a plastic bag in a desk drawer in his coffee table. She testified that these smoking sessions lasted from one to one and one half hours. The witness reiterated her familiarity with marijuana and beer as she has drunk beer and smoked marijuana on numerous occasions prior to the subject occasion with Respondent. Terri Cotterman, a fifteen year old ninth grade student at Seminole Middle High School recognized Respondent and noted that Respondent taught her for one week during her seventh grade school year and was her regular English teacher during her eighth grade school year. Cotterman also had smoked marijuana with Genine Buckley (Genine) and Stacey Soper (Stacey) during the Spring of 1977. She testified that she, along with Genine and Stacey, smoked marijuana with Respondent and another former instructor in the school system, a Mr. Asbury, who brought them home after they smoked marijuana at Respondent's apartment. She recalled that on one occasion, after they finished smoking marijuana and was sitting around the apartment, there was a knock on the door and two individuals, later identified as Alvin Philpot and Margaret Croskey, visited Respondent's apartment. She testified that when they entered the apartment, Mr. Asbury advised Respondent that "you'd better get them out of here." They all left and Mr. Asbury drove them home. She specifically recalled that the marijuana had been smoked when Philpot and Croskey came to Respondent's apartment. Witness Soper testified that she asked Respondent to purchase a six- pack of beer for them sometime during the 1977 Memorial Day weekend. She testified that while she remembered Respondent purchasing the beer for them, she failed to recall which brand was purchased or whether the beer was in glass or metal containers. Donna Lombardi, also a student, recalled being in Respondent's apartment complex on approximately two occasions and recalled one time when Respondent bought herself, Terri and Stacey a six-pack of beer (TR. 151). She testified that Respondent was outside washing his car when Donna, Terri and Stacey asked Respondent to buy them some beer. Respondent agreed, purchased the beer and they drank it in Stacey's apartment. Lois Ann Beacham, an Assistant Principal at Seminole Middle School, has known Respondent as a coworker since approximately 1973. Ms. Beacham recalled two conferences in which she had, prior to the subject incidents, warned Respondent of the "hands-off" policy in effect at the school as it related to instructors and preadolescent students. She testified that the first incident stemmed from an occasion in which a student, Wendy Aydlett, cuddled up to Respondent at a table in the library and moved her chair closer to him. This occurred during the months of October thru December, 1976. Another incident occurred during November 1976, when a student whose last name was Vega, rode her bicycle over to Respondent's apartment and her mother later learned of this, became highly upset and brought the matter to the attention of Mrs. McNutt, the head of the eighth grade sub-team. Ms. Beacham and Mrs. McNutt met with Respondent the following day and they discussed the matter. According to Ms. Beacham, Respondent received the advice given him during the conferences in a graceful manner and thanked them for the manner in which the incidents were handled. No similar incidents occurred. Douglas McBriarty, Director of Instructional Personnel for the Pinellas School System, is involved on a day-to-day basis in the handling of teaching problems, hiring, leave problems and investigation and handling of complaints filed against teachers for improper activities or misconduct in office. He has held this position for approximately eight years. Mr. McBriarty became involved in Respondent's case when Mr. Zachary, Principal at Seminole Junior High School, called him and advised that a detective Howe from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department had approached him about statements from three students (Soper, Cotterman and Buckley) which had originated from a diary found by a mother which made references to Respondent having drank beer and smoked marijuana with students. Dr. McBriarty approached Respondent about the allegations and he essentially denied that any of the allegations were true. Dr. McBriarty asked Respondent if he and Mr. Zachary could examine his apartment which Respondent agreed to. They visited Respondent's apartment and found no traces of marijuana or any paraphernalia associated with the smoking of marijuana. Dr. McBriarty testified that he examined a coffee table which was alluded to by the students in their statements and found nothing. Dr. McBriarty voiced his opinion that Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board had been reduced based on the incidents brought about as a result of the School Board's investigation and stated this was reinforced by his talks with parents of the students involved. He testified that at all times Respondent was cooperative and responded to questions asked of him. Prior to Dr. McBriarty asking Respondent if he and the principal could visit his apartment, he (Respondent) had no knowledge that an investigation of him was ongoing. Based on Dr. McBriarty's investigation, he made a recommendation to Dr. Sakkis, Superintendent, that Respondent should be suspended based on acts which in his opinion, amounted to misconduct in office. It was based on this recommendation that Respondent was suspended by the above referenced letter of the School Board dated September 2, 1977, and it was this action which prompted the investigation and Petition for Revocation by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent's Defense At the outset of the Respondent's defense, counsel moved for a dismissal of the charges arguing essentially that, assuming arguendo that the complaint allegations are true, the record was barren of any evidence tending to show that the Respondent's effectiveness had been reduced as per the teaching of BOYETTE v. STATE, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL, 346 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977). Additionally, Respondent's counsel urged that the proof falls short of showing that the alleged acts and/or conduct allegedly engaged in by Respondent as testified to by Petitioners' witnesses, failed to establish any official misconduct within the meaning of Chapter 231.36, Florida Statutes. This Motion was denied based on the undersigned's opinion that the Petitioners had established a prima facie case. The Respondent denied that he had either given or sold beer or marijuana to Seminole Middle School students as alleged or that he engaged in any of the alleged acts complained of herein. Additionally, in support of his position, Respondent offered the testimony of witnesses Alvin Philpot and Margaret Croskey. They denied that they witnessed any marijuana being smoked at the Respondent's apartment when they visited him on the occasion when students Soper, Buckley or Cotterman were present. They also stated that they only witnessed one beer can present in Respondent's apartment and that they did not smell any marijuana in the apartment. Finally, they testified that the students left shortly after they arrived. An analysis of the testimony of witnesses Croskey and Philpot was not at all viewed as contradictory of the testimony of student witnesses Soper, Cotterman, Buckley or Lombardi. As a matter of fact, the student witnesses testified that when witnesses Croskey and Philpot arrived, they had finished smoking the marijuana. Contrasting the testimony of witnesses Soper, Cotterman, Lombardi, Buckley and McBriarty, with that of witnesses Croskey and Philpot (as well as the Respondent) the testimony of the witnesses offered by Petitioners i.e., Soper, Cotterman, Lombardi, Buckley and McBriarty, is more creditable. While there were some minor discrepancies in the student witnesses testimony respecting dates, they all testified without contradiction that they in fact smoked marijuana with Respondent which at times was supplied by him either free or for monetary consideration and that he purchased beer for them. Significantly, all of the students had high regards for the Respondent as an instructor and no ulterior motive was advanced by Respondent which would tend to show that the student witnesses would have any basis to fabricate their testimony. Noteworthy too, is the fact that these factors did not come to light until one of the students' parents learned of the activities by reading her daughter's diary. This hardly resembles a situation where student witnesses are out to "get their teacher." That a public school teacher would permit such a blatant violation of the law [Section 893.13(1)(f), F.S.] to take place under any circumstances is totally incomprehensible and raises serious questions concerning his fitness to continue in a teaching capacity. By such acts and conduct, it is, therefore, concluded that Respondent performed acts constituting misconduct in office as alleged. However, the Petition (Complaint) allegations wherein it is argued that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced by his acts and conduct as set forth hereinabove, presents a more difficult issue. Here, as in Boyette, supra, the second element of the charge, i.e., that Respondent's effectiveness as a school teacher was seriously reduced as a result of the conduct complained of, was based almost entirely by the Petitioners upon the opinion testimony of Dr. McBriarty. While the record clearly reveals that the Respondent's acts and conduct herein were misguided, they fail to demonstrate that he was unfit to continue as a teacher. The testimony of those instructors who had any knowledge of Respondent's abilities indicated that he is a competent teacher and that he had not been seriously disciplined in the past. Under these circumstances, I, accordingly, find that the Petitioners failed to establish that necessary quantum of proof to support the allegations that the Respondent's effectiveness as a school teacher was reduced as a result of the conduct complained of herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board's, suspension of Respondent without pay be sustained for a period of two years. Additionally, it is further recommended that the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, place the Respondent's teaching certificate under suspension from the date of the Pinellas County School Board's letter initially suspending him thru the 1978-79 school year. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Central Florida Clubs Number 2 was the holder of the State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License-Number 58-696 for the period October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1977. DABT seeks to assess a civil penalty against Central Florida Clubs Number 2 or to suspend or revoke its beverage license on the grounds that nine (9) violations of Section 847.011, Florida Statutes, occurred on the premises of the Central Florida Clubs Number 2 on May 11, 1977. On that date, dance routines involving topless female dancers touching male customers in a sexually suggestive manner occurred on the premises. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that any of the dancers were agents or employees of Central Florida Clubs Number 2. Accordingly, it is found as a matter of fact that the dancers were not agents or employees of Central Florida Clubs Number 2. No evidence was introduced purporting to demonstrate whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interest. Accordingly, it is found as a matter of fact that to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material presented at the Booby Trap taken as a whole did not appeal to prurient interest. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that David Lee Feller was an agent or employee of Central Florida Clubs Number 2., Accordingly, it is found as matter of fact that David Lee Feller was not an agent or an employee of Central Florida Clubs Number 2.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on February 5, 2001.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1999, Respondent, North Florida Community College (NFCC), advertised for candidates for the position of Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Respondent advertised to fill this position by placing an advertisement in local newspapers, as well as in Gainesville, Florida. Additionally, an advertisement for this position was placed in the Affirmative Action Register, which is a publication for minorities, as well as in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The advertisement did not specify a salary and specified an application deadline of November 9, 1999. The position vacancy advertisement included the following: Qualifications include: an earned doctorate from an accredited institution of higher education; at least five years of successful progressively responsible administrative experience in academic programs, preferably at a community college; some previous experience in teaching at the postsecondary level; and/or experience as a counselor or administrator for student services functions, this latter qualification being preferable. Experience in the Florida Community College System is a plus. William Hunter is the Human Resources Director for NFCC. Mr. Hunter was responsible for placing the advertisements for the Vice President's position in the various publications. He is also responsible for ensuring that search committees are appointed, communicating with applicants, determining salaries to be offered to individual candidates based upon an established procedure, and offering positions by telephone to those persons selected. A search committee was appointed by the President of NFCC, Dr. Grissom. There were five members of the selection committee, including Clyde Alexander, NFCC's Athletic Director and Equity Coordinator. Mr. Alexander is African-American. Initially, 51 persons applied for the position. The selection committee narrowed the list of applicants from 51 to eight semi-finalists. Mr. Hunter was instructed to notify each semi-finalist that he/she was selected. He notified each of the semi- finalists by telephone and coordinated interview dates. Mr. Hunter sent a letter to each semi-finalist. The letters informed the candidates of their selection as a semi-finalist, confirmed their interview date and time, and advised them that NFCC would be paying for the travel expenses to Madison, Florida, for the interviews. The letters to the semi-finalists also stated that the salary range was $45,000 to $75,000 per year, "depending on experience." The salary range was established by the college's Board of Trustees. Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner was selected as a semi-finalist. Also among the semi-finalists were Dr. Barry Weinberg and Dr. Thomas Eaves, both white males. Interviews were conducted between December 1 and December 9, 1999. Each of the semi-finalists was given a tour of the campus and had an opportunity to meet with various college officials, as well as the President and members of the search committee. After the interviews of the semi-finalists were completed, the selection committee provided a list of finalists to the President.1/ The first choice of the selection committee was Dr. Barry Weinberg, who at that time was employed as Vice President for College Advancement at Rockingham Community College in Wentworth, North Carolina. Dr. Weinberg holds a Bachelor of Science in Education from State University of New York at New Paltz; a Master of Science in Student Personnel Services (Higher Education Administration) from State University of New York at Albany; a Certificate of Continuing Studies in Applied Behavioral Sciences from Johns Hopkins University; and a Doctor of Education in Higher Education Administration from Vanderbilt University. Mr. Hunter offered the position to Dr. Weinberg pursuant to instructions from President Grissom. Despite the letter which informed the semi-finalists that the top of the salary range was $75,000, Mr. Hunter was informed by the President that no applicant could be offered more than $70,000 per year because of a budget shortfall. The salary to be offered to an applicant was based on the application of an established formula to the applicant's experience as follows: subtracting the minimum salary from the maximum salary in the published salary range for the position; dividing that number by (30) to arrive at a multiplier; multiplying the applicant's years of relevant experience (after subtracting the years of experience required to qualify for the position) by the multiplier; and adding the result to the minimum salary in the range. The multiplier for the Vice President's position was $1,000. In applying the salary formula to Dr. Weinberg, Mr. Hunter determined that he had 29 years of relevant experience. He then subtracted the five years required experience, resulting in Dr. Weinberg having credit for 24 years of relevant experience, for purposes of the salary formula. The 24 years of experience was multiplied by $1,000 and added to the published base salary of $45,000. This resulted in the initial starting salary to be offered to Dr. Weinberg to be $69,000. Mr. Hunter had authority from President Grissom to add an additional amount of $2,500 per year in order to attract a candidate, provided that no candidate was offered more than $70,000 per year. Dr. Weinberg did not accept the initial offer of $69,000. Mr. Hunter then offered $70,000, which was ultimately rejected by Dr. Weinberg. Pursuant to direction from President Grissom, Mr. Hunter then offered the job to Petitioner. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration from Culver- Stockton College; a Master of Science in Guidance Counseling from University of Nevada; a Doctorate in Counselor Education from the University of Iowa; and holds a certificate from Harvard University in the Management Development Program. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula by determining that Petitioner had 21 years of relevant experience. He subtracted the five required years of experience resulting in 16 years of relevant experience. After multiplying 16 by $1,000 and adding that to the minimum salary of $45,000, Mr. Hunter offered $61,000.00 to Petitioner. When Petitioner did not accept the offer, he increased the offer to $62,500. Although he was authorized to offer him $63,500, it was Mr. Hunter's understanding, after a telephone conversation with Petitioner, that Petitioner would not accept the job for less than $82,000. Therefore, Mr. Hunter did not bother offering the additional $1,000 to Petitioner. In any event, whether or not Mr. Hunter offered $63,500 to Petitioner, he was not authorized to offer $70,000 to Petitioner, as had been offered to Dr. Weinberg, because of the application of the salary formula to Petitioner. Pursuant to instruction from Dr. Grissom, Mr. Hunter next offered the position to Dr. Thomas Eaves. Dr. Eaves holds a doctorate and lesser degrees from North Carolina State University, and has teaching and related research experience at numerous universities. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula and determined that Dr. Eaves should be offered $67,000. Mr. Hunter was authorized by the President to an additional $500.00 on top of the $2,5000 salary "sweetener" because the college had been turned down twice. Mr. Hunter called Dr. Eaves and initially offered him $67,000. Ultimately, Mr. Hunter increased the offer to $70,000, which was accepted by Dr. Eaves. Petitioner left Virginia Commonwealth University in July 2001 to work at West Chester University where he is Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Student Support Services. His starting salary at West Chester University was $84,500. His current salary, which was effective July 1, 2002, is $88,500. If Petitioner had accepted the position at NFCC for $63,500, he would have received a five percent pay increase in 2000 to $66,675 per year. However, because of a college-wide salary freeze which has been in place since 2000, Petitioner would not have received any further salary increases.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 13th day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Thomas Masters, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 743504, covering the areas of Elementary Education and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2024. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Since 1994, Respondent has been responsible for the care and development of elementary school-aged children. He became certified to teach elementary education in Florida in 1995, and at that time began teaching physical education (P.E.) for the Archdiocese of Miami. In approximately 1999, Respondent was certified in P.E. He taught P.E. for 19 years and theology for one year. He was the Athletic Director for 18 of those 20 years. In 2015, Respondent relocated from South Florida to St. Johns County to assist with the care of his mother after his father’s passing. He taught P.E. in the St. Johns County School District (SJCSD) from 2015 through 2019. At the time of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a P.E. Teacher at W.D. Hartley Elementary School in the SJCSD. Mr. Masters also served as the volunteer coach for the Gamble Rogers Middle School girl’s softball team, also known as the Gamble Rogers Stingrays. The SJMSAA is an independent, private non-profit corporation. SJMSAA uses district middle school names and facilities under a license agreement with the district. SJMSAA is solely responsible for the operation of the SJMSAA middle school sports programs and their individual teams. The organization’s mission is to promote community citizenship, good sportsmanship, and physical and mental development through healthy, organized competition’ and team work for 12 to 15-year-old middle school students. SJMSAA is responsible for operation of the sports programs for 13 middle school sports teams and seven different sports. Thus, all middle school students from various schools within the district may participate in sports. The sports the SJMSAA oversees are: football, baseball, softball, golf, tennis, cheer, and soccer. Middle school students J.M., H.B., and S.P. were on the SJMSAA girls’ softball team Respondent coached. Allegations in the Complaint The allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint took place during softball practice and did not involve any of Respondent’s students at Hartley. The allegations stem from a complaint made by the mother of J.M. (softball team member). At the time of the incident, J.M. was a middle school student at Gamble Rogers and a member of the softball team within SJMSAA. She was 13 years old at the time of the incident. J.M. is now a 15-year-old high school student. On April 3, 2018, J.M. told Mr. Masters that her stomach hurt because she did not have “[any] food in her stomach.” Mr. Masters then asked other players if they had any food that he could give J.M. Since none of the players had food, Mr. Masters gave J.M. a soda from his car to help her feel better. Shortly after she drank the soda, J.M. returned to practice. Before practice, Mr. Masters told the girls that they must do push-ups if they drop the ball. While throwing the ball with her partner, J.M. dropped the ball. J.M. then positioned herself to do the push-ups. Since the push-ups were modified, her hands and knees were on the ground. J.M. testified that while doing the push-ups, Mr. Masters kicked her in the stomach and placed his foot on her back. She was confused and embarrassed because she did not expect him to kick her. J.M. didn’t say anything after the incident, but rather, she looked at Mr. Masters with a shocked facial expression. Shortly thereafter, she returned to practice. She remained in practice for the duration, which was approximately 1.5 to two hours. J.M. stated that the kick caused her stomach to hurt more, increasing the pain to 9 out of 10, with 10 being the highest level of pain. However, there was no evidence offered to establish the level of stomach pain before the incident. J.M.’s teammates, S.P. and H.B., witnessed the incident. Before practice, J.M. told S.P. that she was not feeling well. Later, during warm-ups, she was standing nearby when J.M. dropped the ball. While J.M. was doing the requisite push-ups, S.P. witnessed Mr. Masters kick J.M. in the stomach. S.P. was shocked and believed Mr. Masters’ actions were wrong. S.P. did not see Mr. Masters place his foot on J.M.’s back. H.B. did not testify at the hearing. However, she provided a written statement to described what she witnessed on the date of the incident. Similar to S.P., H.B. stated that Mr. Masters kicked J.M. in the stomach while she was doing push-ups. Although the statement is hearsay, it further explains and is corroborated by admissible evidence in this matter. S.W. arrived late to practice to pick-up her daughter, J.M. S.W. recalled that her daughter seemed as if she was not as engaged as the other team members. J.M. told her mother that Mr. Masters kicked her and placed his foot on her back while she was doing push-ups. S.W. observed that her daughter was “very upset” about the incident. S.W. believed Mr. Masters’ placement of his feet on J.M. was disrespectful. S.W. contacted the SJMSAA commissioner to report what happened to her daughter. Justin Palesotti, the President of the SJMSAA, received a complaint from S.W. that Mr. Masters had inappropriately touched her daughter. Mr. Palesotti approached Mr. Masters before a softball game and asked him about the complaint. Mr. Masters told Mr. Palesotti that he swept his foot underneath J.M. while she was doing push-ups to confirm the student had space between her stomach and above the ground. After the discussion, Mr. Palesotti asked for Mr. Masters’ resignation, and he complied. Mr. Masters disputes J.M.’s complaint. He testified that J.M. arrived at practice and she did not look well. She told Mr. Masters that she was not feeling well because she had not eaten all day. He did not have snacks and none of the other girls had snacks, so he gave her a soda that he had in his car. After giving her the soda, he gave her the option to return to practice when she could. During warm-ups he told the girls that they would need to do three push-ups if they dropped the ball. J.M. and other players had to do push-ups. When J.M. had to do push-ups she had already drunk the soda. As J.M. was doing push-ups, he was being silly to help change her mood, and “pretended to fake kick her under her stomach.” J.M. unexpectedly “came down onto his foot.” She then gave him a look to communicate, “are you kidding me?” He was not trying to harm J.M., but, rather, he was “kidding” with her to lighten her mood. His attempt to make J.M. feel better was not well received. While he acknowledged that his foot made contact with J.M.’s stomach, he denied placing his foot on J.M.’s back. Character Witnesses The allegations were a surprise to Respondent’s character witnesses who disagreed that he would kick a student. Ms. Ivey Brown, the assistant softball coach at the time, testified that Mr. Masters enjoyed coaching. She had never witnessed Respondent kick a student. Likewise, John Samuels who coached basketball with Mr. Masters for a few weeks at Hartley only observed positive interactions with students. Mr. Samuels described Mr. Masters as a compassionate coach who helped improve the player’s self-esteem. Ms. Gonzalez, another assistant coach and former player coached by Respondent, testified that Respondent was always positive and encouraged players. Even at a time when players were disciplined, including herself, he spoke to them with compassion. St. Johns County Circuit Court Judge Mathis (ret.) met Mr. Masters in 2016. Judge Mathis volunteered to help coach the basketball team, of which his grandson was a member, and observed Respondent regularly interact with the students. Judge Mathis testified that Respondent had positive interactions with students, even the students who may have been difficult. He also had a reputation for helping people. Disciplinary History Although he had favorable experiences about other students, this is not the first time Mr. Masters has been subject to allegations of inappropriate contact with students. Mr. Masters was disciplined for a prior incident in Richard Corcoran, as Commissioner of Education, Case No. 19-6071PL, (Fla. DOAH Apr. 28, 2020; Fla. DOE Oct. 7, 2020), for his actions, filed on September 16, 2020.2 Respondent was issued a reprimand, placed on probation for 12 months, and required to pay administrative costs of $150.00. Ultimate Findings of Fact Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s foot made contact with J.M.’s stomach. While the undersigned acknowledges J.M.’s recollection of Mr. Masters placing his foot on her back, the other witnesses present did not recall this and Respondent disputes it. While the possibility exists that Mr. Masters placed his foot on J.M.’s back, J.M.’s uncorroborated statement is not sufficient, without more, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent placed his foot on her back.
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)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1., that Respondent receive a Reprimand, and that he be placed on suspension for 30 days, followed by probation for a period of 12 months following reinstatement, with conditions of probation to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 4th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Heidi B. Parker, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 2nd Floor 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
