The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), by using unauthorized methods of disciplining a student before allowing the student to visit the school nurse. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating certified teachers in the state. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 416888. Respondent's Florida teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent is employed as a Special Education Teacher at Moore Haven Junior High School (the "school") in the Glades County School District (the "District"). Respondent has a long-standing practice in his classroom of disciplining male students by making them do push-ups and hold books while their arms are extended in front of them. Both practices violate rules and policies of the school and the District. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that discipline by push-ups and holding books violated the policies of the school and the District. The student handbook distributed to each teacher, including Respondent, prescribed the authorized methods of discipline. None of the authorized methods included pushups or holding books. Respondent submitted some evidence that administrators in the school deviated from officially stated policies and rules by condoning unauthorized methods of discipline such as pushups or holding books. However, the evidence submitted by Respondent was less than a preponderance of the evidence and was adequately refuted by evidence submitted by Petitioner. All of the students in Respondent's class are exceptional education students. Each student has an identified disability. Any method of discipline other than that authorized by applicable policies and rules must be clearly stated and authorized in each student's individual education plan ("IEP"). C.W. was an exceptional education student in Respondent's class on February 9, 2000. The IEP for C.W. did not authorize any alternative methods of discipline. During class on February 9, 2000, Respondent approached C.W. because C.W. had his head on his desk during class. Respondent instructed C.W. to do his assignment. C.W. complained that he felt sick and requested to see the school nurse. Respondent and C.W. exchanged brief repartees. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that during the exchange Respondent prevented C.W. from going to the nurse's office. Some witnesses testified that Respondent refused C.W.'s request to go to the nurse's office. Other witnesses in the classroom during the exchange testified that Respondent initially instructed C.W. to go to the nurse's office but that C.W. refused either to go to the nurse's office or to do his assignment. The testimony of all of those witnesses was credible. Because C.W. refused to do his assignment in class, Respondent instructed C.W. to stand at the back of the class with his arms extended in front of him. C.W. complied with Respondent's instruction. Respondent successfully completed the alternative method of discipline that required C.W. to stand at the back of the class. However, Respondent failed to effectuate other unauthorized methods of discipline that Respondent attempted. When Respondent placed books in C.W.'s arms, C.W. did not hold the books in his arms. Rather, C.W. dropped his arms, and the books fell to the floor. When Respondent instructed C.W. to do push-ups, C.W. refused Respondent's instruction. C.W. left Respondent's classroom under his own volition and went to the office of the school nurse. The evidence does not reveal the amount of time that transpired between Respondent's initial instruction for C.W. to stand at the back of the class and the time when C.W. left for the nurse's office. Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to quantify the delay in medical attention. When C.W. arrived at the nurse's office, the school nurse determined that C.W. was feverish, suffered chills, and that his complexion was "splotchy." The nurse telephoned C.W.'s parents. The parents took C.W. home and subsequently to the hospital. The examining physician at the hospital diagnosed C.W. as suffering from mastoiditis. The physician admitted C.W. to the hospital for two days and successfully treated the medical condition. The medical condition represented an exigent threat of harm to C.W.'s physical safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). As previously found, however, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from a medical condition that was harmful to the student's physical safety. Conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent delayed C.W.'s attempt to see the school nurse or the length of any delay allegedly caused by Respondent. C.W. left Respondent's class under his own volition and went directly to the nurse's office. The conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing that any delay between Respondent's initial contact with the student and the student's departure to the school nurse was significant enough that Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to the student's physical safety. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to learning. The methods of discipline attempted by Respondent were harmful to C.W.'s ability to learn, violated C.W.'s IEP, and violated school policy. For the same reasons, Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Administrative staff at the school conducted a full investigation of the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the District issued a written letter of reprimand to Respondent. The letter of reprimand issued by the District is disciplinary action by Respondent's employer. The judicial doctrine of double jeopardy does not preclude disciplinary action by Petitioner against Respondent's license. No evidence shows that Respondent has any prior disciplinary history by either Petitioner or the District. Petitioner seeks to have Respondent's teaching certificate suspended for 12 months. However, Petitioner's proposed penalty is based on the premise that Respondent committed all of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate in Florida for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver & Associates 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1518 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Educational Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl Zahner, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Moses N. Mwaura 214 Tenth Street Post Office Box 856 Moore Haven, Florida 33471
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lake County School Board, has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, teacher Karen Holcomb.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Karen Holcomb is a member of the Lake County Education Association, the collective bargaining unit for teaching personnel. She is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Lake County Education Association (the "CBA"), and holds a professional service contract with the School Board pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.1/ Ms. Holcomb's complete employee file was not presented at the hearing. Performance evaluation documents that were entered into evidence show that she was an employee of the School Board for at least the following periods and in the following capacities: eighth grade math teacher at Eustis Middle School for the 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 school years; guidance counselor at Mount Dora Middle School for the 2005-2006 school year; math teacher at South Lake High School for the 2007-2008 school year; and art teacher at Eustis High for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. The School Board employs a performance evaluation methodology called "Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System" or "IPPAS." The standards for evaluation, the methodology to be used by evaluators, and the documents used in the evaluation of instructional personnel are set forth in the IPPAS Handbook. Article XI of the CBA acknowledges that the IPPAS is the vehicle for the evaluation and assessment of teachers employed by the School Board. Section 7 of Article XI of the CBA provides that an IPPAS Joint Committee composed of an equal number of representatives of the School Board and the Lake County Education Association will coordinate and monitor the development and implementation of the assessment process. Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA states that any teacher in danger of dismissal because of poor performance will be afforded the procedure set forth in section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. This procedure is given the colloquial acronym "NEAT," which stands for: N-- Notice of alleged deficiencies which, if not corrected, would lead to dismissal; E-- Explanation to the teacher of alleged deficiencies and suggestions for correction; A-- Assistance rendered by the administration to correct alleged deficiencies; and T-- Time for alleged deficiencies to be corrected. In accordance with the CBA and the IPPAS Handbook, the School Board evaluates teacher performance using an "Observation/Assessment of Professional Performance Standards" form in a procedure called an "Appraisal I." The Appraisal I is the standard evaluation for teachers employed by the School Board. The Observation/Assessment form contains six sections and 12 subsections. The subsections are further divided into sub-subsections.2/ The evaluator gives the teacher a score of "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in each sub-subsection. The overall evaluation is graded on a 12-point scale, one point for each of the 12 subsections. If the teacher's performance is graded unacceptable in even one sub-subsection, then the teacher receives an unacceptable score for the overall subsection. The only acceptable overall score on the Observation/Assessment form is a perfect 12. If a teacher does not receive an acceptable score in each of the 12 subsections, then the teacher's overall performance is deemed deficient. A deficient Appraisal I results in probationary status for the teachers, triggering the NEAT procedure and further evaluations. When a teacher receives a deficient Appraisal I, the NEAT procedures require that the teacher also receive a Prescription/Assistance Form to outline areas for improvement, recommendations on how to accomplish those improvements, and a time period for a follow-up observation. Finally, the IPPAS contains an evaluation instrument called a "Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience," or "Appraisal II." The Appraisal II is used to document individual instances of deficiency in a teacher's work performance that have been identified outside of the formal evaluation process. The record evidence indicates that Ms. Holcomb received a grade of 12 on her Appraisal I for the 2002-2003 school year, dated February 10, 2003, as a math teacher at Eustis Middle School and on her Appraisal I for the 2005-2006 school year, dated March 1, 2006, as a guidance counselor at Mt. Dora Middle School. On March 21, 2006, Ms. Holcomb received an Appraisal II for her failure to timely update a student's accommodation plan under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. On April 25, 2006, Ms. Holcomb received two Appraisal IIs. One cited Ms. Holcomb for a failure to report to work, stating that she did not inform administration or school site personnel that she would not be at work on April 7, 19, 20, and 21, 2006. The Appraisal II gave Ms. Holcomb until May 24, 2006, to show improvement in notifying her worksite of her absences. In response, Ms. Holcomb submitted an affidavit from her husband stating that on the dates in question, Ms. Holcomb was either sick with a severe headache or in the hospital for cardiac problems. Ms. Holcomb's husband took responsibility for any failure to contact the proper school authorities regarding Ms. Holcomb's absences from work on those dates. The other April 25, 2006, Appraisal II stated that Ms. Holcomb was "not able to perform her job requirements due to excessive absences. The total number of days out as of April 21, 2006 is 31.5 days." The "recommended procedure for correction" was that Ms. Holcomb should "come to work on time and when required by work calendar designated by School Board and school site policy." The Appraisal II gave Ms. Holcomb until May 24, 2006, to show improvement. In response, Ms. Holcomb filed a memorandum explaining that her absences were due to legitimate illness and injury, including a 15-day hospitalization for broken ribs and collarbone, two days missed due to severe headaches, and four days missed due to hospitalization with heart attack symptoms. Ms. Holcomb suggested that the Appraisal II was part of an effort by school administrators "to undermine my current Professional Services Contract with Lake County Public Schools and destroy my reputation, due to an unknown agenda." As noted above, Ms. Holcomb began work as an art teacher at Eustis High during the 2009-2010 school year. On October 27, 2009, she received an Appraisal II from then- assistant principal Kristine Durias due to her classroom management. Ms. Durias explained the unacceptable aspects of Ms. Holcomb's classroom management as follows: I noted on several occasions that students in your classroom were not abiding by District, school and classroom procedures and were without correction from you as their teacher. On my last visit to your classroom on 10/22/09, 3 students had iPods out, 5 students were wandering around the classroom not engaged in the project and 1 student had their head down, all without regard from the teacher. Ms. Durias also provided Ms. Holcomb with a Prescription/Assistance Form setting forth the areas of performance that required improvement and providing resources to assist Ms. Holcomb in bringing her performance level up to the School Board's standards. These resources included page references to the IPPAS Handbook section on "Classroom Management," in-service classes on "Effective Classroom Management Strategies" and "Classroom Management for Secondary Teachers." The Prescription/Assistance Form also stated that Ms. Durias would contact the instructional coach to assist Ms. Holcomb and would ask another staff member to mentor Ms. Holcomb on school policies and procedures. The Prescription/Assistance Form provided that Ms. Holcomb's performance should show improvement "immediately," but also stated that her performance would be checked within three weeks. On November 17, 2009, from 12:40 p.m. until 1:20 p.m., Ms. Durias observed Ms. Holcomb and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Durias gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 10 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in two of the 12 subsections. The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which student are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Durias found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in two sub- subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities." Under the section "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in the subsection titled "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." She was graded as unsatisfactory in four of seven sub-subsections: "Treats concepts/cause and effect/or states and applies rules;" "Uses questioning techniques;" "Recognizes response/amplifies/gives corrective feedback;" and "Directs lesson." At a post-appraisal conference on December 2, 2009, Ms. Durias gave Ms. Holcomb a Prescription/Assistance Form. This form essentially directed Ms. Holcomb to continue with the recommendations set forth in the Prescription/Assistance Form issued on October 27, 2009. Because the November 17, 2009, evaluation resulted in a score that was below the minimum IPPAS requirement of 12, Ms. Durias designated it as an "Observation" rather than a formal Appraisal I that would immediately affect Ms. Holcomb's employment status.3/ In the Prescription/Assistance form, Ms. Durias informed Ms. Holcomb that another IPPAS appraisal would be conducted within three weeks. The appraisal was not conducted within the stated three weeks because Ms. Holcomb was out on sick leave from January 21, 2010, through April 20, 2010. On April 23, 2010, two days after Ms. Holcomb returned to work from her lengthy absence, an Appraisal I of her performance was conducted by assistant principal Marta Ramirez, who joined the staff at Eustis High School in March 2010. Ms. Ramirez testified that it is not at all unusual to evaluate a teacher who has been out of work for a long period of time. Teachers are frequently out on maternity leave or due to illness. Ms. Ramirez stated that the School Board expects every teacher to perform at the level required to pass an IPPAS appraisal whenever she comes to teach, whether it is the first day of school or the first day back from an extended leave. Ms. Ramirez observed Ms. Holcomb from 12:44 p.m. until 1:44 p.m. and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Ramirez gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 8 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in four of the 12 subsections. The section "Teaching Procedures" contains four subsections, one of which is "Displays skills in making assignments." Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in that subsection due to an unsatisfactory score in the sub-subsection titled "Gives clear and explicit directions." The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which student are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in three of the four sub-subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably," "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities," and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors." Under the section "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in both subsections: "Demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the subject matter" and "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." As to the first subsection, Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in one of two sub-subsections, "Sequence is logical." As to the second subsection, she was graded as unsatisfactory in three of seven sub-subsections: "Treats concepts/cause and effect/or states and applies rules;" "Uses questioning techniques;" and "Directs lesson." At the hearing, Ms. Ramirez testified as to her observations of Ms. Holcomb's teaching methods. Ms. Ramirez stated that there is a standard procedure for ensuring a prompt start to the class. Before the students come into the classroom, the teacher writes a "bell ringer" on the blackboard, i.e., an activity that the students are expected to work on while the teacher takes attendance. Ms. Holcomb had no bell ringer activity prepared for her students, who sat down at their tables with nothing to do. The students talked among themselves, a distraction that lengthened the process of taking attendance to six minutes. Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in the areas of starting class promptly and being on task. Ms. Ramirez stated that another standard classroom procedure is the teacher's stating the objective of the day's lesson. Ms. Holcomb stated no objective either orally or in writing. Because there was no stated objective, the lesson did not proceed in a meaningful, orderly fashion. Ms. Holcomb seemed to jump from one thing to another. Some students were confused, looking to Ms. Holcomb and trying to figure out what they were supposed to do. Ms. Ramirez noted that the lack of a set procedure or guidance from the teacher naturally leads the students to lose focus and begin talking among themselves. Ms. Holcomb's students began chatting, which led Ms. Holcomb to attempt disciplinary measures. She began by saying "cut." Ms. Ramirez was not sure what "cut" meant, but surmised that it was Ms. Holcomb's instruction to the students to stop talking. The instruction had no effect on the students. Ms. Ramirez testified that there was still some confusion 20 minutes into the class period. The students still did not understand the assignment. They were blurting out questions such as, "What are we doing?" and "Is this for a grade?" They were asking each other what they were supposed to be doing. At some length, they understood the assignment and began work, though an undercurrent of confusion remained. Ms. Ramirez attributed this undercurrent to Ms. Holcomb's failure to state an objective or purpose to the assignment. Ms. Ramirez was also critical of Ms. Holcomb's interactions with the students. Ms. Ramirez stated that accepted practice is for the teacher to state a single question, wait for a moment, call on a student, and affirm the correct answer. If the answer is incorrect, the teacher provides feedback that steers the class toward the correct answer. Ms. Ramirez testified that Ms. Holcomb allowed the students to shout out answers in a chaotic manner. Ms. Ramirez stated that the class period lasted for 90 minutes, but that she left after an hour because the class "didn't seem to be headed any direction, just headed downhill." The students were not on task and were not learning anything. As a result of the substandard Appraisal I score, Ms. Ramirez completed a Prescription/Assistance Form that she gave to Ms. Holcomb at a post-observation conference on April 29, 2010. Eight areas for improvement were listed, corresponding to the eight sub-subsections for which Ms. Holcomb received unsatisfactory scores on the April 23 Appraisal I. Eight pages of the IPPAS Handbook were attached as reference resources to assist Ms. Holcomb to improve her performance. The Prescription/Assistance Form also provided that an instructional coach would assist Ms. Holcomb in applying best teaching practices and that she could obtain in-service instruction in classroom management. The form also "encouraged" Ms. Holcomb to take staff development workshops provided by Lake County. Also on April 29, 2010, Eustis High principal Al Larry issued a memorandum to Ms. Holcomb advising her of performance deficiencies in the areas of "Teaching Procedures," "Classroom Management," and "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," as reflected in the April 23 Appraisal I. Mr. Larry noted that as to the latter two areas, Ms. Holcomb had shown deficiencies in the observation of November 17, 2009, and that those deficiencies had not been corrected. Mr. Larry's memorandum closed as follows: "Based on the performance deficiencies, I am placing you on performance probation for 90-calendar days beginning on Monday, August 23, 2010. The 90-calendar days will end on Monday, November 22, 2010." By letter dated May 7, 2010, Superintendent of Schools Susan Moxley warned Ms. Holcomb of the consequences of failure to correct her performance deficiencies: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.33, I am writing to inform you that performance deficiencies have been identified by your principal. I understand that your principal has already met with you and made recommendations for improvement. Your principal will provide assistance to help you correct the performance deficiencies during the subsequent school year. Please be advised that your contract with the Lake County Schools District may be terminated without correction of these performance deficiencies. Pursuant to s. 1012.33, you may request to meet with the Superintendent or her designee for an informal review of the determination of unsatisfactory performance. You may also request to be considered for a transfer to another appropriate position under a different supervising administrator for the subsequent school year. Such transfer, however, does not reverse this year's identification of performance deficiencies. Ms. Ramirez testified that she contacted Claude Pennacchia, a former principal who acts as instructional coach for eight schools. Mr. Pinnachia agreed to contact Ms. Holcomb and set up a meeting. Because she called Mr. Pennacchia near the end of the school year, Ms. Ramirez contacted him again at the start of the new school year in August to remind him of the need to provide training to Ms. Holcomb. Mr. Pennacchia told her that he had tried to arrange a meeting with Ms. Holcomb, but they could not agree on a time. Ms. Ramirez testified that to the best of her knowledge Ms. Holcomb never made herself available to meet with Mr. Pennacchia. Ms. Ramirez was not aware that Ms. Holcomb ever did anything that was recommended by the April 29, 2010, Prescription/Assistance Form. Ms. Ramirez testified that Ms. Holcomb was in school for the first two weeks of the 2010-2011 school year, then became ill and was out until sometime in November 2010. The follow-up observation was conducted by Ms. Ramirez on December 1, 2010, after the running of the 90-day probation period. Ms. Ramirez observed Ms. Holcomb from 10:23 a.m. until 11:00 a.m.4/ and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Ramirez gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 7 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in five of the 12 subsections. The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which student are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in two of the four sub- subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities." Under the section "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in one subsection, "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." Within that subsection, Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in two of seven sub- subsections: "Uses questioning techniques" and "Recognizes response/ amplifies/ gives corrective feedback." Under the section "Assessment Techniques," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in the sole subsection, "Uses assessment strategies to assist in the continuous development of the student." Within that subsection, Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in one of four sub-subsections, "Checks student progress based on the performance standards required of students in Florida public schools, analyses data, including annual learning gains at the classroom and school levels, and makes appropriate adjustments." Under the section "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities," Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in one of three subsections, "Engages in continuous professional improvement for self and school." This subsection contained four sub-subsections, in two of which Ms. Holcomb's performance was graded as unsatisfactory: "Demonstrates effective communication in order to establish and maintain a positive, collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement" and "Presents evidence that the Individual Professional Development Plan is in progress." At the hearing, Ms. Ramirez explained that the sections of the Appraisal I document being scrutinized during the observation are "Teaching Procedures," "Classroom Management," and "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter." The sections titled "Planning," "Assessment Techniques," and "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities" are covered in the post-observation conference with the teacher, at which time the teacher shares her portfolio or other evidence of compliance with IPPAS standards with the evaluator. Ms. Ramirez testified that on this occasion Ms. Holcomb had an assignment on the board as the students entered, but that the students still appeared confused. They did not seem to know what they were supposed to be doing. The students continued to talk among themselves even when Ms. Holcomb began a review. Ms. Ramirez noted that Ms. Holcomb was still using "cut" to end the students' conversations, and that it was still being ignored. Ms. Holcomb had posted rules of conduct in her classroom that included raising one's hand and being called on by the teacher before asking a question. Ms. Ramirez testified that this rule was ignored by the students and Ms. Holcomb. The students would blurt out questions, and Ms. Holcomb would answer them. Ms. Ramirez found it highly problematic that Ms. Holcomb was not even attempting to enforce her own rule. Ms. Ramirez noted that students walked into class several minutes after the bell and Ms. Holcomb took no notice. Students walked into the class with food and started eating. Other students simply stood up and walked out of class. Ms. Holcomb did not address any of these misbehaviors. Ms. Ramirez testified that before leaving the classroom, a student is supposed to ask permission, get a pass, and sign out. Ms. Holcomb seemed unaware that students were walking in and out of the classroom while she taught the lesson. Ms. Holcomb's failure to observe the hall pass protocol created a dangerous situation because there was no accountability for these children. They were without adult supervision outside the classroom and could go anywhere or do anything. During cross-examination, Ms. Ramirez was questioned regarding the size and configuration of Ms. Holcomb's classroom in connection with the fact that Ms. Holcomb was using a wheelchair during this period. Counsel was attempting to demonstrate that at least some of the discipline problems were not Ms. Holcomb's fault because the layout of her classroom ensured that she was unable to see all of her students from her position in the wheelchair. Ms. Ramirez acknowledged that Ms. Holcomb's art class was large, between 35 and 40 students, and that Ms. Holcomb had to navigate the room in a wheelchair. However, Ms. Ramirez also testified that being in a wheelchair did not absolve Ms. Holcomb of her responsibility for the safety of the children in her classroom. More than one person in the Eustis High administration had urged Ms. Holcomb to rearrange the tables in her classroom to give herself a clear view of all the students. Ms. Holcomb had been advised to look at the classroom of the art teacher next door for ideas on how to arrange the tables. For some reason, Ms. Holcomb declined to change the configuration of the tables in a way that would curtail the students' ability to essentially hide from her. Ms. Ramirez conducted a post-observation conference with Ms. Holcomb on December 6, 2010. Prior to the conference, Ms. Ramirez spoke to Mr. Larry about the results of the Appraisal I. She told Mr. Larry that Ms. Holcomb had requested that her union representative be present at the conference and that "it doesn't look good" for Ms. Holcomb because she received unsatisfactory scores in two of the same subsections she had failed on the April 23, 2010, Appraisal I. In light of this information, Mr. Larry decided that he would attend the conference as well. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Holcomb submitted written comments that provided as follows, in relevant part: To begin, this is the culmination of Mr. Larry's hostile attitude toward my... appointment to Eustis High School.... Mr. Larry has not spoken one kind word to me since the appointment in August of 2009. Since my appointment to Eustis High School, I have had to work in a hostile environment where Mr. Larry has been using the Florida Statute 1012.34 assessment procedures as a weapon to fire me. Using an assessment procedure where nothing less than perfect is failing, Mr. Larry used his assistant principals to do his bidding where acceptable or unacceptable grades are completely subjective. In other words, the assessment is biased where any teacher that the principal does not like has no chance of passing and there is no supervisory protection or due process afforded to the teacher. . . (Emphasis in original.) Ms. Holcomb also alleged that Mr. Larry "violated the intent of the ninety days rule" for performance probation when he did not extend the time for improvement of her deficiencies in light of her eight-week stay in the hospital. Ms. Holcomb also alleged that Mr. Larry refused her request to move to an open guidance counselor position that would not require her to show classroom management skills. There was no record evidence that Mr. Larry held any grudge against Ms. Holcomb.5/ Ms. Ramirez denied receiving any instruction or direction from Mr. Larry as to her evaluations of Ms. Holcomb's performance as a teacher. There was no record evidence that Ms. Holcomb applied for a guidance counselor position during the period in question. By letter dated December 7, 2010, Mr. Larry informed Superintendent Moxley that Ms. Holcomb had failed to correct her performance deficiencies, that Mr. Larry did not believe Ms. Holcomb capable of correcting those deficiencies, and recommending that Ms. Holcomb's employment be terminated. In a letter to Ms. Holcomb dated December 10, 2010, Superintendent Moxley wrote as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that you have failed to correct your performance deficiencies as identified by your principal. Please be advised that I will recommend to the Board that your employment be terminated as of January 10, 2011. You are entitled, if you so choose, to a due process hearing pursuant to the procedures contained in Florida Statute 1012.34(3)(d)2.b. To exercise your due process rights, you must request a hearing in writing within fifteen (15) days of the date you receive this letter. Your principal will meet with you in the near future to answer any questions you may have. Ms. Holcomb filed a grievance pursuant to School Board Policy 6.35. In light of that grievance, Superintendent Moxley rescinded Ms. Holcomb's termination until such time as Ms. Holcomb could receive a second Appraisal I observation by an administrator from outside Eustis High. June Dalton, the principal of Tavares High School, was selected by chief of curriculum Nancy Velez to conduct the observation. Ms. Dalton began teaching in Lake County in 1978 as a physical education teacher. After teaching for 13 years, Ms. Dalton became an administrator. She has served 14 years as a principal, including eight years at the high school level. Ms. Dalton has been trained in use of the IPPAS Handbook and sat on a committee charged with updating the IPPAS program. She has trained administrators on the IPPAS system. At the time she accepted the assignment from Ms. Velez, Ms. Dalton had never met Ms. Holcomb. Ms Dalton met Ms. Holcomb for the first time at the pre-observation conference on January 11, 2011. They discussed the appraisal form, including every aspect of the observation and the areas on which Ms. Dalton would focus. Ms. Dalton assured Ms. Holcomb that she was there to help her meet the minimum standards in her appraisal. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb had some concerns about the layout of her classroom and asked for her ideas. Ms. Holcomb told Ms. Dalton that she had trouble maintaining order with some of the students in her classroom. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb's classroom was long and narrow, with tables arranged in such a way that at times some students were facing away from the teacher. Ms. Dalton suggested setting the tables end to end along the length of the room, so that Ms. Holcomb could lecture in front and be seen by all of the students. Ms. Dalton stated that when she came to the room for the observation, the tables had not been moved.6/ Ms. Dalton asked to see Ms. Holcomb's individual personal development plan ("IPDP"), a document that all teachers are required to complete that identifies individual goals and objectives designed to promote their personal growth. The teacher is required to state objectives that are feasible and primarily under her control, are measureable and/or observable, and are agreed to and signed by the teacher and her supervisor. Ms. Dalton stated that it is her practice at Tavares High School to review her teachers' IPDPs before their observations. Ms. Holcomb told Ms. Dalton that she had turned in her IPDP to Ms. Ramirez, but that she could not find her copy of the signed document. Ms. Holcomb printed a copy of the IPDP to show to Ms. Dalton. After reviewing the IPDP, Ms. Dalton concluded that it was not a workable plan as written because there was no way that Ms. Holcomb could document the student progress that she intended to bring about. Ms. Dalton gave Ms. Holcomb some suggestions for making her IPDP into an acceptable document. Ms. Holcomb agreed that she would rewrite the IPDP and have it ready for Ms. Dalton at the time of the observation. However, on the day of the observation, Ms. Holcomb told Ms. Dalton that she had not had time to work on it. Through his questioning of Ms. Ramirez, counsel for Ms. Holcomb insinuated that that Ms. Holcomb had turned in an IPDP to Ms. Ramirez in October 2010, but that Ms. Ramirez had lost the IPDP by the time she performed her Appraisal I on December 1, 2010. Ms. Ramirez testified that the first time she ever saw an IPDP from Ms. Holcomb was at the December 6 post- observation conference. The document was handwritten and was missing significant information. Ms. Holcomb had been notified that that the IPDP was part of her Appraisal I and that she needed to bring it to her post-observation conference. Ms. Ramirez gave her an unsatisfactory mark for the incomplete IPDP. The testimony of Ms. Dalton and Ms. Ramirez is credited as to the IPDP. It is apparent that Ms. Holcomb created a typed IPDP at some point between December 6, 2010, and January 11, 2011, but that she never gave it to her supervisor at Eustis High for review and approval. Ms. Holcomb tried to make Ms. Dalton believe that the IPDP she printed at the pre- observation conference on January 11 was an approved, finished product when in fact it was, at best, a draft IPDP. After they finished with the pre-observation conference, Ms. Dalton and Ms. Holcomb discussed dates for the observation. Ms. Holcomb did not want the observation to take place until after semester exams. Ms. Dalton agreed that little would be gained from having her observe Ms. Holcomb as she proctored an exam. They agreed on a date, but Ms. Holcomb was out sick on the scheduled date. After a few reschedulings, the observation took place on February 17, 2011. Ms. Dalton's observation lasted from the time the bell rang at 12:44 p.m. until class was dismissed at 2:14 p.m. Ms. Dalton was in the classroom several minutes before the opening bell. On the Appraisal I form, Ms. Dalton gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 6, rating her unsatisfactory in six of the 12 subsections. The section "Planning" contains a single subsection titled "Plans, implements, and evaluates instruction," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Within that subsection, Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score on one of the four sub-subsections, titled "Develops short and long term personal and professional goals related to instruction as evidenced by an Individual Professional Development Plan." The section "Teaching Procedures" contains four subsections, in two of which Ms. Dalton graded Ms. Holcomb's performance as unsatisfactory. Under the subsection titled "Uses instructional materials effectively," Ms. Holcomb was graded unsatisfactory in the sub-subsection titled "Uses technology in the teaching and learning process." Under the subsection titled "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score in the sub-subsection titled "Attends to student needs." The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which students are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Dalton found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in three of the four sub- subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably," "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities," and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors." Under the section "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities," Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in two of the three subsections. The first subsection, "Engages in continuous professional improvement for self and school," contained four sub-subsections, in two of which Ms. Holcomb's performance was graded as unsatisfactory: "Demonstrates effective communication in order to establish and maintain a positive, collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement" and "Presents evidence that the Individual Professional Development Plan is in progress." The second subsection was titled "Complies with Board rules, policies, contract provisions, and published school-site rules and policies consistent with Board rules and contract provisions" and contained no sub-subsections. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb did not have a bell ringer activity to keep the students engaged while she took attendance. Ms. Holcomb frequently had to stop taking attendance to admonish talkative students. Ms. Dalton stated that Ms. Holcomb was still taking attendance at 12:53, nine minutes after the opening bell. She started entering the attendance into her computer at 12:58, and was not finished with marking attendance until 1:01, seventeen minutes into the class period. Ms. Dalton found it apparent from the start that there was no class routine. The students had to be told what to do at every step of the way. At the end of attendance, Ms. Holcomb explained a journal assignment she had written on the board, but most of the students talked all the way through her explanation and some did not perform the assignment at all. There were no consequences for their misbehavior. Ms. Holcomb held up samples of a project the class had begun in a previous session and was continuing to work on. The students in the middle of the room had a good view of the samples, but the students at the far end of the room had a hard time seeing. Ms. Dalton noted that some students were working on the project and some were not. Some were talking. Students at two different tables were texting or playing with their cell phones. Ms. Dalton stated that Ms. Holcomb frequently stopped to announce that she was waiting for the class to be quiet. She also used a technique called "harsh desist," singling out a student to threaten with removal from class. One such student replied, "Good, get me out of here." Ms. Holcomb called out to Table Five that she was taking away five points for talking, though not everyone at the table was talking. Ms. Dalton heard one of the students at the table say, "Well, it doesn't matter, she doesn't know our names anyway." Ms. Dalton took this statement as a sign that Ms. Holcomb's method of correcting misbehavior was not effective. Ms. Dalton noticed that Ms. Holcomb did not have current class rosters. The rosters and seating charts in her folder were from the previous semester. Ms. Holcomb did not know the names of the students at Table Five and therefore was unable to deduct points from them. Ms. Holcomb told another table that she was awarding it bonus points, but Ms. Dalton wondered how Ms. Holcomb could do that when she did not know the students' names. Ms. Dalton noted that Ms. Holcomb's voice was loud to the point of yelling. Ms. Dalton believed that if Ms. Holcomb would use a quieter voice, then the students who were not being intentionally disruptive might quiet down. Ms. Dalton testified that in her experience students will stop talking if they cannot hear what the teacher is saying. If they can hear the teacher over their own quiet conversation, then they will go on talking. Ms. Dalton stated that Ms. Holcomb had some technology in the classroom but for some reason declined to use it. Ms. Holcomb had a document camera that could have been used to show a document to the entire class. All of the components to the camera appeared to be present, but Ms. Holcomb failed to use it. Ms. Dalton observed three students at one table who did nothing for 35 minutes but draw on their arms, talk, and play with their phones. Finally, Ms. Holcomb addressed two of the students. However, they continued to draw on their arms and not work even when Ms. Holcomb sat next to one of them. Ms. Holcomb gave these students no further corrective feedback. Ms. Holcomb attempted to gain control of the class by threatening detention for the next Tuesday. She stated that if a student receiving a detention became argumentative or disrespectful, she would escalate the discipline to a referral. Ms. Dalton saw Ms. Holcomb's threats as empty because the promised detentions were five days in the future. Ms. Dalton also noted that Ms. Holcomb had not yet contacted the parents of any of the disruptive students. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb did some things well. She worked with some students individually. She gave them feedback. Overall, Ms. Dalton saw a class in which some students were trying to do their work, and in which many other students were talkative, did not seem to care about their work, and did not fear any consequences. Ms. Holcomb's method of dealing with the discipline problem was to make empty threats. Ms. Dalton acknowledged that the score of six was "a bad score." The observation gave her concerns about Ms. Holcomb's ability to teach in a classroom. Ms. Dalton stated, "It was a difficult class to watch." The students who wanted to learn were not getting what they needed because the teacher was spending so much time ineffectively trying to get minor misbehaviors under control. Ms. Dalton testified that the post-observation conference, held on February 18, 2011, was uneventful. She asked Ms. Holcomb whether she had called the parents of the students who were disrupting her class. Ms. Holcomb stated that she intended to commence calling them that evening. From Ms. Holcomb's reply, Ms. Dalton concluded that Ms. Holcomb was not taking charge or involving the parents in getting the misbehaviors under control. On February 22, 2011, Ms. Holcomb submitted her written comments on the evaluation. She again decried the subjectivity of the evaluation criteria and the fact that a perfect score is required for a satisfactory appraisal. She alleged that Eustis High and the School Board were "using the Florida Statute 1012.34 as a tool to fire me because I am a handicapped teacher in a wheelchair." Ms. Holcomb stated that she had turned in her IPDP more than once but that her administrator never signed it. She stated that the document camera did not work properly. She argued that the school had a faulty system for removing disruptive students and that her phone calls to parents had not improved the students' behavior. Ms. Holcomb argued that she could not properly manage the classroom when there were students in the room who did not want to be there but whom Mr. Larry would not permanently remove from her class. Ms. Dalton testified that during the post-observation conference, Ms. Holcomb said nothing about the document camera not working. Ms. Dalton saw only one student who expressed a desire to be out of Ms. Holcomb's classroom. She reiterated her opinion that the disciplinary problem in Ms. Holcomb's classroom was minor but that Ms. Holcomb escalated the problem through her mishandling of the disruptive students. Ms. Dalton saw nothing in Ms. Holcomb's comments that changed her mind about the scores she gave Ms. Holcomb on the Appraisal I. In a letter to Ms. Holcomb dated March 14, 2011, Superintendent Moxley wrote as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.33 and 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that you have failed to correct your performance deficiencies as identified by your principal. Due to the global nature of the identified performance deficiencies, you have demonstrated incompetence and the lack of the qualifications needed to be an effective teacher. Please be advised that I will recommend to the Board that your employment be terminated as of March 28, 2011. You are entitled, if you so choose, to a due process hearing pursuant to the procedures contained in Florida Statute 1012.34(3)(d)2.b. To exercise your due process rights, you must request a hearing in writing within fifteen (15) days of the date you receive this letter. Your principal will meet with you in the near future to answer any questions you may have. Ms. Holcomb timely requested a due process hearing by letter dated March 18, 2011. On the same date, Superintendent Moxley notified Ms. Holcomb in writing that she would recommend that Ms. Holcomb be placed on unpaid suspension at the March 28, 2011, School Board meeting and that the suspension last until the conclusion of the due process proceeding. The first duty of school administrators is to ensure that the children in their charge receive adequate instruction from a qualified, competent teacher. The evidence established that the process followed by School Board personnel in evaluating Ms. Holcomb's performance before and during her probationary period followed the letter of the IPPAS and the CBA, including the NEAT procedure set forth in Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA.7/ The criteria and forms used to evaluate her performance were taken directly from the IPPAS Handbook. At the outset of the final hearing, the School Board announced that it intended to proceed exclusively pursuant to the "just cause" provision of section 1012.33. Therefore, there is no need for extensive findings as to whether the School Board met all of the substantive criteria for teacher dismissal set forth in section 1012.34(3).8/ The issue is whether the School Board has established sufficient grounds for "just cause" termination pursuant to section 1012.33(1). On the sole statutory ground available under the evidence of this case, incompetency, the School Board has met its burden and justified its decision to terminate Respondent's employment. The evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated that the School Board had just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Holcomb for incompetency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional service contract and dismissing Respondent on the ground of incompetency. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 14th day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether to impose sanctions against Respondent, Brooke Braly, up to, and including, revocation of her Educator’s Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for monitoring each person who holds a Florida Educator Certificate and who is working in any school district within the State. Part and parcel of the Commissioner’s duties is the determination of whether any teacher violated any of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. At all times relevant hereto, Ms. Braly held Florida Educator Certificate No. 1106771, covering the areas of elementary education and English for speakers of other languages. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2021. Ms. Braly is employed as a teacher in the Volusia County School System, teaching at the School in the area of Modified ESE with Varying Exceptionalities. Her students were those with physical and/or mental disabilities which resulted in learning difficulties. Ms. Braly had served in that position for seven years as of the date of final hearing, including the 2017-2018 school year. An incident occurred at the School on December 5, 2016, i.e., the 2016-2017 school year, involving the Student. Based on that incident, the Commissioner issued an Administrative Complaint on November 21, 2017 (some 10 months later), which contained the following allegations: On or about December 5, 2017, [Ms. Braly] failed to notify school administrators after she confiscated a BB gun from a student at the beginning of the school day. [Ms. Braly] also failed to properly secure the BB gun to prevent the student from regaining possession of it while still on school property. The Salient Facts From the evidence presented, it is clear that on December 5, 2016, the Student approached Ms. Braly at the beginning of the school day. The Student told Ms. Braly that he had inadvertently failed to remove his BB/airsoft pistol from his backpack before leaving for school that morning. He asked her what he should do, and Ms. Braly took the gun from him to secure it for the day. At no time was she worried that the Student had intentions of using the BB gun or that it was a serious problem. In fact, Ms. Braly did not even believe it was a BB gun, but thought it was a plastic toy gun. At the end of the day, the Student took the gun home with him. As the Student was exiting the school bus at his stop that afternoon, another student sitting on the bus saw the BB gun, which the Student had stuck into his waistband under his shirt. The Student’s shirt was lifted for some reason and the other student spotted the gun. That student went home and immediately sent an email to several School administrators to report what he had seen. The administrators reviewed surveillance videos from the bus and identified the Student as the person carrying the gun. An investigation ensued and the Administrative Complaint was filed. The less clear and/or less persuasive “facts” of this case are set forth below. The Gun The Commissioner presented a picture of a BB gun at final hearing which was purported to be the same gun Ms. Braly had confiscated from the Student on December 5, 2016. The black and white picture shows a replica Smith & Wesson handgun of small to average size. Ms. Braly says that the gun depicted in the picture is not the gun she took from the Student. The Student’s father brought a handgun to final hearing that he said was the gun at issue. It was plastic, lightweight, and tan and black in color. There was a clip (presumably for holding BBs) that could slide into the handle of the gun. The father demonstrated how to insert the clip and how to “cock” the gun by sliding back the top portion. That action would engage a spring that would release once the trigger was pulled, i.e., it was a spring-fired pistol, not a recoil action weapon. According to the Student, the gun fired plastic pellets rather than BBs. Ms. Braly, who only saw the gun for a few moments on the morning of December 5, 2016, remembers it to be black with an orange tip, unlike the gun produced at final hearing. At some point, the Student was asked to identify the gun from a picture depicting several different handguns. The Student pointed out to an investigator which of the depicted guns looked most like his BB pistol. The photographic line-up was not offered or admitted into evidence, so no finding is made as to what it may have shown, vis-à-vis what the gun looked like. At the final hearing, the Student’s father acknowledged that he had previously told School administrators he had destroyed his son’s gun back in December when the event occurred. The gun he produced at final hearing was obviously not destroyed; in fact, it looked very new and barely used. The Student said the gun produced at hearing was the same gun he gave to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016. Mr. Starin, an investigator for the Volusia County School District, was tasked with looking into the incident. He did not speak to the Student’s parents nor did he attempt to locate the gun (other than having the Student identify what the gun looked like from the pictorial lineup). The most persuasive evidence is that the gun given to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016, was the same as or similar to the one depicted in the Commissioner’s exhibit and proffered at final hearing. It was very light and obviously a toy, but was designed to resemble a real gun. Though it looked somewhat like a real weapon from afar, it is hard to believe anyone who held the gun or saw it up close would think it real or capable of causing serious harm to a person. December 5, 2016 As the Student was walking to his bus stop, he told his sister he had forgotten to remove the BB gun from his backpack after carrying it with him to the park the night before. His sister advised the Student to give the gun to his teacher so as not to get in trouble at school. Upon arrival at the School, the Student immediately approached Ms. Braly, who he trusted and believed would help him do what was most appropriate in this situation. When no other students were nearby, the Student told her about the gun. Ms. Braly took the gun and placed it in her office in a desk drawer. The Student remembers her placing the gun in a cardboard soda can box. Ms. Braly remembers just placing it in a desk drawer. It is patently obvious by his actions that the Student had no intentions of displaying the gun at school for any purpose. He very intentionally tried to diffuse any danger or unease that might have arisen due to his mistake. Ms. Braly took the Student’s actions and demeanor into account when deciding what to do. Ms. Braly thought the toy gun would be safe in her locked office as that was where she kept her purse and car keys during the school day. Normally no one had access to the office during the day, except that construction was going on and some of the workers did have access to the office. Ms. Braly did not consider those workers a threat to steal anything or to rifle through her desk during the day. She also did not consider the toy gun worthy of anyone’s interest. She believed her response to the situation was reasonable, based on all the circumstances and her knowledge of the Student. At the end of the day, the Student retrieved the gun. How that occurred is not entirely clear from the evidence. The Student says that he asked Ms. Braly at the end of the day if he could get his gun. She was very busy at the time and just told him, “yes,” so he went into the office and retrieved it. He remembers Ms. Braly telling him to put it in his backpack so that no one else would see it. He did so, but then transferred it to his waistband later. An ESE co-teacher with Ms. Braly remembers Ms. Braly being completely absorbed in the preparation of an Individual Education Plan for another student that afternoon. The co-teacher had instructed students not to bother Ms. Braly and does not remember the Student or anyone else talking to Ms. Braly that afternoon. Ms. Braly does not remember being asked by the Student whether he could get his gun from the office. She simply did not even think about the gun after acquiring it that morning. To her, the gun was a toy and did not warrant much attention. Sometime the next day, she realized the gun was gone and surmised that the construction workers must have left the door open so that the Student was able to get his gun. She did not explain why she thought the Student – rather than the workers – had taken the gun from her office. At any rate, the Student retrieved his gun before he left for home. As he was exiting the school bus, the other student noticed the gun in his waistband and notified School administrators. That action is very understandable considering the school shootings across the nation in recent times. December 6, 2016 Once the school administrators got word about the gun and identified the Student, they contacted Ms. Braly. The School resource officer, Deputy Abato, went to Ms. Braly’s class and asked to talk to her. They went into her office, away from the students, and she was asked about the gun. The conversation lasted only a few moments. Deputy Abato was only concerned with whether the gun was real or not. Convinced it was not, he did not pursue the matter. Later, Ms. Braly was asked by assistant principal Feltner to write a statement concerning the incident. Her statement reiterated what had happened, i.e., the Student showed her the gun, she identified it as a toy and placed it in her office, and the Student later retrieved it. Again, how she knew that the Student retrieved the gun rather than someone else getting it is not clear. Deputy Abato’s statement from that same day mirrored Ms. Braly’s statement. Deputy Abato said that if a student pulled a gun on him that looked like the one in the picture offered into evidence, he would order the student to put the gun down. If they did not do so, he would likely shoot them. Whether the gun the Student had was like the picture is not clearly established in the record. The best evidence is that the gun could have looked like that, but even that evidence is neither clear nor convincing. The gist of the Commissioner’s argument in this case is that: IF an armed deputy saw the Student with the gun, and IF the deputy ordered him to put it down, BUT the student did not immediately comply, THEN the deputy MIGHT be inclined to fire on the student. Though completely plausible in general terms, that eventuality seems very unlikely under the facts of this case. Later Developments On December 15, 2016, Investigator Starin issued an “Investigative Summary” describing his findings after conducting a brief investigation. The report did little more than recite what other people had said. Mr. Starin concluded that the Student brought the gun to school, gave it to his teacher, and retrieved it at the end of the day. The summary provides little substantive information and makes no recommendation or assertion of wrongdoing by Ms. Braly. The investigator only talked to three people as part of his minimal investigation into the incident on December 5, 2016: Ms. Braly; Deputy Abato, who had only secondhand knowledge; and the Student. It is remarkable that Mr. Starin did not interview Ms. Braly’s co-teacher or her paraprofessional, both of whom were in the classroom that day, or the Student’s parents. The overall level of the investigation is consistent with the degree of seriousness of the events. That is, there was a slight breach of protocol, but no probability of harm to the Student or others at the School. The Board decided that the incident nonetheless warranted some discipline. The School Board notified Ms. Braly that a letter of reprimand would be issued and she would be suspended for three days without pay. Although this was a fairly low level of discipline, Ms. Braly has challenged it; the matter is currently in arbitration. Notwithstanding the discipline imposed, the Board has re-hired Ms. Braly for the 2018-2019 school year in the same position she has held for the past seven years. In fact, she has continued teaching at the School since the December 5, 2016, incident. She is an effective teacher and has not had any other disciplinary actions against her, and the School recognizes her as an effective ESE teacher. The Commissioner also seeks to discipline Ms. Braly, noting that she failed to report the incident and did not adequately secure the toy gun. Both of these allegations are true, whether they violate any particular policy or not. The Commissioner proposes a letter of reprimand, suspension of Ms. Braly’s Educator Certificate for six months, and two years of probation. However, based on the best evidence available, Ms. Braly’s conduct was both reasonable and essentially benign. If any sanction against Ms. Braly was warranted, it should be minimal at worst.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Brooke Braly, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of August, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (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) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County as a classroom teacher. During the 1980-1981 school year, Respondent was assigned to Southwood Junior High School as a science teacher. During that school year, Dr. E. L. Burck was the principal at Southwood. In August, 1980, Respondent applied for a part-time position teaching photography during the evenings at Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute. When Dr. John D. White, the vice principal at Robert Morgan, hired Respondent, he explained to Respondent that it would be necessary for Respondent to qualify for a teaching certificate in the area of photography. Respondent told White that he believed he was certifiable based upon his work experience and indicated to White that he would pursue the necessary steps to obtain his certification. At the time that White hired Respondent to teach part-time during the fall 1950 semester, White knew that Respondent was employed full-time at Southwood. During the fall 1980 semester, the administrators at Robert Morgan determined they wished a full-time program at Robert Morgan and decided that if enough students would be generated, they would need a full-time photography teacher in January, 1981. The possibility of a full-time position was discussed with Respondent. Respondent decided that if he could obtain a full-time position at Robert Morgan in January, he would pursue obtaining certification; however, if he could not obtain a full-time position, he would not pursue obtaining certification since it was difficult to teach full-time at Southwood in addition to part-time at Robert Morgan. During December, 1980, while enrollment was underway at Robert Morgan and it appeared probable that a full-time photography position would become available, Respondent spoke with Dr. Burck at Southwood regarding the possibility of transferring to Robert Morgan on a full-time basis beginning January 5, 1981, the first day of classes following the Christmas, 1980, vacation. Burck explained to Respondent the procedures relating to such a transfer of assignment and further explained that he needed to have definite information as soon as a final decision had been made so that he could initiate procedures for obtaining a teacher to replace Respondent. Just prior to Christmas vacation, Dr. White (as the potential "receiving principal") and Dr. Burck (as the potential "sending principal") discussed the possibility of the full-time photography class and the possibility of Respondent's transfer to Robert Morgan to teach that class. White explained that he did not yet know if the full-time class would materialize but that he would give Burck two weeks' notice in order that Burck could find a replacement teacher. Burck conveyed to Respondent the content of this conversation and advised Respondent that until such time as the class materialized and Respondent was replaced at Southwood, Respondent was still a staff member at Southwood and Burck expected to see him on January 5, 1981. Respondent did not report for work at Southwood on Monday, January 5, 1981, and failed to advise anyone at Southwood that he did not intend to return to teach his classes. Burck and another employee of Southwood attempted to locate Respondent. On January 6, 1981, White ascertained that there was sufficient enrollment for the full-time photography teacher's position at Robert Morgan. He instructed an employee at Robert Morgan to process the necessary paperwork to hire Respondent full-time. It was discovered that Respondent did not have, nor had he applied for, his vocational certificate covering the field of photography. Since White had told Respondent in August, 1980, to obtain certification and Respondent had apparently done nothing to do so, White gave to Respondent a deadline of Friday, January 9, 1981, to obtain verification of his ability to secure the proper teaching certificate. Also on January 6, 1981, White and Burck discussed Respondent's employment. White advised Burck that Respondent was teaching part-time at Robert Morgan and that there appeared to be a problem with Respondent's certification. Burck then talked with Respondent, and Respondent told Burck that he was teaching at Robert Morgan as a full-time instructor and that the certification problem would be resolved shortly. Burck told Respondent he needed an immediate resolution because Respondent's students at Southwood were without a regular teacher. Burck reminded Respondent that Respondent's assignment was at Southwood and that no transfer had been officially requested or granted. Burck contacted Dr. Thomas Peeler, South Area Director, and requested Dr. Peeler's assistance in resolving Respondent's status. On January 7, 1981, Dr. Peeler contacted White at Robert Morgan and advised White that Respondent was not reporting to work at Southwood. White had assumed that Respondent was reporting to his assigned school. Peeler instructed White to advise Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood the following day. On January 7, White told Respondent to report to Southwood the following day. On January 8, White again advised Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood. On January 9, White released Respondent from his part-time teaching assignment at Robert Morgan since Respondent had not achieved either obtaining the required certification or obtaining verification that he was in fact certifiable. Also on January 9, Burck contacted Respondent and advised Respondent that he had not been transferred and was still assigned to Southwood. On Monday, January 12, 1981, Dr. Peeler, the South Area Director, ordered Respondent to report to his teaching position at Southwood on Tuesday, January 13. Later that same day, Dr. Burck ordered Respondent to return to work on the 13th. Respondent told Dr. Burck that he would not return to work. On January 13, Dr. Peeler wrote Respondent, ordering him again to immediately report to his teaching assignment at Southwood. Peeler advised Respondent that his failure to report could result in suspension. In view of Respondent's continued refusal to obey orders, and in view of Respondent's advice to Burck the evening of January 12 that he would not report to Southwood to fulfill his teaching duties, a replacement teacher was located to fill Respondent's position as a science teacher at Southwood. Between January 5, 1981, and January 30, 1981, Respondent did not report to his assigned teaching position despite repeated orders from his superiors, Respondent knew that his place of employment had not been changed, and Respondent was absent from his teaching duties without leave. On January 30, 1981, a conference was held among Mr. Eldridge Williams, the Executive Director of the Office of Personnel for the Dade County Public Schools, Dr. Thomas Peeler, the South Area Director, and Respondent to discuss Respondent's repeated failure to report to work and Respondent's employment status. At that meeting, Respondent offered to return to work at Southwood on February 2, 1981; however, his position had been filled. Insofar as payroll status, Respondent was classified as absent without leave. No alternate position was available for placement of Respondent through the remainder of the 1980-1981 school year. On March 9, 1981, Patrick Gray, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Personnel, wrote Respondent regarding the south area supervisor's recommendation that Respondent be suspended or dismissed from employment. Gray's letter ordered Respondent to immediately return to Southwood or to resign or to retire in order that his employment status could be resolved. At the time he wrote that letter, Gray was not aware that Respondent's position at Southwood had been filled. In response to his letter of March 9, Gray received a letter from Respondent dated March 16, 1981, requesting another conference. A second conference between Respondent and Eldridge Williams was scheduled for April 2, but Respondent refused to meet with only Williams. Accordingly, a conference was scheduled for April 17, 1981, with Patrick Gray, Eldridge Williams, Dr. Peeler and Respondent. As a result of that conference, Respondent submitted a leave request dated April 22, 1981, requesting leave for the period of April 27, 1981, through the end of the school year in June, 1981. This request for leave was approved by Gray on August 7, 1981, retroactive for the period requested. A formal letter of reprimand dated October 13, 1981, was issued to Respondent as a result of his insubordination in refusing to report as ordered to Southwood Junior High School. During the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent was assigned to Redland Junior High School as a science teacher. Utilizing proper procedures, Respondent was absent on September 16, September 28, October 6, October 22, October 23, October 26, October 27, October 28, October 29, October 30, November 2, November 3, November 4 and November 5, 1981. On September 28 and October 6, Respondent utilized personal leave. On the other 12 days, he utilized sick leave. On November 5, 1981, Respondent advised Judy Cobb, Assistant Principal at Redland Junior High School, that he was looking for another job. Cobb advised Norman Lindeblad, Principal of Redland Junior High School, of this conversation with Respondent. On Friday, November 6, 1981, Respondent advised Lindeblad that he would not be returning to his teaching assignment at Redland Junior High School. Respondent told Lindeblad to fill Respondent's teaching position, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that he could not do so without receiving such directive in writing. Lindeblad advised Respondent that he expected Respondent to report to his teaching position on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, absent some other resolution of the problem such as approved personal leave or resignation. Late in the evening on November 9, 1981, Respondent telephoned Lindeblad at home and advised Lindeblad that he would not report on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, to teach his classes. On Tuesday, November 10, 1981, Respondent once again advised Lindeblad that he would not return to his teaching position at Redland. Respondent scheduled an appointment with Lindeblad on November 11 to finally resolve his status, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that unless verification of illness was provided, Lindeblad would commence recording Respondent's leave as leave without pay beginning on Friday, November 6, 1981. On November 11, 1981, Respondent appeared at Redland Junior High School and gave to Lindeblad a memorandum authorizing Lindeblad to replace Respondent in his science teaching position as of Wednesday, November 11, 1981. On November 16, 1981, the personnel office received an application for leave without pay from Respondent, which application was dated November 11, 1981, and which application requested leave effective November 11, 1981, due to Respondent's ill health. The portion of the application for leave requiring the signature and recommendation of the principal was not completed. Although the application required a statement from a physician justifying the request if the request were based upon ill health, Respondent provided only a short letter signed by a therapist possessing a degree in education stating that Respondent felt stress and frustration. No information regarding any physical symptoms, diagnosis or prognosis was volunteered. Since proper procedures require the principal's recommendation for extended leave, Lindeblad was asked to provide his recommendation to the personnel office. On November 18, 1981, Lindeblad sent a memorandum to the Office of Personnel stating that he did not recommend approval of leave for Respondent since no statement from a physician had been provided to verify Respondent's alleged ill health and because Lindeblad felt that the Respondent had begun unauthorized leave before he even requested leave. On November 19, 1981, Patrick Gray advised Respondent that Respondent's request for leave was not approved. Respondent was further advised that since he refused to carry out his teaching assignments for the second year in a row and since Respondent was simply attempting to obtain a teaching position in an area for which he was not certified and could not be certified, then Respondent's options were limited to either resignation or suffering suspension and dismissal proceedings. Respondent did not resign, and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Respondent was absent in accordance with proper procedures for the 14 days ending on November 5, 1981, as set forth in Paragraph numbered 24. Commencing on November 6, 1981, Respondent was absent without leave. Although Respondent eventually obtained verification of his work experience for the addition of photography to his teaching certificate, as of October 1, 1981, Respondent was still not certifiable for the reason that he still needed three full years of teaching experience and 14 semester hours of credit in vocational education courses. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Respondent had still not obtained a teaching certificate enabling him to teach photography.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, incompetency, willful neglect of duty and absence without leave; dismissing Respondent from employment by the School Board of Dade County; and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 21st day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Robert F. McKee, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Lindsay Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against each Respondent; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to these cases, the School Board was the duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Martin, Cantu, and Barcena, are U.S. Army retirees. At all times material to this matter, Martin held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 582838, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program. At all times material to this matter, Cantu held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 620107, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach JROTC. At all times material to this matter, Barcena held a Florida temporary teaching certificate, No. 569030, and was certified by the U.S. Army to teach JROTC. At all times material to the allegations set forth in the Notices of Specific Charges, Respondents were employed as annual contract teachers for the JROTC program at Miami Jackson Senior High School (Miami Jackson), a Dade County public school. Barcena was employed as the Senior Army Instructor (SAI). Martin and Cantu were employed as Assistant Army Instructors. At all times material to these cases, the Faculty Handbook for Miami Jackson contained, in pertinent part, the following provisions related to school field trips: All personnel involved with submitting or approving field trip requests must follow the rules, regulations, and procedures listed below. The listed procedures will indicate the responsibilities of the sponsor, the principal, and the area superintendent. * * * The following procedures for all out-of state, and out-of-county field trips are categorized as sponsor, principal, and area superintendent responsibilities. Sponsor's Responsibilities Request permission from the principal to conduct a field trip before initiating the planning stages. * * * 3. Present periodic progress reports to the principal, or designee, during the procedural process. * * * FIELD TRIPS Trips for students are permitted which have value in meeting educational objectives and are directly related to the curriculum or are necessary to the fulfillment of obligations to the interscholastic athletic and activity programs. * * * Provisions must be made for the proper supervision of students by school employees. Parents are permitted to assist in such supervision. Permission for students to participate in all events listed on the Florida High School Activities Association calendar and in all regularly scheduled interscholastic events within the State may be granted by the principal. Requests for student groups other than indicated above to leave the county for events with-in the state shall be directed to the area superintendent for approval or disapproval. * * * It is important that all school requirements be met when field trips are to be made. If you plan a field trip please follow these procedures: Determine if the field trip is the most efficient type of learning experience. Discuss tentative plans with department head or sponsor and Assistant Principal for Curriculum. Secure three forms from the Activities Director's office * * * Complete FT-1 "Field Trip Information" and have approved by the Assistant Principal for Curriculum. * * * The teacher makes a memo (listing students alphabetically, giving grade and section) and gives it to the Activities Director three days before the trip. * * * 10. When private cars are used to transport students, the driver must be an adult. On February 26, 1986, Martin executed a Disposition Form (DF) which was addressed to the Commander, HHB, 227th Field Arty. Bde. The purpose of this document was to request, on behalf of the Miami Jackson JROTC, permission to use the Snake Creek Launch area (Snake Creek) for adventure training during the weekend of April 4-6, 1986. Martin specified that the type of training would be "Lecture/Patroling" and that he was the "Authorized Officials incharge." Snake Creek is a military training area controlled by the Florida National Guard and located in Broward County, Florida. Prior to submitting the DF described in paragraph 8, Martin had not complied with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On September 18, 1986, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates October 24-26, 1986. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On February 19, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates February 27-March 1, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On May 4, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates May 15-17, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On May 6, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates May 29-June 1, 1987. Prior to submitting this DF, Martin did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph 7. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On September 22, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates October 15-18, 1987. This request also specified that the intended use of the facility was for "adventure training" and the type of training would be "Lecture/Patroling." Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On December 3, 1987, Martin executed a DF which requested the use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the dates December 18-23, 1987. Again, this request specified that "adventure training" was the intended use. Since this proposed trip was a school field trip, the documentation and procedures related to field trips should have been followed. On each occasion that Martin executed a DF, it was intended that students enrolled in the Miami Jackson JROTC program would go to the Snake Creek facility, camp together, and engage in military training. Not all of the campouts were taken. With the exception of the campout of December 1987, Martin attended, at least for part of the time, all of the campouts which were taken. On all of the campouts, some of the students wore fatigue uniforms which had been issued from the Miami Jackson JROTC. During the campout of December 1987, one of the Miami Jackson JROTC students was injured slightly as a result of a BB gun shooting. Thereafter, Barcena (who was aware of the field trips) decided that there should be no more Snake Creek trips. This decision was not effectively communicated to the assistant instructors nor were the student leaders who planned the outings told the trips would not be sanctioned. For each of the Snake Creek trips taken, student leaders of the Miami Jackson JROTC planned the activity, typed the DF request forms, collected monies from the students for groceries and supplies, and arranged private transportation for the students who required rides to the facility. Monies were collected on school grounds and planning conferences regarding the trips were conducted during school hours in the JROTC rooms. A rake and a broom belonging to Miami Jackson JROTC were taken on the trips. Martin attended several of the Snake Creek trips. On each trip he attended, Martin was the only adult/teacher/parent who attended. Martin did not remain with the students the entire time but would leave for brief periods (one to two hours) to go home, shower, and change clothes. During these absences, no adult/teacher/parent was in attendance. Cantu's employment with the Miami Jackson JROTC began in October 1987. Cantu attended the December 1987, Snake Creek trip for approximately four hours on Saturday. Martin did not attend this trip. Barcena attended the December 1987, trip for approximately one hour on Sunday. All teachers are required to attend a preschool conference during which the teacher handbook is discussed. Cantu was not present during the 1987/88 preschool conference (he had not been hired) but was required to attend the preschool conference for the 1988/89 school year. Martin and Barcena were required to attend the preschool conferences for all years material to the allegations of the Specific Notices of Charges. Barcena, as department head for the JROTC unit, had a copy of the teacher handbook and other regulations in the JROTC office. As department head, Barcena had knowledge of and had utilized the field trips provisions. On September 8, 1988, Cantu executed a DF which requested use of Snake Creek for the Miami Jackson JROTC for the period September 9-12, 1988. While this form indicated Martin would be the "Authorized Official Incharge," Cantu knew that Martin was not going to attend the trip. In fact, none of the Miami Jackson JROTC instructors were to attend this particular trip. Cantu did not have Martin's permission to sign the form for him. Unfortunately, during the September 1988 Snake Creek outing one of the students drowned. This drowning precipitated the investigation into the trips to Snake Creek and the subsequent disciplinary action against the Respondents. Effective October 19, 1988, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Martin and Cantu. Effective November 2, 1988, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Barcena. On or about March 31, 1989, the U.S. Army withdrew the instructor certifications issued to Respondents. Effective that date they were to "disassociate" from the JROTC program. Consequently, effective that date they were no longer eligible for employment at Miami Jackson as JROTC instructors. The employment agreement between JROTC instructors and the School Board provided, in pertinent part: 4. RELATIONSHIPS * * * e. Professional standards which apply to other instructional personnel also apply to ROTC Instructors. These include but are not limited to: -preparation of lesson plans -maintenance of daily attendance records -maintenance of grading records and student work files -attendance at faculty meetings -attendance at parent conferences when applicable -compliance with State, District, and school administrations rules, regulations, policies and procedures * * * JOB DESCRIPTION A ROTC Instructor is responsible for: * * * -planning, conducting, and supervising field trips and similar cocurricular activities. Prior to his employment, Cantu was not trained to teach either grade or high school. Prior to the September 1988, trip to Snake Creek, Cantu had not reviewed the faculty handbook for Miami Jackson. The procedure for obtaining the Snake Creek facility was established before Cantu became employed at Miami Jackson. Barcena was aware the students were using Snake Creek for weekend field trips. Cantu signed the DF for the September 1988, trip because he believed the students would go to the Everglades camping if Snake Creek were not provided. Cantu considered Snake Creek a safer alternative. Cantu did not discuss the DF with either Martin (who had refused to sign the form for the students) or Barcena. Cantu believed the trip did not require further authorization. Martin refused to sign the DF for the September 1988, trip because he was not able to attend and supervise the trip. On August 26, 1988, Barcena received a Letter of Reprimand for conduct unbecoming an employee. For a trip conducted on October 30, 1987, Barcena, as department head, executed a "Request for Trip Away" form in connection with a JROTC trip during school periods 6 and 7. For a trip conducted on December 16, 1987, Barcena, as department head, executed a "Request for Trip Away" form in connection with a field trip to the Port of Miami. The JROTC class missed school periods 2 through 6. Although aware of field trip procedures, Barcena did not advise either Cantu or Martin that they were required to follow the faculty handbook regarding field trips for the Snake Creek outings. As a result of his failure to follow school rules and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Martin's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. As a result of his failure to follow school rules and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Cantu's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. As a result of his failure to follow school rules, failure to assure those subordinate to him followed rules, and failure to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their health, Respondent Barcena's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5637 finding Respondent Martin guilty of misconduct and suspending him from employment through March 31, 1989. That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5639 finding Respondent Cantu guilty of misconduct and suspending him from employment through March 31, 1989. That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order in case No. 88- 5832 finding Respondent Barcena guilty of misconduct and incompetency and dismissing him from employment for just cause. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 88-5637, 88-5639, AND 88-5832 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraphs 5-7 are accepted to the extent specified in the findings of fact regarding Respondents' knowledge of the faculty handbook; otherwise they are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 8 through 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted as supported by the record but is irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the conclusions reached in these cases. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are accepted. To the extent paragraph 14 set forth Barcena's obligation as SAI, it is accepted; otherwise rejected as the paragraph is unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraphs 15 through 18 are accepted. To the extent that Cantu was told of the handbook's location within the JROTC office paragraph 19 is accepted. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected. Barcena should have, but did not, make Cantu aware of the handbook requirements. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as multiple facts which may, in part, be accurate but which as set forth are not. See findings in paragraphs 8, 17, 18, 19, 20 for those facts which are relevant to these proceedings. The second, sixth, and eighth sentences of paragraph 26 are rejected as irrelevant, or as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is accepted. Paragraph 29 is accepted. Except as provided in findings of fact paragraphs 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is accepted. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence, argument or irrelevant and immaterial to the specific charges filed in Martin's case. Paragraph 33 is accepted to the extent that Barcena knew of the December trip and that no forms were properly completed; otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. That both Barcena and Cantu took time to attend the field trip (albeit on an all too limited basis) indicates that they were aware that the students required some supervision from them and, that Martin would not be there. Paragraph 35 is rejected to the extent that it is a recitation of testimony. See comment to paragraph 34. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 and 38 are rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment on testimony. See findings of fact paragraph 18. Paragraphs 40-42 are accepted. With the clarification that the distances between the principals is not clear from the record (but that all were present), paragraph 43 is accepted. It should be noted that Barcena's testimony regarding his whereabouts during this time has not been deemed credible. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are accepted. Paragraph 46 is rejected as comment or argument. See comment to paragraph 43. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 49, to the extent that the National Guard believed the request was from the Miami Jackson JROTC, it is accepted; as stated in the recommended order since Martin and Cantu did not wilfully intend to violate the rules they did not purposefully mislead the National Guard. Their acts and omissions were out of ignorance and indifference. In these instances, they should have acted differently. Paragraph 50 is accepted to the extent that the instructor filling out the form should have supervised the trip; otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 51, see findings of fact paragraphs 38,39,40; otherwise, rejected as argument, or comment. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 57, the first and last sentences are accepted; the balance is rejected as argument. Paragraph 58 is accepted to the extent that Martin violated policies by not following the field trip procedures but Martin did not continuously refuse to follow the rules because he did not know they applied. Martin's error in judgment was not seeking assistance from others and ignoring the dangerous potential to the students (both of which he should have recognized). Otherwise, paragraph 58 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is accepted. To the extent that paragraph 60 recites the reprimand it is accepted. The comments otherwise are reject as argument, irrelevant or unnecessary to these proceedings. Paragraph 61 is accepted. Paragraphs 62 and 63 are accepted. To the extent that it states the U.S. Army decertified these instructors effective March 31, 1989, paragraph 64 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 65 is accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT MARTIN'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted to the extent that the trips always occurred on the weekends; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 5, Martin should have been aware of the contents of the handbook, therefore knowledge of it is expected. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent that it includes language from the handbook. Paragraph 7 is accepted but is irrelevant to these proceedings. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 9 is accepted; Barcena, as department head, should have assisted Martin and instructed him to follow the guidelines or should have sought approval for not following the guidelines. The first phrase of paragraph 10 is accepted; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant, argument, or comment. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is accepted. As stated, Martin acted out of ignorance of the regulations, but should, as a competent instructor, been aware of the requirements, or should have personally inquired regarding the requirements, or should have taken reasonable steps to assure the proper supervision and safety of the students who, but for the acts of instructors at Miami Jackson JROTC, could not have gone to Snake Creek to practice/train. Paragraph 14 is accepted; however, Martin's action do warrant a suspension as recommended. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT CANTU'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. It is not, however, conceded that the procedure which had been used was correct, or that Cantu did not have an obligation to inquire further before signing the DF for the September, 1988, trip. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are accepted but do not excuse Cantu's lack of judgment or violation of the school policies. Paragraph 17 is rejected to the extent that Cantu did not complete teaching training and did not receive a personal copy of the handbook, however, he was present during preschool conference, did have access to a handbook, and should have sought guidance before signing the DF. The first sentence of paragraph 18 is accepted otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE RESPONDENT BARCENA'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; Barcena's role at the Miami Jackson JROTC was as SAI not as an Army Lieutenant Colonel. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and argument. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Albert L. Carricarte 2491 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 George Knox 4770 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1460 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent should be subject to discipline as a result of the violations of section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2020). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2020). Stipulated Facts Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 766965, covering the areas of Educational Leadership, Elementary Education, and School Principal, which is valid through June 30, 2023. During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent was employed as a Principal at GES in the LCSD, where he had been employed since 2008. During the 2017-2018 school year, Brooke Jahn (now Brooke Solz) was employed as a classroom teacher at GES, and, therefore, under the Respondent’s supervision. Ms. Jahn was married to a LCSD employee assigned to another school. Ms. Jahn was an adult during all times material to this complaint. On June 11 and 12, 2018, Respondent and Ms. Jahn attended the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute hosted by the Florida Department of Education at the Innisbrook Resort & Golf Club in Palm Harbor, Florida. On or about July 11, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested a transfer from GES to another school within the LCSD. On or about July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to LCSD Superintendent Rocky Hanna that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Jahn. On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Respondent on administrative leave with pay pending the pending the outcome of an investigation. On August 31, 2018, Leon County Schools Superintendent Rocky Hanna issued Respondent a letter of reprimand. On August 31, 2018, Mr. Solz was reassigned to the LCSD Department of Teaching and Learning, effective September 4, 2018. On September 17, 2018, Professional Practices Chief John Hunkiar reported Mr. Solz to the Office of Professional Practices Services. On November 8, 2018, the Florida Department of Education, Office of Professional Practices Services, initiated an investigation into alleged misconduct by Respondent. On or about July 9, 2019, Mr. Solz was reassigned as the principal at Astoria Park Elementary School in Leon County.1 Evidentiary Findings The following findings of fact are supported by the record. Contrary testimony and evidence has been considered and rejected. David Solz Mr. Solz is, by all credible accounts, a “wonderful” principal and administrator, with a solid reputation as an LCSD administrator. Prior to this proceeding, he had not been the subject of any previous complaints or disciplinary actions during his 20-plus years in education. Testimony and recorded statements that Mr. Solz gave preferential treatment to others, including Ms. Jahn, that he targeted or “formally” wrote up teachers that were not on his preferential list, or that he “only hires young, attractive teachers,” were neither credible nor persuasive. The more credible testimony demonstrated that Mr. Solz was even-handed in his approach to the teachers at GES. If someone showed an interest in moving up in the academic system, he was willing to support them. If they wanted to 1 The Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation identified the date as July 9, 2018. The date was corrected to 2019 on the record at the hearing. stay in the classroom, he was accepting. If they felt they needed time away, even up to a year, he was accommodating. He did not show favoritism, and he did not “punish” those who disliked him. By the 2017-2018 school year, Mr. Solz had been divorced for several years. By April of 2018, he was apparently dating a woman who taught at either Ft. Braden Elementary School or Riley Elementary School. That person may have thought that she had some “power” because she was dating a principal, but there was no evidence that she did. More to the point, that person was not Ms. Jahn. Mr. Solz was an “open door” administrator. His office was in plain view, and he made it a practice to never be alone in his office with another teacher with the door closed. There was no evidence that he ever did so. The evidence unequivocally established that Mr. Solz was a good leader at GES, that he was purposefully respectful of his female colleagues, and avoided situations that could be misconstrued. Brooke Jahn Ms. Jahn was a teacher at GES starting in August 2013. By all credible accounts, Ms. Jahn was ambitious and a go-getter. She knew that she wanted to move from being a classroom teacher into administration. She set high goals, and was willing to take on the work necessary to advance in her career in education, work that others were not willing to do. During the 2017-2018 school year, in addition to her duties as a GES teacher, Ms. Jahn was taking classes to earn her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership. Holding a Master’s Degree in Education Leadership allows one to take a position as a dean, an assistant principal, a principal, or a leader at the school district in some capacity. As part of the curriculum for her degree, Ms. Jahn was required to serve an internship. Ms. Sumner supervised Ms. Jahn, which required Ms. Jahn to spend “lots of time” in the office, generally during her planning period or after school. Ms. Wyatt documented her progress. Mr. Solz was not overly involved with Ms. Jahn’s internship. Upon her completion of her Master’s program, Ms. Jahn became one of only three teachers or counselors at GES holding that degree, the others being Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt. In addition to receiving her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership, Ms. Jahn took and passed the Florida Educational Leadership Exam (FELE) during the 2017-2018 school year, which qualified her to be considered for a position in education administration. During the period at issue, she had not yet applied to the administrator pool. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Jahn taught third grade at GES. In previous years, Ms. Jahn taught kindergarten. Ms. Jahn wanted to move to the third-grade classroom for several reasons. She wanted experience in detecting early reading deficits. Her kindergarten students were “learning to read.” By third grade, students are “reading to learn.” Therefore, reading deficits by third grade can affect student achievement. In addition, third grade is a Florida Statewide Assessment (FSA) standardized test grade. Ms. Jahn recognized that experience in administering the FSA was almost a requirement for assignment as an assistant principal.2 During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Jahn was selected by her kindergarten teacher peers to be the team leader for the kindergarten section. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn’s selection as kindergarten team leader earned her a spot on the SITE Committee. The SITE Committee consists of grade-level team leaders, as well as persons representing paraprofessionals, custodians, cafeteria workers, ESE students, parents, and other school functions. As a SITE-based school, the SITE Committee serves to decentralize decision 2 Respondent suggested that Ms. Jahn’s transfer from kindergarten to third grade was evidence of favoritism. There was no evidence that the transfer was anything other than a normal and routine transfer, and showed no more favoritism than Ms. Vasquez teaching kindergarten and second grade at GES, Ms. Baggett being assigned to teach second, third, and fourth grades over the years at GES, or Ms. O’Brien teaching third and first grades at GES. making away from the Principal, and allows for a collaborative process by representatives of all segments of GES employees. Ms. Jahn was thereafter nominated and selected by the other members of the SITE Committee as the SITE Facilitator. That position required a great deal of work and effort, which Ms. Jahn gladly took on, realizing the career benefits derived from the experience. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the Teacher Education Center (“TEC”) as a professional learning advocate. As a TEC representative, Ms. Jahn provided teachers with opportunities for training to maintain their teaching certifications and assisted them in making their way through the certification process. The TEC is also engaged in managing the professional development budget for the school. Ms. Jahn had to be involved in professional development as part of her Master’s Degree internship, and the TEC helped to fill that requirement. The TEC representative is open for any teacher who wants to apply. Other than complaints from several witnesses that they were not solicited by school-wide email, or by personal entreaty from Mr. Solz “and offered for nomination or from, you know, veteran teachers who have that experience,” there was no evidence that any teacher other than Ms. Jahn, including the complaining witnesses, had the interest, drive, or commitment to apply for the TEC. There was no evidence that the position was required to be advertised by email or subject to personal invitation. Ms. Jahn sought out the position, and applied. The process of appointment was somewhat vague, except that Mr. Solz did not unilaterally appoint Ms. Jahn to the position.3 3 Ms. Baggett, despite averring that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to the TEC, admitted at the hearing that she had no information that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to that position “[o]ther than it's just, I guess, common knowledge that the principal of the school would, you know, would approve these positions.” Supposition, speculation, and “common knowledge” are not substitutes for competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence. The team leader, SITE facilitator, and TEC representative positions were subject to a modest stipend, but the duties involved work that far exceeded the pay -- “probably cents on the hour” -- she received for serving. However, Ms. Jahn understood that having experience in various areas would benefit her in achieving her long term goals. Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the District Advisory Council (“DAC”), a group of teachers, parents, administrators, and school board members that meet to discuss issues that affect students and classrooms. It is an unpaid, volunteer position that meets after school hours. Dr. Smith asked Mr. McKhan, Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn to share the role. Since Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt had previously served, Ms. Jahn took on most of the duties. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn was part of a group of teachers invited by Dr. Smith to observe other schools in the District in order to implement the “Leader in Me” program at GES. Ms. Jahn was exposed to leadership techniques that she would not have been exposed to as a classroom teacher. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn routinely attended monthly faculty meetings, which were open to all faculty at GES. She was able to apply some of the faculty meetings into credit for her Master’s Degree. She was required to mark attendance and document credit for every faculty meeting. There was no evidence that Mr. Solz was involved in that process. Ms. Jahn was an active participant in the faculty meetings, which may have rubbed some less participatory teachers the wrong way, with witnesses complaining that Mr. Solz gave undue weight to Ms. Jahn’s contributions, but was dismissive of their comments, failing to take them “seriously.” The evidence, such as it was, that Ms. Jahn was given some sort of preferential treatment at the faculty meetings was not supported by a single specific instance, but was “supported” by the fall-back phrase that “it was, again, another one of the school-wide known fact.” Even if it was established that Mr. Solz valued Ms. Jahn’s input, such would not establish preferential treatment. It is just as easy to draw the inference that Ms. Jahn’s statements were more pertinent than others. The more credible testimony established that Mr. Solz was not dismissive or disrespectful to any of the staff at faculty meetings.4 The testimony that Mr. Solz afforded preferential treatment to Ms. Jahn at faculty meetings lacked even basic credibility, and is not accepted. Ms. Jahn also trained a teaching intern, Ms. Hobbs. Ms. Hobbs was effusive in her praise of Ms. Jahn, crediting her success and her teaching style to Ms. Jahn’s tutelage. Because of Ms. Jahn’s success in mentoring Ms. Hobbs, Ms. Hobbs was, by the end of the 2017-2018 school year, able to handle the class on her own, which is the goal of a successful internship. While the class was under Ms. Hobbs’ instruction, Ms. Jahn was able to leave the classroom -- though not the campus. The evidence firmly established that Ms. Jahn set her goals high, and took steps that were not easy to achieve those goals. There was no credible evidence to suggest that she expected to be given anything by Mr. Solz or anyone else. She was not, as intimated by others, appointed to her duties by Mr. Solz. By all credible accounts, she earned her accolades. Though others reacted negatively, there was nothing to suggest that others were willing to put in the effort, or that they had earned the respect necessary to be selected by their peers to one of the many available positions. Allegations in the Administrative Complaint During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct report to Respondent. 4 Mr. Solz was more forceful; stating that the allegation he was dismissive or rude during faculty meetings “is a lie, a purposeful lie.” As described, during the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Jahn took on a steady stream of jobs designed to advance her career. As a result, she met often with members of the GES administration, including primarily Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Sumner. The previous year she met frequently with Dr. Smith. She also met with Mr. McKhan and Mr. Solz. There was nothing in any of those meetings that contained even a whiff of impropriety. The 2017-2018 school year ended for teachers the first week of June 2018. Teacher contracts end on the second day after the last day of school. If a teacher’s contract is renewed, the contract renewal becomes effective on the first day of school in August for teachers. Ms. Jahn was not under contract and did not work at GES over the summer.5 Ms. Jahn was not seeing Mr. Solz in anything other than a professional capacity during the 2017-2018 school year. Despite the rumors, gossip, and innuendo bandied about by several witnesses, there was absolutely no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support that Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were engaged in any sort of romantic, much less sexual, relationship at any time prior to the last day of classes during the 2017-2018 school year. By the time the 2017-2018 school year ended, Ms. Jahn had received her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership and passed the FELE. She had been a classroom teacher for eight years, and was starting to look for other opportunities. However, for reasons related to the LCSD summer teacher transfer policy and postings, she had not yet done so. During this same period, difficulties in Ms. Jahn’s marriage began to come to a head. The reasons are unimportant, except for the fact that they had nothing to do with Mr. Solz. 5 Ms. Jahn had signed a contract for the coming school year, but it was pending board approval. She was not working as a teacher at GES, but was slated to teach private swimming lessons over the summer “to make extra summer money.” In late May 2018, Mr. Solz became aware that the 2018 Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute was to be held over the weekend of June 11 and 12, 2018, in Tampa, Florida. The conference was limited to 25 principals from around the state. Mr. Solz applied, and was accepted. He then realized that he could bring a qualified teacher leader from his school. Since it was a leadership conference, leadership experience was a prerequisite. The only people at GES who were not already administrators and who were qualified were Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn.6 Ms. Wyatt was already slated to attend the Superintendent’s Leadership Academy in Tallahassee. She did not want to pass it up because she had applied for the assistant principal pool that year. People who were interviewing applicants for the pool were leading that meeting, creating a good networking opportunity for Ms. Wyatt. Mr. Solz invited the other leadership candidate, Ms. Jahn. He extended the invitation for her family to attend as well, a common practice. Ms. Jahn accepted the invitation. She had to rearrange swimming lessons and child care in order to attend, but did so because it was important to her efforts to professionally advance. Her husband could not attend for professional reasons. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn travelled separately to Tampa. By the time of the conference, Ms. Jahn had come to the conclusion that her marriage was heading for divorce. She took the opportunity to visit her sister in the Tampa area. It was a stressful period. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn arrived separately at the convention hotel on Friday evening. Other than Mr. Solz assisting Ms. Jahn in getting checked in, they had no contact with one another that evening. After the conference sessions on Saturday, Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn had dinner as part of a group. It was, according to both, the first time they had 6 By this time, Mr. McKhan had been appointed and was serving as an assistant principal at Pineview Elementary School. ever been alone with one another. There was no evidence to the contrary. During dinner, Ms. Jahn disclosed to Mr. Solz that she was having marital difficulties, but no more. The next morning, after a difficult conversation with her husband the night before, Ms. Jahn came down from her room in obvious distress. She indicated that she was having a “panic attack.” Mr. Solz walked with her to get coffee, talked with her, told her it would be OK, and gave her an “awkward side-ways hug.” He made sure she was engaged in the Sunday conference sessions, which eased her anxiety. After the Sunday session was over, Ms. Jahn went back to Tallahassee. Mr. Solz stayed for a while to meet with principals he knew who were coming in for a separate Florida school administrators conference. He had dinner with several of his colleagues, and drove home. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn did not see each other for several weeks after. Mr. Solz visited family in Savannah for a week and, upon his return, had his children for a week which entailed a trip to Disney World. Although Ms. Jahn’s divorce was moving forward, she took a pre-planned cruise with her then-husband and her children. However, during that period, Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn had begun to text one another and spoke on the phone. They started to realize they had things in common, and might like to pursue a relationship. Before they did anything to advance any sort of sexual relationship, they mutually decided that Mr. Solz should self-report their interest to the Superintendent. At that time, the “relationship” was all verbal and through texts. Other than the “awkward side-ways hug,” there had been no physical component to the relationship. Mr. Solz testified credibly that when he met with Superintendent Hanna on July 12, 2018, “I felt like we [he and Ms. Jahn] had a friendship that was easily blossoming into a romantic relationship.”7 Prior to their decision to self-report, Ms. Jahn had already decided she needed to move from GES to diversify her experience to ultimately move out of the classroom into administration. For a person holding an Education Leadership degree, it is common knowledge that in order to advance, a teacher must move around to different schools. Ms. Jahn had been researching other opportunities with the LCSD, and had applied to be a reading coach at Griffin Middle School, as well as several other less desirable positions. On July 11, 2018, and again on July 12, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested, in writing, a transfer from GES. In describing her interview with Ms. Jahn on July 12, 2020, Ms. Kraul testified that: She indicated again that she wants an administrative experience. She used the figure 150 percent leaving Gilchrist of her own free will. That she wants a middle school experience and she was very aware that she would not be eligible for an assistant principal position straight out of the classroom. That this was her ticket to get more experience. Ms. Jahn also believed it would be easier for her to stand out professionally at Griffin Middle School. Ms. Kraul testified that Ms. Jahn was waiting out the LCSD teacher transfer period and “that's, I believe, where she was when I met with her in July.” There is not a shred of competent substantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Jahn’s desire to transfer from GES was based on anything other than her desire to pursue her long-held goal of moving from a classroom position into a position in administration. There is no evidence that Ms. Jahn was pressured 7 Though not relevant to the specific allegations of this proceeding, it merits acknowledgement that Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn have since married, and were married as of the date of the final hearing. into seeking the transfer, or that her request had anything to do with Mr. Solz. On July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to Superintendent Hanna that he and Ms. Jahn were involved in a relationship that was becoming romantic. They had not been “caught.” There was no evidence that they knew of the purported “anonymous emails.”8 Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were early in their “romance,” having not yet passed out of the talking and texting stage. The decision to report was a volitional act designed to avoid gossip and innuendo, and establish a path forward without “direct report” conflict. Mr. Solz was not even certain that he was required to report, since the LCSD fraternization policy prohibited contact between staff and students, and the sexual harassment policy dealt with “unwelcomed” conduct. Nonetheless, Mr. Solz decided to report their blossoming interest because it “just felt like it was the right thing to do.” The evidence conclusively established, despite the suppositions and gossip of others, that there was no sexual relationship between Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn prior to the July 12, 2018, self-report. On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Mr. Solz on administrative leave with pay. There was no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that, at the time of Mr. Solz’s suspension, he and Ms. Jahn had commenced a sexual relationship. 8 The first “anonymous email” was not received in evidence. The alleged recipient, Ms. Paul, had no recollection of it, other than she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister. Ms. McAllister had no recollection of receiving, reviewing, or forwarding the first email. Its contents are a mystery. That alleged email has no evidentiary value. The second “anonymous email” came to Ms. Paul on July 15, 2018, and she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister and Superintendent Hanna on July 16, 2018. The anonymous “former [formal?] complaint by teachers” could not have come from anyone with much knowledge of Ms. Jahn, since the “teachers” could not even manage to get her name right, calling her “Mrs. Garret.” Garrett is the first name of Ms. Jahn’s ex-husband. As with the illusory first email, the second “anonymous email” has no evidentiary value. On August 31, 2018, Superintendent Hanna issued Respondent a letter of reprimand which included reassignment of Mr. Solz as a Principal on alternative assignment in the Department of Teaching and Learning.”9 The allegation that “[d]uring the 2017/2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct report to Respondent,” was not proven. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3. of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included . . . training not offered or made available to other teachers. This allegation is predicated on there having been a “relationship.” Since there was no relationship, the allegation was not proven. However, in addition, there was no evidence that Respondent afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees. There were only two other “similarly situated” employees who had the education and the ambition to be considered for leadership roles at GES, Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt. By the time the more serious allegations in this case were alleged to have occurred, Mr. McKhan had been assigned as Assistant Principal at Pineview Elementary School. 9 Respondent appears to argue that a negative inference should be drawn from Mr. Solz’s failure to file a grievance regarding the reprimand. A review of the letter shows it to have involved an allegation of conduct in April 2018, which Ms. Kraul testified “was nobody’s business what he did in his personal time, after hours,” and an allegation of use of electronic media for non-educational purposes,” which was not an issue in this proceeding at all. Why Mr. Solz elected not to grieve the reprimand was not explained, but no inference of wrongdoing can be drawn. If anything, the decision not to grieve the letter could just as easily be explained by its giving notice of his transfer as Principal that he had already determined to be an acceptable alternative to allow his “blossoming interest” in Ms. Jahn to move forward. The testimony established that many of the opportunities provided to Ms. Jahn came from Ms. Wyatt, her mentor; Dr. Smith and Ms. Sumner, GES assistant principals; and from her peers, including her fellow grade-level teachers and those on the SITE committee. Except for the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute, which came after the close of the 2017- 2018 school year, and after Ms. Wyatt’s election to attend a different conference, Mr. Solz made no assignments or invitations to Ms. Jahn. Ms. Jahn earned the opportunities to advance her career. She was not “given” those opportunities by Mr. Solz or anyone else at GES. Much of the testimony critical of the “relationship” between Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn came from employees who either could not or would not put in the work to qualify for leadership positions. They did not seek to earn degrees in Education Leadership, did not actively seek out extracurricular leadership positions, and were not elected by their peers to leadership positions, including SITE Facilitator. The evidence established that the witnesses who provided many of the statements that precipitated this proceeding were irritated by Mr. Solz for any number of reasons: that they were “angry” at Mr. Solz for being assigned to teach in a portable classroom; that Mr. Solz was monitoring their Facebook posts; that Mr. Solz used the iObservation system “against” them; that they were “formally written up” for infractions when other (non-comparable) teachers were not; or that they simply were not evaluated as highly as they believed they deserved.10 Much of the evidence provided in support of Petitioner’s case consisted of statements and testimony that were directed 10 It is not overlooked that the three primary witnesses offered by Petitioner to substantiate wrongdoing by Mr. Solz were clearly antagonistic towards him, which pre-dated anything alleged in this case. Ms. Vasquez testified that she and Mr. Solz “had a history of -- very, very hostile history,” and she “did not feel comfortable talking to Mr. Solz.” Ms. Baggett exhibited obvious animosity, feeling the Mr. Solz “was very dismissive,” and that “[p]rofessionally I don't respect his practice.” Ms. O’Brien testified that during the period from 2008 through May of 2018, “Mr. Solz and I did not see eye-to-eye most of the time.” The witnesses’s antipathy towards Mr. Solz is not a primary basis for assigning their testimony little weight. However, it does nothing to bolster their credibility. towards Mr. Solz’s previous relationships, that were imprecise and unsubstantiated gossip, or that were pure uncorroborated hearsay. The allegations that Mr. Solz “appointed” Ms. Jahn to “TEC Rep., SITE Facilitator, DAC, and Kdg. Team Leader” were either based on ignorance of the process or, more likely, a conscious misrepresentation of the criteria by which those positions are filled. As to the only allegation that had any basis in fact -- Ms. Jahn’s attendance at the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute -- the complaining teachers simply lacked the requisite leadership qualifications. That was not the fault of either Mr. Solz or Ms. Jahn. There was not a speck of competent, substantial evidence to establish that Mr. Solz afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees, including training not offered or made available to other teachers. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that training opportunities provided by GES administrators, including Mr. Solz, created a hostile work environment. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.a) of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [having] Jahn accompany him on at least one school related out of town trip without making the opportunity available to other teachers. This allegation has been addressed in detail herein. In addition to the fact that there was no “relationship” when Mr. Solz invited Ms. Jahn to attend the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute, the evidence in this case established, conclusively, that Mr. Solz did not afford Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees. Attendance at the conference was offered to Ms. Jahn as the only qualified attendee since Ms. Wyatt had a conflicting leadership-based conference that drew her attention, and was based on absolutely no improper motive. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that Mr. Solz’s offer to Ms. Jahn to attend the conference (with her family) created a hostile work environment.11 Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.b) of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [r]ules regarding supervision of students [being] relaxed for Jahn as compared to other teachers. In addition to the fact that there was no “relationship,” the evidence in this case established, conclusively, that rules for supervision of students were not relaxed for Ms. Jahn as compared to other teachers. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Jahn went to various administrative offices -- primarily those of Ms. Wyatt (her mentor) and Ms. Sumner (her education leadership internship supervisor), as well as that of Dr. Smith the preceding year -- before school, at lunch, or during her planning period. It is common for intern/student teachers to earn the right to “solo” teach a class. As Ms. Jahn’s intern, Ms. Hobbs, gained in competency, she 11 On a practical note, the conference was held in June of 2018, after the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year for teachers. By the time teachers returned to campus in the fall, Mr. Solz had been transferred from GES. If Mr. Solz was able to create a hostile work environment at GES from his post at the Department of Teaching and Learning, it would have been quite a trick. was allowed to take on more of the teaching responsibilities for Ms. Jahn’s class on her own, as was the goal. Finally, Ms. Jahn was able to leave the classroom for periods of time, which gave Ms. Hobbs valuable experience and confidence. However, the evidence establishes that Ms. Jahn did not abuse her time during those periods, but was working at necessary and requested school-related activities. The suggestion that there was some impropriety involved when Ms. Jahn left Ms. Hobbs in charge is simply not supported. Ms. Baggett complained that she was “formally written up” (by the Assistant Principal, not Mr. Solz) because she “left [her] students unsupervised.” Why she was disciplined is a matter between Ms. Baggett and the Assistant Principal. However, that disciplinary matter (which might also explain her complained-of, less-than-stellar evaluation) does not establish that Ms. Jahn violated any rules regarding supervision of students, does not establish any other teacher as a valid comparator, and does not lend support to the allegations in this case. Ms. Vasquez testified that Ms. Jahn left her class during the school day, and “made it known that she was getting her dog groomed” on one occasion, and on another occasion “she told me she was getting her hair done.” Ms. Hobbs openly scoffed at the idea, a rejection that is supported by the record. Despite the hearsay nature of Ms. Vasquez’s testimony, it might have retained some thin thread of credibility if it did not directly conflict with her written statement provided during the investigation, in which she stated: I had been made aware of, several years ago, a relationship with Jessica Scully. She was seen in [Mr. Solz’s] office quite frequently-and would talk openly about the special treatment she was getting from David. How David would allow her to leave school to run her errands. She left school to get her dog groomed and told several teachers that David knew where she was and approved it. (emphasis added). Either Mr. Solz is attracted to women with poorly-groomed dogs, or the testimony regarding Ms. Jahn’s personal off-campus errands, including dog- grooming, was a fabrication. The evidence supports the latter. There is no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support a finding that Ms. Jahn ever left her students with inadequate supervision, that she ever left campus to perform personal errands, or that she violated any disciplinary standard regarding student supervision. There was not a shred of evidence that Mr. Solz relaxed or disregarded any rules regarding the supervision of students for Ms. Jahn as compared to other teachers. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that Mr. Solz relaxed any rules regarding supervision of students for Ms. Jahn so as to create a hostile work environment. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.c) of the Administrative Complaint. Summary The tone of the Administrative Complaint gives the impression that Respondent and Ms. Jahn were carrying on a torrid sexual relationship from the confines of Respondent’s office, and that Mr. Solz was lavishing Ms. Jahn with perquisites as the 2017-2018 school year was ongoing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts show that Ms. Jahn had high professional goals, and worked hard -- on her own -- to achieve them. The suggestion that Respondent favored Ms. Jahn to advance his prurient interest in her, or that Ms. Jahn was using Respondent as a stepping stone to some higher goal are equally unsupported, and equally fallacious. The allegation that Mr. Solz engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with any GES employee’s performance of their professional or work responsibilities, or with the orderly processes of education, or that he undertook any action vis-a-vis Ms. Jahn that created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment is simply not supported by the facts of this case.12
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 21st day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephen G. Webster, Esquire Law Office of Stephen G. Webster, LLC Suite 5 1615 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Program Specialist IV Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (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)
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Donald C. Munafo was certified by the Department of Education and employed on continuing contract by the Pinellas County School Board as a physical education instructor at the 16th Street Middle School in Clearwater. He has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board for approximately 15 years. Munafo has been involved in photography for a number of years and has done professional photography for ten years as a sideline to his primary occupation as a school teacher. He is a member of Bay Photographic Association located in the Tampa Bay area, which is an affiliate of Florida Professional Photographers. In May 1984 Richard Norgrove, who also taught at 16th Street Middle School, formed Edventure Media, Inc., to provide himself and his wife with a tax shelter and to produce educational and training videos. Knowing Munafo to be a professional photographer, Norgrove consulted with him as to ideas on equipment Norgrove needed. After forming the corporation and making a few training films, Norgrove decided to produce a video of a "cat fight," which involves two females in brawl. He advertised for models to engage in a wrestling match and employed two who responded to his ad. Norgrove prepared a simple script and did the filming at his home. He requested Munafo to take some stills during the video filming to use to advertise copies of the cat fight for sale. To accommodate Norgrove, Munafo took still photographs of the models while Norgrove made the videotape of the girls tearing each others. clothes off and simulating a real fight. By the end of the video each girl was wearing only panties. This video was titled "The Dress." Shortly thereafter, Norgrove decided to make another cat fight video and again advertised for models. One of the girls answering the ad was Lisa Anderson. Norgrove again asked Munafo to take still shots while Norgrove made the videotape. Again Munafo agreed to help in the endeavor, knowing that the still shots would be used to promote the video and/or sold. Munafo received no compensation from Norgrove other than the cost to Munafo for supplies and for developing the pictures. During the taking of this video, which was titled "The Boyfriend," both of the models were reduced to complete nudity. Lisa Anderson was one of the girls involved in the video of "The Boyfriend." Lisa Anderson had answered Norgrove's ad by telephone, and they first met at a bar where Lisa was served alcoholic beverages. She had told Norgrove she was 23 years old and was anxious to make some money modeling and did not object to removing her clothes. Lisa subsequently signed a release stating that she was over 18 years old. As a matter of fact, Lisa was 17 when the video and subsequent photographs of her were taken. Lisa did not testify in these proceedings, but led Norgrove to believe she had been married twice and at the time the video was made was living with two men. One newspaper article (Exhibit 20) stated she was the mother of two children. Norgrove packaged "The Dress" and "The Boyfriend" on one cassette (Exhibit 8) and advertised it for sale in adult magazines under the title "Battling Beauties." He sold between 20 and 50 of these cassettes for approximately $60 each. Munafo took no part in promoting the cassette, mailing the cassettes, nor did he receive any percentage of the money Norgrove received for the sale of the cassettes. Following the filming of "The Boyfriend" Lisa called Norgrove several times to see if he had more jobs for her since she needed to make some money. Finally, Norgrove told her that he might be able to sell some nude photos of her to a publishing house but could not guarantee their sale. He offered to take the pictures and if they sold split the proceeds with her. Lisa agreed and Norgrove decided his sailboat would provide a good background location for the photo sessions. Again he requested Munafo to come along and take the photographs while he, Norgrove, ran the sailboat. At the appointed time they sailed out into open water where Lisa stripped and assumed various poses while Munafo took pictures. These pictures were admitted into evidence as Exhibits. Upon returning to shore, the three of them went to Munafo's house where Norgrove did another video of Lisa in the nude doing exercises. During the making of this video Munafo was downstairs and came up to the studio less than a minute before the video was completed. At this time Lisa was jumping on a small trampoline and Munafo suggested to Norgrove that he take some shots from the floor looking up. For the photos of Lisa taken in the sailboat, Munafo was again reimbursed only for the film and cost of developing the pictures he took. All told Eventure Media, Inc., paid Munafo less than $100.00 for the costs he incurred in shooting the pictures requested by Norgrove. Munafo's testimony was uncontradicted and corroborated by Norgrove that all Munafo expected to receive from his participation were his expenses and the expectation that he would meet a model he could later employ to pose for a figure study. Munafo is a serious photographer who participates in many of the competitions sponsored by photography groups, both local and statewide. Exhibit 16 was admitted as a copy of a figure study Munafo entered in a photo contest and took second place. In the interim the local police received information that Norgrove had been making pornographic videotapes and they alerted the United States Postal Inspectors. Their investigation revealed that Lisa Anderson was 17 years old at the time the videos and photographs were taken. 18 USC §2251, et seq., makes it a federal crime to use anyone under the age of 18 as a participant in a sexually explicit film or to transmit such film through the United States mail. After obtaining copies of the video cassettes and still photographs, the federal authorities obtained an indictment against Norgrove and Munafo and arrested them on March 4, 1985. The time of their arrest was the first inkling either had that Lisa Anderson was under the age of 18. News of the arrest of three Pinellas County school teachers (Norgrove's wife was also arrested) charged with distributing sexually explicit films involving minors received wide dissemination from the local press and, by reason of the implications of "kiddie-porn," the events leading to the trial in federal court and the results of that trial were closely followed and reported by the press. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the Norgroves negotiated a plea of guilty of conspiracy and received a lenient sentence. Munafo went to trial and was acquitted of all charges by the jury (Exhibit 17). Following the arrest of Munafo and the Norgroves, they were suspended by the School Board and hearings were requested. The Department of Education preferred charges to discipline their certificates based on the same allegations made by the School Board in their suspensions, and all cases were consolidated for hearing. Continuances were granted to await the outcome of the federal proceedings before conducting these administrative proceedings. Following the Norgroves negotiating a plea in the federal court trial, they withdrew their request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing and were dropped from these proceedings. No evidence was presented that Respondent showed explicit sexual films or pictures to other teachers as is alleged in the charging document by the Superintendent. Nor was any testimony presented to show that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was seriously reduced by the publicity associated with his arrest, trial and subsequent acquittal. The primary, if not sole, basis for the disciplinary action proposed by the School Board and the Department of Education is whether the actions of Munafo in taking sexually explicit photographs of Lisa Anderson and another woman constitute immorality, misconduct in office, gross immorality or moral turpitude, or conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness in the Pinellas County school system. The photographs which form the basis of these charges are similar to those published in adult magazines such as Penthouse, Hustler, Playboy, Cavalier, etc., which are transmitted through the United States mail and are displayed on the magazine racks of vendors of newspapers and magazines in drugstores, airports, bookstores, and newsstands open to the general public. Petitioner produced two witnesses to testify to the immorality of one who would take explicit sexual photographs. Neither of these witnesses is a professional photographer although one teaches photography in a Pinellas County school. He did not believe a teacher should be held to a higher moral standard respecting activities totally unassociated with the school than is a member of the general public, but his personal moral convictions would preclude him from taking such pictures. Petitioner's other witness, John F. Joyce, Ed.D., opined that it was immoral for a school teacher to take such photographs as were taken by Respondent. Dr. Joyce, however, did not think it immoral for a teacher to look at pornographic photographs in Hustler magazine with prurient interests or even to be editor of such a magazine. How the work of an editor, in deciding which I pornographic photographs will sell the most magazines and still be within the letter of the law so as to avoid prosecution or a ban of the sales in a magazine, can be all right while the mechanic (or artist), who opens the shutter of the camera to expose the film and record the pornographic pose is immoral, completely eludes me. Accordingly, little weight is accorded this opinion. Nor is the age of Lisa Anderson at the time these photographs were taken relevant to the charge of immorality. Respondent certainly thought he was taking a photograph of a woman over the age of 18; and such opinion was justified by the physical appearance of Lisa, by the model release form she signed (Exhibit 10) stating she was over 18, by her marital history, and by her reported living arrangements (with two men). The photographs taken on the sailboat (Exhibits 1-5) clearly fit the category of sexually explicit and are more pornographic than are the stills Munafo took during the videotaping of he cat fights. Accordingly, the outcome of these proceedings can be said to stand or fall on whether the taking of these photographs (Exhibits 1-5) constitutes immorality or gross immorality by a school teacher. In making this ultimate finding of fact it is significant that such photographs are protected by the First Amendment provided the model is over 18 that such photographs can be sent through the United States mail system without any violation of the law (again if the model is over 18) that the sole basis for the criminal charges preferred against this Respondent was the age of the model used that it would not be considered an offense involving moral turpitude or jeopardize any license they have if a lawyer, doctor, banker, or broker took such photographs that Munafo was acquitted of these criminal charges that in these criminal charges specific intent is not an element of the offense and that Munafo reasonably believed that Lisa Anderson was over 18 at the time these photographs were taken. Lisa Anderson had no apparent connection to the Pinellas County school system and none of the filming had any connection to a school or school system or in any way indicated the model was a minor. From these findings comes the ultimate finding of fact that taking these photographs of Lisa Anderson does not constitute immorality, gross immorality, or misconduct in office.
