Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 482561 on April 23, 1981, which certified her as authorized to teach elementary education and act as an elementary and secondary school counsellor until June 30, 1985. This certificate is valid now and was valid at all times pertinent to this hearing. On December 16, 1981, at the time of the incidents alleged, Respondent was working for a telephone answering service in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She was in the process of moving to Jacksonville and had hired an individual named James Dallas to move her possessions for her. Since the day prior to the day in question, she had seen Dallas and his friend going through her luggage, she became convinced he was planning to rob her. As a result, she removed certain items from her luggage to her purse, which items included the handgun and the "knife" in question. Respondent admits to having the gun in her possession concealed in her purse. She contends, however, she had purchased it legally and was of the opinion it was properly registered. Whether it was or not is immaterial, as the ultimate fact is it was concealed in her purse and she did not have a license to carry a concealed gun. As to the "knife," she contends it was not a knife, but part of a manicuring set. The probable cause affidavit executed by the police officer who arrested her, however, indicated that he found a 4 1/2 inch black- handled steak knife in her purse along with the handgun. At no time did Respondent draw or threaten with either weapon, although at the time of her arrest she was involved in a disturbance with Dallas. I find, therefore, that the "knife" in question was in fact a knife. On March 5, 1982, Respondent pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, to carrying a concealed firearm and carrying a concealed weapon (misdemeanor) She was placed on probation for three years for carrying the gun and for one year, to run concurrently with the three, for carrying the knife, and adjudication of guilt was withheld with a provision for expungement of the record upon successful completion of probation. She immediately moved to Jacksonville. She initially intended to apply for employment in the Duval County school system, but found that she needed to attach a copy of her teaching certificate, which had, in fact, been stolen from her luggage. Therefore, on April 2, 1982, she submitted an application for a duplicate certificate on which she listed her arrest for and the disposition of her offense. It was on the basis of her application for a duplicate license that this action to discipline her was initiated. In January, 1983, almost a year later, there was no showing of any report by the courts to Petitioner or any complaint or report by any other agency. Respondent is currently working at Edward Waters College in Jacksonville as Recruitment and Admissions Counsellor and has been so employed since December, 1982. Her supervisor, the Dean of Student Affairs, finds her to possess high skills and creative abilities and to have much to offer the field of education, even though he is aware of her plea of guilty and the offenses to which it relates. Her probation officer, who has observed her since she arrived in Jacksonville, relates a glowing picture of her probation and indicates she has been very satisfactory and absolutely no problem. She follows and lives up to all standards of her probation. In fact, she has been so good, he intends to recommend early termination of her probation as soon as she has completed half the term, which is the earliest he can do so. The Director of Personnel Systems and Records for the Duval County school system does not know Respondent, knows nothing of her professional record or competence, and has not reviewed any application from her to teach in the Duval County schools. However, he is of the opinion that by virtue of her involvement with the law alone, and regardless that upon completion of her probation her record would be expunged, her effectiveness in an educational situation would be lessened because of the knowledge by others within the system of her offenses. Under the teachers' Code of Ethics, a teacher should set an example for the students. A teacher is responsible to not only the students, but also to the faculty and parents, and a teacher's off-campus conduct can and does have an effect on the teacher's performance. Respondent does not feel her effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced. In fact, she feels that because of what she has learned from this situation she has become more aware of her responsibilities to society and to the educational system. This, she feels, enhances her effectiveness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Berg & Holder Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marvin I. Edwards, Esquire Edwards, Willis & Marinucci 3300 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-501 BEVERLY J. MCNAIR, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined on grounds that he fraudulently obtained a higher ranking teaching certificate, and thereby also committed an act of gross immorality and moral turpitude.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 46-year-old school teacher who has taught in the public elementary schools of Dade County since 1962. After earning a Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education from Florida A & M University, he applied for and was issued a state teacher's certificate in 1976, he successfully completed several post-graduate courses offered in the Miami area by Florida A & M, the University of Miami, and Dade County Junior College. (Testimony of Scott; P-1, P-3). While teaching at Biscayne Elementary School in 1978, Respondent met Eugene Sutton, a Florida A & M instructor from Tallahassee, Florida. It was Sutton's responsibility to observe and supervise Florida A & M students serving as intern elementary education teachers in various schools throughout the state. In exchange for help with his student teachers, Sutton offered to help Respondent pursue a Master's Degree at Florida A & M. Respondent, beset with financial difficulties, 2/ accepted Sutton's offer. (Testimony of Scott, McAllister; R-2) II. Thereafter, Sutton enrolled Respondent at Florida A & M for the summer and fall quarters of 1978. Sutton, acting as an intermediary, transmitted assignments and course work between Respondent and the various instructors. In this manner, Respondent completed eight courses at Florida A & M; by the end of the 1978 fall quarter, he had legitimately earned 29 hours toward a Master of Education Degree in Elementary Education. To earn the degree, an additional 25 hours was required. (Testimony of Scott; P-3, R-1, R-2.) The course registration fees which Respondent paid Sutton were not, however, deposited with the university. In lieu of the fees-- and without Respondent's knowledge--Sutton filed two "Certificates of Participation" purporting to entitle Respondent to waiver of registration fees. Such certificates are ordinarily issued in recognition of services rendered to the teaching profession. (Testimony of Scott; P-2.) III. Toward the end of 1978, Sutton offered to supply Respondent with a completed Florida A & M Master's Degree transcript--without his having to earn the remaining 25 credit hours--for a fee of $2,500. In December, 1978, Respondent accepted the offer and began making $250 payments--usually in cash-- every two weeks. (Testimony of Scott; P-2, R-2). At hearing, Respondent testified that--at the time of the transaction-- he believed that his other accomplishments would substitute for the course work ordinarily required for a Master's Degree: Based on my experience as a teacher in Dade County, based on the fact that I was successful in the area of teaching reading using the developmental approach, the system approach in reading and math, and based on my ability to manage a classroom and my knowledge of the balanced curriculum for Dade County, these things were taken into consideration. And a lot of the course work I didn't have to pursue, I was given credit for those experiences. (Tr. 97) 3/ * * * I didn't have a degree given to me. I worked and I paid my money. Nobody gave me anything. (Tr. 100.) In sum, Respondent contends that he was entitled to the Master's Degree because of his past achievements and experience as a teacher in Dade County. This contention is expressly rejected as unworthy of belief. It is self-serving and non-specific; it is uncorroborated by any independent evidence and inconsistent with his prior explanations to law enforcement authorities. When interrogated on September 4, 1980, Respondent admitted to authorities that his actions were wrong and improper. His sole defense was that he legitimately completed part of the course work required for the Master's Degree. (Testimony of Scott, McAllister; P-2.) IV. In February, 1979, Sutton sent to Respondent the agreed upon Master's Degree transcript and an application for a state teacher's certificate. The transcript falsely indicated: (1) that Respondent had successfully completed a total of 15 courses at Florida A & M between 1971 and 1978; and (2) that he had successfully completed 63 credit hours and was awarded a Master of Education Degree in Elementary Education on March 16, 1979. In truth, Respondent neither took those courses nor received a Master's Degree: the transcript was a forgery. (Testimony of Scott; P-2.) Thereafter, Respondent completed and filed with the State Department of Education an application for a higher ranking teacher's certificate. After indicating on the application that Florida A & M had awarded him a Master of Education Degree he signed a notarized statement: I understand that Florida Statutes provided for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.) I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. (P-2). (Testimony of Scott; P-2.) On June 5, 1979, the Florida Department of Education approved Respondent's application and issued a new higher ranking teacher's certificate, No. 122380 (post-graduate level). (Testimony of Scott, Gray; P-2.) V. On April 25, 1979, Respondent completed and filed with his employer, Dade County Public Schools, an "Application for Credential Payment for Advanced Degree(s)." As basis for the credential payment, i.e., increased salary, Respondent represented that he had obtained a Master of Education Degree on March 16, 1979, and attached, as documentation, the false Florida A & M transcript. 4/ (Testimony of Gray, Scott; P-2.) The Dade County School System approved Respondent's application for credential payment based on his purported advanced degree and paid him an increased salary retroactive to the date on which the advanced degree was allegedly conferred: March 16, 1979. During the ensuing months, Respondent was paid--as a result of the claimed post-graduate degree--$2,951.41 in excess of the salary to which he was entitled. (Testimony of Gray; P-8.) On June 25, 1979, Respondent made the last payment on the $2,500 fee owed to Sutton for obtaining the Master's Degree; it consisted of a check in the amount of $452. (Testimony of Scott; P-2.) Respondent falsely represented to the Florida Department of Education and the Dade County Public School System that he had been awarded a Master of Education Degree by Florida A & M on March 16, 1979; as a result, the Department issued him a higher ranking (post-graduate level) teacher's certificate and the school system increased his salary. When he made such representations, he well knew they were false. (Testimony of Scott, McAllister; P-1, P-2.) This ultimate finding of Respondent's guilty knowledge-- notwithstanding his disclaim--is based on his subsequent admission to law enforcement authorities that he had acted wrongfully. Several factors buttress this finding: (1) Respondent paid Sutton $2,500 for the false transcript--a fee disproportionate to its ordinary cost; 5/ (2) most payments were made in cash and hand delivered; and (3) the transcript was replete with entries that Respondent would have easily recognized as false. 6/ (Testimony of Scott, McAllister; P-1, P-2.) By fraudulently obtaining a post-graduate teacher's certificate and a corresponding increase in salary, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the Dade County School System has been seriously reduced. (Testimony of Gray.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), and his teacher's certificate, No. 122380, (post-graduate level), be permanently revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of July, 1981. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this unusual case is whether the district school board has just cause to dismiss Respondent from his position as a teacher for administering corporal discipline to his own child in the child’s classroom, where Respondent was acting at all relevant times in his personal, nonprofessional capacity as a parent.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board (“School Board” or the “district”), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. At all times relevant to this matter, including specifically the 2018- 2019 school year, Menelas was employed as a chemistry teacher at Dr. Michael Krop Senior High School pursuant to an annual contract. The incident at issue in this case occurred on February 15, 2019, at Madie Ives K-8 Academy in the classroom of Patricia Costa. Ms. Costa has been a teacher for more than 20 years in Miami-Dade County. During that time, she has taught multiple subjects and held leadership positions at her school. In 2018-2019, Ms. Costa taught sixth-grade U.S. History. One of her students that year was Menelas’s son, T.M. T.M. has been a disruptive and poorly behaved student from preschool onward, despite repeated interventions. Menelas has taken his son to numerous professionals for counseling and other forms of treatment, including medication, to no avail. T.M.’s behavioral issues have caused Menelas substantial emotional distress over the years. T.M. had been in Ms. Costa’s fourth-grade class two years earlier. As a result, Ms. Costa not only had experience with T.M.’s disruptive behavior, but she knew Menelas as well, through parent-teacher communications. There is no direct evidence in the record, however, bearing on whether Ms. Costa knew that Menelas was a fellow teacher. Neither she nor Menelas was asked about that at hearing. As an experienced teacher, Ms. Costa possessed the skills to deal with T.M.’s misbehavior, most of the time. If Ms. Costa called T.M.’s parents, therefore, as she sometimes did, it was because she was at her wit’s end. So, when Ms. Costa phoned T.M.’s mother on February 13, 2019, to request assistance in bringing T.M. under control, it was a sign that the child’s behavior had been especially bad recently. Whatever measures T.M.’s mom took in response to Ms. Costa’s call, however, failed to have the desired effect. Consequently, on the afternoon of February 14, 2020, Ms. Costa sent an email to Menelas in which she wrote: Hope all is well. I have been able to handle [T.M.] without having to involve you this year. However, his behavior lately has gotten out of control. Yesterday, he was disrespectful towards me and I spoke to mom on the phone. That had no affect [sic] on his behavior today. Constant talking during class to the point where I sent him to another teacher and gave him a detention. Secondly, he continues to make a loud clicking sound in other students’ ears and has been asked various times to stop, but he doesn’t. Please have a stern conversation with him regarding his behavior. It is disruptive to the class and hinders the other students’ learning. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. (Emphasis added).1 Menelas replied to this email the following day and might have spoken with Ms. Costa on the telephone as well.2 There is no dispute regarding the substance of their communication, which consisted of Menelas’s request to 1 In light of the circumstances, Ms. Costa’s request that Menelas “have a stern conversation” with T.M. could reasonably be understood as a plea for Menelas to use harsher methods in punishing T.M. than either she (the experienced teacher) or the boy’s mom had been able to employ. Whether Ms. Costa was euphemistically suggesting that Menelas give his son a spanking is unknown, and the undersigned is not inferring that such was her communicative intent. However, the subtext of the email is reasonably clear: teacher and mother have tried, and failed, to subdue T.M., and they now want dad to lower the boom. 2 He does not remember the phone call, and she does not remember the email. Menelas read the reply email out loud at hearing during his testimony, but the writing is not in evidence. observe T.M. at school in Ms. Costa’s classroom that afternoon, and Ms. Costa’s consent to this request. The district asserts that Menelas “used his position as a teacher to convince his colleague [Ms. Costa] to allow him to observe her classroom.”3 The evidence, however, does not support such a finding. As mentioned, Ms. Costa did not testify that she even knew Menelas was a teacher, much less that she had given him preferential treatment for this reason. But even if she were aware of Menelas’s occupation, there is no evidence that Ms. Costa allowed Menelas to visit her classroom as a professional courtesy. In her testimony, Ms. Costa referred to Menelas as “dad,” never as a colleague or fellow teacher; she neither stated, nor implied, that she treated Menelas differently from any other parent. After finishing work on February 15, 2020, Menelas left his school and drove to T.M.’s school, where he checked in at the main office, and then proceeded to Ms. Costa’s classroom. Arriving at 2:45 p.m., which was 15 minutes before the bell, Menelas immediately walked to the front of the class and began addressing the students. Menelas introduced himself as T.M.’s father (not as a teacher) and spoke to the class in that capacity only. There is no evidence that any student in Ms. Costa’s classroom (besides T.M., of course) knew that Menelas was a teacher. Also, while there is no evidence that Menelas sought Ms. Costa’s permission to address her class, Ms. Costa did not interrupt him or ask him to stop. At a minimum, Ms. Costa acquiesced to Menelas’s taking the floor, and it is not unreasonable to infer that she welcomed this, as it soon would have been apparent that Menelas’s plan was to have a “stern conversation” with T.M. for misbehaving in class. In his remarks to the class, Menelas apologized for his son’s disruptive behavior, which, he told the students, had long been an embarrassment to Menelas, and which he taken many steps to correct, without success. 3 Pet.’s Prop. Rec. Order at 5. Addressing his son, Menelas told T.M. that because he had caused his father embarrassment and refused to listen, T.M. would now be embarrassed by Menelas in front of his peers. Menelas directed T.M. to stand before the class, remove—and hand over—his belt, and drop his pants. T.M. complied.4 Menelas instructed T.M. to count to ten, and, as the boy did so, Menelas spanked him with the belt, one strike per number, for a total of ten blows. Ms. Costa did not physically intervene in Menelas’s chastisement of T.M. or verbally object to what she was witnessing; she merely watched.5 There is no evidence that the students reacted to the spectacle in ways that would suggest they were either frightened of Menelas or thought T.M. was in danger; no one screamed or fled, for example. Some students, in fact, actually laughed. Putting aside for now the question of whether Menelas’s act constitutes just cause for termination, there is no dispute that T.M. was not injured by the spanking. Menelas testified that that he had no intention of physically harming his son, and this testimony, being consistent with the objective facts and otherwise credible, is credited as truthful. The manifest objective of this discipline was to embarrass T.M. After spanking T.M., Menelas directed the boy to apologize to Ms. Costa, which he did. In her reply to T.M., Ms. Costa said something to the effect that “it shouldn’t have come to this.” Although there is some disagreement as to Ms. Costa’s exact words, it is undisputed that she did not admonish Menelas or question the propriety of his conduct. 4 T.M. was wearing boxer shorts and thus was not exposed by pulling down his pants. The incident, in other words, did not involve any nudity, and no charge to that effect was brought against Menelas. 5 At hearing, Ms. Costa testified that she tried to call Menelas’s name, as if to stop him, but he became extremely angry and started to yell. The undersigned rejects this testimony, which conflicts with other evidence in the record. The undersigned notes, as well, that in the “Summary of Conference-for-the-Record” dated September 11, 2019, the following statement is included in the allegations against Menelas: “Teacher [i.e., Ms. Costa] did not intervene in the incident.” T.M. returned to his seat, and Menelas left the classroom without incident. The entire episode, from Menelas’s arrival until his departure, lasted approximately five minutes. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned finds, that the spanking itself likely took no more than about 15 seconds, assuming that T.M. probably counted off at one-second intervals. Some time would have been taken up, as well, by T.M.’s removing his belt and dropping his pants, and by T.M.’s post- spanking apology to Ms. Costa. Subtracting the few minutes (at most) that these matters would have taken from the five minutes comprising the whole incident leads to the conclusion that Menelas must have spoken to the class for at least a couple of minutes before carrying out the physical discipline. This strongly implies, and it is found, that the spanking was not a sudden and unexpected outburst, but the foreseeable culmination of a series of deliberately unfolding actions pointing towards such an outcome. Any reasonable observer should have seen it coming. The point is that Ms. Costa had reasonable opportunities to take protective measures, and yet she did nothing. If anyone in that classroom had a clear duty to protect the students from potential harm, moreover, assuming there was a genuine threat, it was Ms. Costa. At hearing, Ms. Costa explained her inaction as the result of being shocked by the unusual situation, the likes of which she had never encountered. The undersigned does not disbelieve Ms. Costa’s testimony in this regard, but she does, clearly, have an obvious personal interest in playing up the “shocking” nature of Menelas’s conduct.6 The undersigned is unable to find that Ms. Costa, a veteran teacher whose performance has been exemplary, as far as the record shows, would stand by and allow her students to be placed in harm’s way by an unarmed parent visiting her classroom. The more reasonable inference is that, in the 6 Ms. Costa’s bias arises from that fact that she, herself, could be charged with misconduct in office, for failing to take reasonable measures to protect her students. event, Ms. Costa did not regard Menelas as a real danger to the students, including T.M., because she realized that he was using shame, not violence, as a means of bringing T.M. to heel, which was a common goal of them both. After class, Ms. Costa reported the incident to her assistant principal. In due course, reports were made to the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) and to the police. Given the absence of any injury to T.M., it is not surprising that, after being informed of the incident, DCF would not take the case, and the state attorney’s office declined to prosecute. It is found as an ultimate fact that Menelas’s spanking of T.M. constituted reasonable corporal punishment of the kind parents are privileged to administer in the state of Florida. Menelas continued teaching without problems for the remainder of the 2018-2019 school year. He received an annual contract for the following school year and remained on the job until his suspension on November 20, 2019. There is no evidence that the incident in Ms. Costa’s classroom had any adverse effects on Menelas’s effectiveness as a teacher. Menelas has no record of prior discipline relating to his employment with the district. DETERMINATIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT The district has failed to prove its allegations against Menelas by a preponderance of the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order exonerating Blucher Menelas of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating Menelas to his pre-dismissal position, and awarding Menelas back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent Raimundo Manuel Dante was enrolled as a student at W. R. Thomas Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. During the course of two periods of enrollment at W. R. Thomas Junior High School, Respondent has had numerous disciplinary referrals. On one occasion, Respondent was recommended for assignment to the Dade County opportunity school program, but his mother withdrew him before the formal proceedings could be resolved. He was transferred back to W. R. Thomas Junior High primarily due to failing grades at a private school. During summer school for 1984, Respondent was tardy on six occasions. He earned three "D" grades and one "C" grade out of four academic subjects. He was absent three days in the "C" course, mathematics, and four days in each of the other courses, including homeroom. Because of the short timeframe for summer school (July 9, 1984 through August 17, 1984), the Respondent's absences and tardies are excessive. During the regular 1984-1985 school year, Respondent was assigned to the eighth grade. His absences span a minimum of eleven to a maximum of thirty- nine in various classes during the final grading period alone. This is clearly excessive and not conducive to any learning activity. His final grades were failing in all classes except "vocational basic," in which he obtained a "D." On December 12, 1984, Mrs. Gomez referred Respondent to Mr. Helip, who as assistant principal has primary responsibility for discipline at W. R. Thomas Junior High School. The referral was not only for disruptive behavior on that date, but was a culmination of a number of occasions when Respondent had behaved similarly. The nature of Respondent's disruptive behavior on December 12, 1984, involved coming to the front of the room without permission and "answering back" disrespectfully to Mrs. Gomez when she did not grant him permission to leave the room to conduct business he should have handled prior to the beginning of class. This was repetitive of similar behavior which had gone on the previous day and which had not resulted in a student management referral at that time. On December 12, Mrs. Gomez also gave Respondent a detention assignment for social talking which was disrupting the class and he uttered a disruptive and insulting retort in Spanish to the effect that nothing would happen to him if he did not comply with the detention assignment. Mrs. Gomez, who speaks and understands Spanish, then considered all Respondent's past misbehavior in the referral of December 12, including his consistent failure to come to her class equipped with appropriate books, paper and writing implements. On April 26, 1985, Mrs. Gomez referred Respondent to Mr. Helip due to his ten tardies in the last two-week period, for kissing girls while sitting atop his desk, and for wandering about the room, talking, and being off task on April 26 and on several prior occasions. Respondent's remarks, when reprimanded orally by Mrs. Gomez, were interpreted by her as disrespectful and threatening. All counseling with the parents in the 1984-1985 school year appear to have dead-ended. During the regular 1985-1986 school year, Respondent was assigned to the ninth grade. His absence record was less than the previous school year but still varied from four to eight days' absence during the final grading period, depending upon which class was involved. This is also excessive and not conducive to any formal learning experience. His final grades were four failures and one "C" out of the courses attempted. During the 1986 summer session, Respondent was absent five days, which was again excessive in view of the summer session's abbreviated timeframe (July 7 through August 15, 1986). Out of two ninth grade subjects attempted, Respondent failed one and got a "D" in the other. On September 16, 1986, in the course of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Mrs. Robbie referred Respondent for discipline due to his yawning, talking, and back talk to her which disrupted her class. Mrs. Robbie had referred Respondent a number of times in the previous year. He failed her class in that school year, and, therefore, on September 16, 1986, Mr. Helip reassigned him to another English teacher without taking any punitive action against him. During the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent had been absent eleven days before the occurrence of the incident which precipitated his administrative assignment to the Dade County opportunity school system. At that time, he had failing grades in every one of the six subjects attempted. At the end of the first grading period, Respondent's conduct grades were all failing. The incident which precipitated administrative assignment of Respondent to the opportunity program involved Ernie Ortiz, a 17-year old ninth grader. Upon leaving the school grounds at the close of a school day in October 1986, Ortiz was "tailed" by a slow-cruising brown Camaro automobile with at least four young men in it. Ortiz saw Respondent in the car. A B-B gun was fired from the car at Ortiz who was on the sidewalk. Ortiz was hit by the B-B shot fired from the car and was subsequently treated at a hospital. The next day, Ortiz saw the same car at school and reported the incident to Mr. Helip. Although Ortiz was never able to say whether Respondent was driving or who shot him, the school resource officer found a pellet gun and pellets, a knife, and a roach clip in the car identified by Ortiz, and Respondent admitted to Mr. Helip that the gun was his. Mr. Helip recommended expulsion of Respondent because he believed a weapons charge had been made against Respondent. Instead, based upon all the circumstances, the school board made an opportunity school placement. There is no competent substantial evidence to show that any criminal charge was made against Respondent. In the past, counseling, corporal punishment, and outdoor suspensions have been tried with regard to Respondent but to no avail. The regular Dade County school program resources have been exhausted as regards Respondent.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter its Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to the school system's opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 13th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. and Mrs. Raimundo Dante 1095 S.W. 134th Court Miami, Florida 33184
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent they are consistent with these Findings of Fact, all proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent, substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant. On November 6, 1974, LaRosa was granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate and subsequently was employed by the Duval County School System. On October 24, 1975, LaRosa failed to appear at 3 a.m. for work as a substitute teacher in the P.E. Department at John Gorrie Junior High School. After having been involved in a car accident the night before and not having gotten to sleep until 5 a.m., LaRosa overslept and therefore did not notify the school board that he would be absent or advise the school of the reason for his failure to appear for class until noon that day. On or about February 25, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while intoxicated on the previous February 15. He was fined $200, and his driver's license was suspended for three months. On June 9, 1976, LaRosa was arrested in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated on that day. On or about July 2, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of having driven while intoxicated on June 9, 1976. He was sentenced to ten days in the Duval County Jail. LaRosa's convictions, set forth above, were considered by the Professional Practices Council of the Department of Education. The Council found "no probable cause to believe that the certificate be revoked or suspended at this time . . . and a letter of warning regarding repeated offenses be directed to the educator." By letter dated September 23, 1976, the Council warned LaRosa against future conduct that would reduce his effectiveness as an educator. Subsequent to the events set forth in the proceeding Findings of Fact, LaRosa left the teaching field and his certificate lapsed. From 1978 to the present, he has engaged in a number of employment positions unconnected with the field of education. On or about May 5, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication and public disturbance in Duval County, Florida. He subsequently was convicted on his plea of guilty and sentenced to 15 days' suspended sentence with six months' probation. In or about September, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication in Duval County, Florida. On November 18, 1981, be was convicted of that offense and violation of the probation alleged in the preceding paragraph. The court sentenced LaRosa to 68 days in jail (58 days were suspended) and given six months' probation for that offense, as well as for the violation of probation with regard to the previous offense. On or about July 6, 1982, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated during the previous March. He was sentenced to 38 days in jail. LaRosa's Application for Teacher's Certificate was received by DOE on August 26, 1982. The application reflects that it was signed by LaRosa and that be swore and subscribed to its accuracy before a notary public on August 20, 1982. In the application, LaRosa was asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? The application then provided spaces for a yes/no response and asked for details about any arrests, dates, nature of charges and dispositions. LaRosa's August 28, 1982, response to the foregoing question was simply that he had been arrested in "Jax Fla" and that the nature of the charge(s) was "DWI." LaRosa failed to include any further statement about the nature of his charges, and he did not include any information or reference to the dates and dispositions of the arrests and convictions set forth in the preceding paragraphs. On February 25, 1983, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while licensee was suspended in December 1982. He was sentenced to 68 days in jail with 58 days suspended and was placed on unsupervised probation. LaRosa was not intoxicated at the time of his arrest. At the time of the arrest for this incident, the police administered a field sobriety test, which LaRosa passed. The arrest report states that LaRosa bad been drinking. LaRosa denies that he had been drinking. But the circumstances were suspicious and, coupled with the police officer's observations, prevent me from finding that LaRosa was not drinking. Since LaRosa has the ultimate burden of persuasion, I find that he had been drinking immediately prior to the time of his arrest. In a letter dated May 26, 1983, LaRosa responded to a letter from Professional Practices regarding his admission of "DWI" arrest on Section V of the Application for Teacher's Certificate. In his letter, LaRosa wrote: The explanation of my charges are as follows: Driving while under the influence of alcohol. Driving on a suspended license. Public intoxication. I was sentenced 18, 38, and 68 days for these offenses. On October 6, 1983, LaRosa was again convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while license was suspended. For that offense, LaRosa received a 38-day suspended sentence and a $25 fine. When LaRosa was stopped by police, he at first misstated his name but was not intoxicated. At the time of the arrest, LaRosa again was given and apparently passed a field sobriety test. LaRosa denies having been drinking. But, again, the circumstances were suspicious, and the police arrest report contains a statement that the policeman thought LaRosa bad been drinking. Therefore, I find that LaRosa had been drinking just before the time of his arrest. LaRosa claims that be stopped drinking in August, 1982, after being released from jail, and that he has not been drinking since. As stated, I find his claim not to be completely accurate. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least twice a month during the year 1982 and attended eight to ten meetings in 1983. At the time of the final hearing, LaRosa had not been to an AA meeting in four months. LaRosa's personal conduct, set forth above, seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Nolan G. Gillmore, Secretary Staffing Supervisor for the Duval County School Board, gave opinion testimony in the area of education and personnel administration in Duval County and the State of Florida and in the area of effectiveness of teachers. Mr. Gillmore is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa's conduct would disqualify him from being a person the Duval County School System would hire as a teacher. Mr. Gillmore also is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa could not be an effective teacher because of the effect of his conduct on his relationship with his students and that be would have difficulty in his relationships with his fellow teachers and the community. Finally, Mr. Gillmore opined that, upon the evidence DOE presented at the final bearing, the Duval County School System would move to terminate LaRosa if he were a teacher in the system. LaRosa concedes to wrongdoing and says he would "take a two-year suspension." He thinks he has rehabilitated himself from his drinking problems and thinks be can be a good teacher. So does his friend, Paul Galloway, who is a teacher and has taught with LaRosa in the past. But, Mr. Gillmore's testimony was more persuasive than the testimony of LaRosa and Galloway.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission deny this application of Anthony W. LaRosa for a Florida Teacher's Certificate. RECOMMENDED this 15th of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Anthony W. LaRosa 3554 College Place Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the School Board of Dade County has cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds that Respondent was "willfully absent from duty without leave," within the meaning of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed in the instant case? If not, what relief should Respondent be afforded?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board during the 1988-89 school year on an annual contract basis. His employment commenced on August 31,1988. At all times he was assigned to the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) program at Carver Middle School. The principal of Carver Middle School, and Respondent's immediate supervisor, was Samuel Gay. Simine Heise was one of Gay's assistant principals. In Gay's absence, Heise served as acting principal. At around 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 1989, following a meeting with Gay, Respondent became physically ill at school. He left school for the day after notifying Gay and securing his authorization. Respondent was placed on sick leave for the remainder of the school day. At no time thereafter did Respondent report back to work. Various substitute teachers covered Respondent's classes during the period of his absence. Effective April 20, 1989, he was suspended by the School Board and it initiated action to terminate his employment on the ground that he had been willfully absent without authorization. During the period of his absence, Respondent was under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr. Adolfo M. Vilasuso. He was suffering from depression, insomnia, stress, anxiety and stress- induced gastrointestinal distress. He was treated by Dr. Vilasuso with psychotherapy and medication. Respondent's condition was primarily the result of personal problems involving his son and former wife. He was obsessed by these matters. He paid very little attention to anything else, including his teaching responsibilities. Although he was physically able to report to work, he was so distracted and preoccupied by his personal problems that he could not effectively discharge his teaching duties. The School Board requires that, in order to continue to obtain sick leave, a teacher absent because of illness must contact his immediate supervisor or the supervisor's designee by 2:00 p.m. of each day of absence and give notice that he will be out sick the following day. Teachers are advised of this "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement in the teacher handbook, a copy of which Respondent had received prior to his absence. Throughout the period of his absence, Respondent was capable of understanding and complying with this requirement. A teacher who complies with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement, but has exhausted all of his accrued sick leave credits, will automatically be placed on authorized leave without pay for illness for a maximum of 30 days, without the necessity of formal School Board approval. The leave will be extended beyond 30 days only if the teacher submits an appropriate application for an extension, accompanied by a "statement from [the teacher's] physician explaining why such [extended] leave is necessary." After leaving school on January 30, 1989, Respondent did not contact any member of the Carver Middle School administration or its staff concerning his absence until Saturday, February 11, 1989, when he telephoned Principal Gay's secretary, Maria Bonce, at her home and left a message with her daughter that he would not be at work the following Monday. On February 15, 1989, Dr. Vilasuso telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Assistant Principal Heise. Dr. Vilasuso told Heise that Respondent was under his care. He was vague, however, regarding the nature of Respondent's illness and he did not indicate when Respondent would be able to return to work. On February 21, 1989, not having heard anything further from either Respondent or Dr. Vilasuso, Principal Gay sent Respondent the following letter: The purpose of this communication is to determine your intentions for the balance of this school term. You've been absent from your teaching position at Carver Middle School since 12:00 a.m [sic] on January 30, 1989. On Saturday, February 11, you called my secretary, Mrs. Bonce, indicating you would return to work next week. On February 15, an individual identifying himself as your doctor called Carver Middle School and spoke to the assistant principal, Mrs. Heise. When he was requested [to provide information] about your illness, medical status and your ability to return to work, he stated he would not give further information without your approval. Until now we have not heard from you since February 11 when you contacted Mrs. Bonce at home. Also, the phone number and address we have on record obviously are no longer yours, therefore, I am unable to ccntact you. In addition to the above, we have no lesson plans, roll books, grade books for your students. It has been reported to me by custodial staff that you are frequently observed in the building after duty hours yet you have failed to communicate with me personally or the assistant principal or speak with your department head or the assistant principal for curriculum. I must call your attention to the contract between Dade County Public Schools and UTD and the teacher handbook which has information whiih addresses teachers' absences. You are clearly in violation of these documents. Finally, may I remind you of a memorandum given to you on January 27. A written response was due to me on February 1st. In addition, a conversation for the record was scheduled for February 1st. That conference will be held. You simply need to tell me when. I must remind you that failure to comply with district and local rules can result in non-reappointment for the 1989-90 school year. After receiving the letter, Respondent, on Thursday, February 23, 1989, telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Gay. Although he did not indicate to Gay when he was going to return to school, he did leave Gay with the impression that his condition was improving. Respondent also intimated during the telephone conversation that Gay would be receiving a letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's illness. The following Monday, February 27, 1989, at around 9:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned Secretary Bonce at her home and told her that he would be absent from school the remainder of the week due to illness. On Wednesday, March 8, 1989 Respordent telephoned Gay at school. He told Gay that he wanted to apply for sick leave and asked how he would go about doing so. Gay responded that he had referred Respondent's case to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and that therefore the matter was "out of his hands" and Respondent would have to contact that office. On no occasion other than during the foregoing telephone conversations of February 11, 23 and 27, 1989, and March 8, 1989, did Respondent communicate with Gay or any member of Gay's administrative staff concerning his absence. Respondent's failure to so communicate with either his immediate supervisor or anyone on his immediate supervisor's administrative staff was willful. On March 28, 1989, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the head of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, sent Respondent a letter, which provided in pertinent part as follows: The Office of Professional Standards has been advised that you have been absent without authority from your duties as an employee in the Dade County Public Schools. During this period you did not obtain authorized leave from your supervisor. Florida Statute 231.44 provides: Any District school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Your absence without authorized leave constitutes willful neglect of duty and subjects your employment with the Dade County Schools to immediate termination. Please be advised that unless you provide within five days from receipt of this letter a written notification to the Office of Professional Standards, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215, Miami, FL 33132, of your resolution of your unauthorized leave status, your termination will be submitted to the School Board for final action at its meeting of April 19, 1989. Respondent received Dr. Annunziata's letter on April 10, 1989. He did not provide the Office of Professional Standards with the requisite "written notification" within five days of his receipt of the letter. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the School Board at its April 19, 1989, meeting. Thereafter, Respondent submitted to the Office of Professional Standards a written request for leave without pay for illness. The request sought leave for the period from February 8, 1989, through June 19, 1989. Although the form on which Respondent made his request noted that a "[d]octor's statement indicating diagnosis [and] length of time required for leave" was required, no such statement accompanied Respondent's request. A letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's condition was subsequently received by the Office of Professional Standards on April 28, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as an annual contract teacher pursuant to Section 231.44, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3231 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: School Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First, second and third sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Fourth and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: To the extent that it suggests that Respondent "never" complied with the "2:00 pm. notification requirement," it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Second sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that Respondent was absent without authorization during a portion of the period from January 30, 1989, to April 19, 1989, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that he was absent without authorization during the entire period, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it is irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected because it is a summary of rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact; Remaining sentences: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent it suggests that a teacher need not comply with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement to obtain authorized leave for illness and that Respondent was on such authorized leave during the first 30 days of his absence. Otherwise, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33134 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Bain holds Florida teaching certificate number 480711, issued by the Department of Education, covering the area of music education. During the 1981-1982 school year, the Respondent was employed as a permanent substitute teacher by the Dade County School District to teach music education at Miami Jackson Senior High School. On May 21, 1982, the Respondent's students at Miami Jackson held a surprise birthday party for the Respondent. The party began during the first period and concluded during the lunch hour. Punch, cake and cookies were officially served at the party which took place in the chorus room. During the course of the party, at least one student brought an alcoholic beverage into the Respondent's classroom. The Respondent became aware of the alcohol when he smelled it. Since he didn't know who had the alcohol, the Respondent told his class that "whoever has it, get it out of here because its serious consequences for you." (Tr.90) The Respondent believed that the problem had been solved by his warning since the alcohol smell subsided. While the birthday party was in progress, a female student, Ophelia Garcia, entered Respondent's classroom and joined the party. Although Ophelia was not a student in any of the Respondent's classes, he wrote her a pass so that she could attend the party. Approximately ten minutes following her arrival at the party, Ophelia became ill and had to be physically assisted from the classroom. The Respondent ordered two or three students to take Ophelia to the clinic; unknown to him, however, the students instead chose to take Ophelia to a bathroom. Ophelia eventually was taken to the school's administrative offices. She was described as totally intoxicated and the fire rescue squad was called to render assistance. Later that day, Percy Oliver, the principal, received a call from his area office concerning a complaint from parents regarding students becoming intoxicated during a party in the chorus room. Following this call, Oliver called the Respondent into his office and confronted him with the allegations that alcoholic beverages were present during the party. The Respondent repeatedly denied that any alcoholic beverages were present in his class during the party. Several days later, the Respondent admitted to Oliver that alcohol was in the classroom. Based upon the Respondent's failure to take reasonable efforts to eliminate alcoholic beverages from his classroom and his initial false answers to Oliver's questions, it was recommended that the Respondent's employment with the school district be terminated. Dr. Patrick Gray, executive director of the Division of Personnel Control, Dade County School District, held a conference for the record with the Respondent on August 16, 1982. During the conference, the Respondent admitted that Ophelia had become ill due to consumption of alcohol at the party; that he had used poor judgment in failing to personally assist Ophelia when she became ill; and that he had lied to his principal in order to protect students who were at his party. As a result of the conference, the Respondent was restricted from employment with the school district until November 1, 1982, and restricted from that date forward to teaching in a substitute capacity, with the proviso that his conduct would be closely monitored. As a permanent substitute teacher, the Respondent's employment automatically terminated at the conclusion of the 1981- 1982 school year. In Dr. Gray's professional opinion, the Respondent's actions were such that ". . .his integrity as a professional educator and. . .the integrity of the profession. . .had been impugned and, further, that his. . .failure to exercise proper responsibility. . .is such that the continued licensure of this individual. . .should have been. . .and was investigated." In his judgment, ". . .those actions did constitute sufficient cause to question his retention of a teaching license." (Tr.44) Norma Gandes and Reverend Michael Loomis testified as character witnesses for the Respondent. Both consider him truthful and trustworthy. Since June, 1982, the Respondent has worked for Reverend Loomis directing a church music program and serving as a church organist. Other than the incident in question, the Respondent has not been involved in any other disciplinary proceedings while employed as a teacher by the school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent Alonzo Bain guilty of violating Rules 6B-1.06(3)(a) and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, placing a written reprimand in the Respondent's certification file as authorized by Section 231.262(7)(f), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1984.
