The Issue Whether Respondent’s employment with the Sarasota County School Board should be terminated, pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(b) and (6)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: David DeWitt was born in Miami and attended Miami Sunset Senior High School, where he played varsity basketball, graduating in 1980. He met his wife, the former Karen Burmeister, in high school. They dated each other in high school and beyond, and were married in 1988. They have two children: a son, Ryan, born in 1990, and a daughter, Megan, born in 1994. Karen DeWitt has been a teacher since 1985, and currently serves as instructional technology facilitator at Ashton Elementary School in Sarasota. David DeWitt attended Miami-Dade Community College on a basketball scholarship, then graduated from Florida International University with a bachelor's degree in business administration in 1986. He received a master's degree in computer education from Barry University in 1993. He completed a program in educational leadership at Nova University, also in 1993. Mr. DeWitt applied for a teacher's position in the Miami-Dade public school system in 1988, and was assigned to a teaching position at Miami Sunset for the 1988-89 school year. He taught in the "diversified cooperative training" program, in which students received credit for off-campus employment. He also worked as an assistant basketball coach. After the sudden resignation of the head coach, Mr. DeWitt served as interim head basketball coach during the 1990-91 season. The principal of Miami Sunset, Barbara Silver, encouraged Mr. DeWitt to seek certification in administration, believing he had the potential to become a principal. As noted above, he completed an educational leadership program in 1993. He received his state certification, and midway through the 1993-94 school year transferred to Homestead Middle School as an assistant principal. The DeWitts were concerned about raising small children in the urban atmosphere of Miami, and David DeWitt began interviewing for jobs in other school systems. He ultimately took a position with the Sarasota County public school system, and began as an assistant principal at Riverview High School in the 1994-95 school year. He remained in that position until the time of his suspension. Prior to the events that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. DeWitt was never subjected to discipline in his employment, nor had complaints been lodged as to any of his actions at Riverview. The principal of Riverview, Kevin Flynn, testified that Mr. DeWitt had continuously progressed to higher levels of responsibility during his employment at Riverview. In 1997, Mr. DeWitt was chosen to lead the team establishing the International Baccalaureate ("IB") program at Riverview. Mr. Flynn testified that, prior to this proceeding, David DeWitt's reputation was that of a very able administrator, and that his standing was high among both teachers and parents. Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. DeWitt would have been a good candidate for principal at any high school in Sarasota County. The findings of fact below are arranged in the following order, based upon four discrete sets of events. First are the facts relating to the events of Fall 1997 through Spring 1998. These largely concern the allegations of Jennifer Bonelli about a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. Second are the facts relating to events of Spring 1999, which largely concern the allegations of Kendra Simpkins about a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. The investigation of the Bonelli and Simpkins allegations uncovered allegations about a sexual relationship between David DeWitt and Joy Perez. The allegations of Ms. Perez are dealt with as the third section of the findings of fact, though the events actually occurred several years before the Bonelli/Simpkins allegations, because Ms. Perez’ allegations were discovered by investigators during their investigation of the Bonelli/Simpkins allegations. The fourth section deals with events that occurred after Mr. DeWitt was suspended from his position at Riverview High School, chiefly allegations that Kendra Simpkins continued to stalk and harass the DeWitt family until the time of the final hearing. I. Fall 1997-Spring 1998 The allegations during this period focus on alleged sexual episodes with Riverview students Jennifer Bonelli and Kendra Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli claims that Mr. DeWitt had several sexual encounters with her at Twin Lakes Park during this time period. Ms. Simpkins claims that a single episode occurred in Mr. DeWitt's office during this time period. Mr. DeWitt flatly denies all the allegations, claiming that both girls were infatuated with him, and invented their stories. Jennifer Bonelli Jennifer Bonelli attended Riverview from 1996 through 1999. She graduated in 1999 and at the time of the hearing was attending the University of South Florida in Tampa. Her parents and two of her brothers still live in the Sarasota area. During the 1997-98 year, when she was a junior, Ms. Bonelli worked as a teacher's assistant in the guidance office. She was assigned to Ms. Chris Landes, who was Mr. DeWitt's secretary. Ms. Bonelli worked in the guidance office for one period each day, performing routine clerical duties under the supervision of Ms. Landes. Mr. DeWitt was Ms. Bonelli's grade level administrator, meaning that he was assigned to follow her class from its freshman through its senior year, handling disciplinary problems or problems the students may have in their classes. Mr. DeWitt was not a guidance counselor. Ms. Bonelli testified that she first saw David DeWitt either in the beginning of her junior year or during the summer after her sophomore year. She had asked to be assigned to the guidance office, and to Ms. Landes and Mr. DeWitt in particular. Ms. Bonelli testified that her initial impression of Mr. DeWitt was that he was a pleasant, nice, helpful, friendly person. Ms. Bonelli stated that she liked and was attracted to Mr. DeWitt, and soon developed a crush on him. Ms. Bonelli's testimony that she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt only after she met him cannot be credited. Blair Johnson, one of Ms. Bonelli's best friends, testified that Ms. Bonelli told him she found Mr. DeWitt attractive during her sophomore year, and expressed a romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt during the summer after her sophomore year. Christine Ross, another of Ms. Bonelli's friends at Riverview, also testified that Ms. Bonelli expressed a crush on Mr. DeWitt the year before she began working in the guidance office, and before she had met Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross testified that the crush was based simply on seeing Mr. DeWitt around the school. The testimony of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Ross is credited on this point. Blair Johnson testified that he and Ms. Bonelli had summer school classes at Riverview that year, and that one day Ms. Bonelli accompanied him to the guidance office, where he had to go to make changes to his fall schedule of classes. The secretary mentioned to them that Mr. DeWitt would be moving into the guidance office that fall. Mr. Johnson testified that as he filled out his fall class schedule, Ms. Bonelli asked the secretary detailed questions about when Mr. DeWitt would be moving in and what kind of furniture he would have. Mr. Johnson testified that he was a student assistant in the guidance office during Fall 1997, assigned to Mr. DeWitt's secretary during second, third, and fourth periods. Ms. Bonelli took lunch during fourth period, then worked in the guidance office during fifth period. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Bonelli regularly came into the guidance office and worked with him during her lunch period. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Johnson that she did so to be near Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she often talked with Mr. DeWitt, in the hallway and in his office. The discussions were not limited to school events and activities. Ms. Bonelli testified that they talked about their personal lives. Despite these frequent personal discussions, Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt never mentioned he was married. She asked him about it, and he never gave her a direct reply or ever volunteered anything about his marriage. She perceived that Mr. DeWitt was trying to avoid the subject of his marriage. Ms. Bonelli stated that she could not recall whether she asked Ms. Landes if Mr. DeWitt was married. She admitted that there were many people in the guidance office she could have asked. She stated that she was curious, and asked around, but never asked an adult. Ms. Bonelli's testimony as to her lack of knowledge of Mr. DeWitt's marital status was untrue. In June 1997, Ms. Bonelli masqueraded as David DeWitt in a series of prank e-mails that she sent to her friend Blair Johnson. In one of these e- mails, she correctly named Mr. DeWitt's wife and children. She knew the ages of the children and where they went to school. Further, Mr. Johnson testified that he heard Ms. Bonelli commenting about Karen DeWitt as early as Summer 1997, referring to her as a "bitch" and a "slut." Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli later began saying that "we need to get rid of Karen." Mr. Johnson testified that he was "pretty weirded out" by the fact that Ms. Bonelli knew the name of Mr. DeWitt's wife, and was later disturbed at the stories Ms. Bonelli was spreading about Mr. DeWitt, discussed below. Mr. Johnson's testimony on this point is credited. Karen DeWitt works with Mr. Johnson's mother, and Mr. Johnson met Karen DeWitt in October 1997. He considered telling Mrs. DeWitt about Ms. Bonelli's actions, but decided that it would seem "weird and possibly obnoxious" for a 17-year-old boy to bring up such subjects with a teacher. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had no clear recollection of when he met Ms. Bonelli. She was assigned to his secretary, Ms. Landes, and so could have been there for some time before he took notice of her. Mr. DeWitt did not dispute that Ms. Bonelli began as an aide in the guidance office in Fall 1997. He stated that as far as he knew, she did a fine job. He based this opinion on reports from Ms. Landes. Mr. DeWitt testified that his policy is to keep his home life and work life separate, and that he has no photographs of his wife and children in his office. He testified that he has never denied to anyone that he is married. As detailed below, several witnesses testified that Mr. DeWitt was unaccountably coy about discussing his marital status, to the point of even denying that he had a wife and children. Mr. DeWitt attempted to explain that he kept home and work separate, and believed that his personal life was not the business of students. This explanation does not answer why Mr. DeWitt would deny being married at all, when the true state of affairs could be easily ascertained by anyone with a genuine interest in the matter. Ms. Bonelli testified that she and Mr. DeWitt engaged in "casual flirting." They would compliment each other. She stated that the comments were such that they "could be taken either way," depending on one's demeanor or gestures. She believed he was flirting with her, and she liked it. Mr. DeWitt testified that he recalled no conversations with Ms. Bonelli during Fall 1997, other than of the "Hi, how are you?" variety. He had no real recollection of Ms. Bonelli ever being in his office during this period. Mr. DeWitt testified that he always looked for reasons to compliment students, whether on their appearance or their accomplishments, as a means of enhancing their self-esteem. Christine Ross testified that during this period, she would go to Riverview football games with Ms. Bonelli. She stated that Ms. Bonelli would always make an effort to speak with Mr. DeWitt, who was assigned to monitor the area between the players' bench and the fence separating the field from the grandstand. Mr. DeWitt had no specific recollection of talking to Ms. Bonelli at the football games, but stated that hundreds of students walked past the fence on their way to the concession stand, that he spoke to many of them, and that he very likely did have some brief conversations with Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt testified that in Fall 1997, he would go to Sarasota Middle School to run in the evenings. He saw Ms. Bonelli there once or twice. He did not speak with her and could not say what she was doing there. He did not like seeing her there, because he saw enough of students during the work day and did not want to be in the position of having to deal with them during his "down time." Mr. DeWitt also testified that there were three or four occasions when Ms. Bonelli drove up next to his car at stop lights on Proctor Road as he drove home from school or from Riverview football games. Ms. Bonelli would usually roll down her window and wave, though in one instance after a football game she asked him what he was doing. Mr. DeWitt said "hello" and told her he was on his way home. Mr. DeWitt testified that these apparently fortuitous meetings were infrequent enough that he did not yet feel uncomfortable or as if Ms. Bonelli was following him. Mr. DeWitt testified that in about January 1998, he started feeling uncomfortable about Ms. Bonelli. He was seeing her more and more. He saw her in his rear view mirror constantly. At least twice, he saw her coming down the road toward him in her Lexus, then make a U-turn to follow him. If he was leaving the school, driving home, he would see her somewhere on his way. If he then got back in his car to take his son to Twin Lakes Park for baseball practice, Ms. Bonelli would either be on the road or at the park. If Mr. DeWitt went to the mall, he would see Ms. Bonelli there. Ms. Bonelli denied following Mr. DeWitt. This denial cannot be credited. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him that she followed Mr. DeWitt around town to places where he did personal things, such as picking his children up from day care. Mr. Johnson stated that he was in the car with Ms. Bonelli on one occasion when she made a U-turn to follow Mr. DeWitt's car. Riverview students Christine Ross and Kendra Simpkins also related stories of riding in Ms. Bonelli's car and following Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that at some point in Fall 1997, the relationship began to go beyond flirting. She testified that one day Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of Twin Lakes Park, describing to her the days and times he went there to jog. Ms. Bonelli stated that around the end of September 1997, she began going to Twin Lakes Park at the times suggested by Mr. DeWitt. She went two to four days a week. She did not always see Mr. DeWitt there, and would simply jog on the days he was absent. She continued to go to Twin Lakes Park until some time in January 1998. Ms. Bonelli testified that on occasion she would go to the park with her school friends, including Christine Ross and Blair Johnson. She also went to Twin Lakes Park with her father and brother. When she went with a group, they would either jog or play football on the field next to the circular running path. Christine Ross testified that on one occasion, Mr. DeWitt tossed the football with the group for a few minutes. Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt approached her in November 1997 and told her he had a "problem," and would like her help. She asked him what the problem was, and Mr. DeWitt told her she would have to figure that out for herself. Ms. Bonelli stated that she had no idea what kind of problem Mr. DeWitt was talking about, whether school related or personal. For a period of weeks, Mr. DeWitt would ask her every day if she had thought about his "problem," and whether she could help him with it. Finally, she asked him if the problem had to do with the two of them, and he said yes. She took that to mean something sexual. Ms. Bonelli testified that in November 1997, she and Mr. DeWitt were leaving the park around dusk after running. She stated that they did not run together, but that Mr. DeWitt had asked her to come talk to him after he finished his run. Mr. DeWitt got into his Ford Explorer, then asked Ms. Bonelli if she wanted to "watch." She didn't know what he meant, but soon enough figured it out. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt was sitting in his car, hands in his lap. It looked as if his hands were moving. She was standing next to the car, outside the driver's side window. She could not actually see his hands, but his arm looked as if it were moving up and down. She could not see if he was exposing his genitalia. Ms. Bonelli stated that she "snickered" and walked away toward her car. Ms. Bonelli testified that during this period in late 1997, Mr. DeWitt would ask her to "talk dirty" to him, and that she did so on a few occasions. She stated that she didn't know how to "talk dirty," and asked friends what to say. Ms. Bonelli did not name these friends, and no witness at the hearing testified as to coaching Ms. Bonelli on "talking dirty." Ms. Bonelli testified that the "dirty talk" was graphic. She would describe sexual acts she wanted to perform on him, using terms such as "cock," "stroke," and "suck." Ms. Bonelli also stated that Mr. DeWitt would ask her to "help him out" or "give him a little," which she took to be an invitation to grab or fondle him as he masturbated. She testified that she did not accept the invitation. Two other students, Kendra Simpkins and Blair Johnson, testified that Ms. Bonelli told them that she did masturbate Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that these "talking dirty" sessions took place as they each sat in their own cars, parked next to each other in a small asphalt indentation near the front of Twin Lakes Park. She was on his left, looking over the passenger side window of her car to his driver's side window. Though she earlier testified that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Ford Explorer at the time of the first "watching" incident, Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Honda during these "talking dirty" episodes. She drove a Lexus SE400, and recalled that Mr. DeWitt was sitting at her eye level. Ms. Bonelli testified that it looked as though Mr. Dewitt was "touching himself" and as though his right arm was moving while she talked dirty. She could not see his hands. Ms. Bonelli testified that these "talking dirty" sessions occurred at Twin Lakes Park from ten to twelve times. Each time, Mr. DeWitt's arms appeared to move toward his genitals. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt's facial expression never indicated that he reached orgasm. She stated that he smiled as she spoke. She admitted that she never actually saw him masturbate, but assumed he was doing so. She testified that she never had skin-to-skin contact with Mr. Dewitt during any of these episodes or at any other time. Ms. Bonelli testified that on one occasion she saw a glimpse of Mr. DeWitt's penis when he pulled it out of his shorts as she stood at his driver's side window. She said he then giggled nervously and put it back into his shorts. Ms. Bonelli testified that as time passed, Mr. DeWitt became more nervous about their activities at Twin Lakes Park. Mr. DeWitt would say that he saw people he knew at the park, and that he did not want to be seen together with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Bonelli testified that she told her friend, Christine Ross, all the details of her meetings with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park, and that she took Ms. Ross to the park more than once to prove that she was not making up the story. She testified that Ms. Ross saw her talking with Mr. DeWitt, but was not close enough to hear what was said. Ms. Ross testified that she did go to Twin Lakes Park with Ms. Bonelli in Fall 1997, for the dual purpose of exercising and observing Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross stated that it was Ms. Bonelli's idea to go there, so that she would believe Ms. Bonelli's stories about her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she recalled one occasion when Ms. Ross ducked down in passenger seat of her car and eavesdropped on Ms. Bonelli's conversation with Mr. DeWitt at the park. She stated that Mr. DeWitt was sitting in his car, which was parked next to the passenger side of Ms. Bonelli's car. Ms. Bonelli stated that she was not sure whether this was one of the "talking dirty" episodes, but that Ms. Ross would have heard whatever was said by her and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross testified she hid on the passenger side floor of Ms. Bonelli's car when it was parked next to Mr. DeWitt's, and that she overheard Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt having a conversation "of a sexual nature." She testified that Ms. Bonelli was "talking dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. She stated that Mr. DeWitt did not solicit these statements, but he did say that he liked them. Counsel for Mr. DeWitt confronted Ms. Ross with her deposition testimony, which averred that she had never heard any such talk between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Ross stated that she had had time since her deposition to think about the facts, and now recalled incidents that she could not recollect at her deposition. Ms. Ross' testimony cannot be credited. This finding is not based solely on the contradictions between her deposition testimony and her testimony at the hearing, though those discrepancies were significant and the revised testimony conveniently gibed with Ms. Bonelli's story. There were also internal contradictions in her testimony at the hearing that make it plain she was untruthful. She claimed to be hiding on the floorboard of Ms. Bonelli's car, out of Mr. DeWitt's sight, yet she also claimed that she could see Mr. DeWitt's head and shoulders in the adjacent car. Ms. Ross claimed that Mr. DeWitt was driving a green 1998 Honda, when Mr. DeWitt in fact drove a Ford Explorer and his wife drove a midnight blue 1991 Honda at the time of these events. In this regard, it is again a significant coincidence that Ms. Bonelli also erroneously stated that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Honda. Ms. Ross claimed that she could hear Ms. Bonelli's conversation with Mr. DeWitt, that she "definitely" recalled that the conversation was of a sexual nature, and that it went on for fifteen or twenty minutes. However, she could not recall any specifics of the conversation. Ms. Ross claimed that Mr. DeWitt later privately questioned her about what she had observed between Ms. Bonelli and him. Ms. Ross did not explain how Mr. DeWitt could know to ask such questions if he didn't know she had been hiding in the car. Mr. DeWitt recalled a conversation with Ms. Ross in which he asked her "how much do you know," but he was asking about the egging incident discussed below. Ms. Ross told other stories of standing at a distance and observing Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli interact at Twin Lakes Park. Even if these stories were credited, they would establish nothing more than the fact that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli were at the park at the same time, and acknowledged each other's presence. Ms. Ross testified that Ms. Bonelli told her stories about meeting Mr. DeWitt at the park, and speaking in a sexual manner while Mr. DeWitt masturbated. This testimony is credited insofar as it establishes that Ms. Bonelli was telling those stories at roughly the time she alleges the events occurred, but is not credited as establishing the truth of those stories. Ms. Bonelli testified that she also told Blair Johnson about events at Twin Lakes Park, though not in the detail she provided to Ms. Ross. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him about going to Twin Lakes Park. Mr. Johnson stated that he heard Ms. Bonelli tell different people three different versions of what happened at the park between Mr. DeWitt and her. The first story was that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli got into her car, and she masturbated him. In the second version, she told a group of friends that she performed oral sex on Mr. DeWitt in her car. The third version was that she and Mr. DeWitt had full sexual intercourse in her car. Mr. Johnson did not believe any of these stories, but he did not report them until after the trespassing incident, discussed below. Mr. Johnson testified that he tried to ignore the DeWitt discussions, because he believed Ms. Bonelli was telling these stories for the attention they brought her. He believed that she kept changing the stories for "greater attention availability." Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli would tell these stories to anyone who would listen, not merely to her close confidants. This testimony was effectively corroborated by another Riverview student, Dominique McAnn, who testified that stories about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli circulated widely among her group of friends, numbering about 40 students. Ms. Bonelli testified that these assignations occurred at twilight, and that people driving past could not necessarily see what was happening. She stated that Twin Lakes Park was not busy during the months these meetings were occurring. She never saw little league baseball or soccer games going on at the times she met Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Bonelli testified that the meetings at the park ended in mid-January 1998. She stated that there was no definitive break in the relationship, but that Mr. DeWitt began ignoring her to show attention to another student, Kendra Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt flatly denied that any of these events at Twin Lakes Park ever took place. As noted above, Mr. DeWitt testified that he saw Ms. Bonelli a few times when he went to run at Sarasota Middle School during Fall 1997. He testified that in early 1998, he switched to jogging at Twin Lakes Park to avoid seeing Ms. Bonelli or any other student. He stated that he considers running to be his personal "down time" for stress relief. He dealt with students all day and didn't want to see them when he ran. At that time, he harbored no particular animus for Ms. Bonelli, but simply wanted to go somewhere not frequented by students. Karen DeWitt testified that her husband conveyed these thoughts to her at the time he switched from jogging at Sarasota Middle School to Twin Lakes. She also testified that Mr. DeWitt never came home from running after dark. After school, he spent time playing with his son. He would go running only if he could get away by about four p.m. If it was getting dark, he would stay home and help out with the children. Karen DeWitt testified that her husband jogged three or four times per week, and that she and the children went with him about half the time. The children would play while their father ran. Mr. DeWitt testified that he chose Twin Lakes because it was close to his house, had a soft running trail, and also had open fields where his children could play while he ran. Ms. Bonelli denied ever seeing Karen DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park when David DeWitt was jogging there. Ms. Bonelli claimed not to know what Karen DeWitt looked like at the time of these events. It cannot be conclusively found that Ms. Bonelli's claim on this point is untrue. However, it is noted that Ms. Bonelli demonstrated to Blair Johnson knowledge of Mr. DeWitt's wife and children that she claimed in her testimony not to possess. Even before he began jogging there, Mr. DeWitt took his son to Twin Lakes for soccer and baseball practices and games in 1997. His son played soccer from October to January, and baseball from January to April. Mr. DeWitt coached both sports, and so was there with his son very often. Mr. DeWitt would go to run between four and five p.m. Contrary to Ms. Bonelli, Mr. DeWitt testified that there was a lot of traffic in and out of the park when he went running there. Twin Lakes is a public park. At the time, it was the spring training facility for the Baltimore Orioles. Mr. DeWitt testified that youth baseball is played there year-round, and that youth football practices took place in the fall in the area near the running trail. Twin Lakes Park is lighted. Mr. DeWitt testified as to a bank of lights around the baseball fields that comes on every evening. He also stated that the parking lot is lighted, and produced photographs showing the lights. He stated that there are no lights around the running trail, which was why he always tried to complete his run before dark. Teresa Flannelly, whose son played baseball and soccer with Mr. DeWitt's son starting in January 1998, testified that she drives past Twin Lakes Park eight to ten times a day. She testified that the park is busy at dusk, due to little league baseball, soccer, and football. She also testified that the lights in the parking lot are always on at night. Mr. DeWitt testified that at some point in early 1998, Ms. Bonelli began appearing at Twin Lakes Park when he was there. He stated that he did not run with her, and did not like seeing her there. On one occasion as he was jogging on the half-mile trail, Ms. Bonelli approached him unexpectedly. Mr. DeWitt testified that this startled him, and he made it clear to Ms. Bonelli that he was upset and unhappy at her uninvited and unwelcome approach. Mr. DeWitt testified that he told Ms. Bonelli, "I'm here to reduce stress. I don't need you here at this park. If you're going to be here, I'll find somewhere else to go running. I'm not sure how many more parks there are. You are not to be around me at this park. This is a public park. Are you going to be running here?" He stated this was the extent of their conversation. Mr. DeWitt denied ever playing catch with a football with Ms. Bonelli or her friends. He could not clearly recall ever seeing her at the park with anyone else. Mr. DeWitt stated that there were a couple of times that he talked to Ms. Bonelli from his car. He stated that Ms. Bonelli had a knack for showing up just when he finished running and was walking to his Ford Explorer. She would either pull in or would already be parked in the space next to his car. Mr. DeWitt stated that these conversations were similar to the one he described when Ms. Bonelli approached him on the running trail. Mr. DeWitt recalled another occasion when he returned to his car to find Ms. Bonelli's empty car parked next to his. This time, he managed to get into his car and drive away before Ms. Bonelli returned to her car. Mr. DeWitt flatly denied having sexual conversations with Ms. Bonelli at Twin Lakes Park or on any other occasion. Mr. DeWitt denied ever asking Ms. Bonelli to "talk dirty." He denied ever masturbating in his car or doing anything that might be mistaken for masturbating. James Clark, a teacher and athletic director at Riverview, credibly testified that he frequented Twin Lakes Park during this period because his daughters were cheerleaders in the junior football program. Mr. Clark testified that he often saw Mr. DeWitt running at Twin Lakes, and would say hello and chat with him there. Mr. Clark never saw Mr. DeWitt engaging in anything inappropriate at the park. Ms. Bonelli testified as to several other incidents involving her and Mr. DeWitt, aside from events at Twin Lakes Park. She stated that Mr. DeWitt had her talk dirty to him in his office as the two of them put together test packets. She stated that Mr. DeWitt would also motion for her to crawl under his desk, presumably for oral sex, even though his office door was open and students could see in through a large window. She testified that she declined. Mr. DeWitt denied that either the dirty talk or the desk incident ever occurred. He also pointed out that next to his office door was a window, eight feet high and three feet wide, without curtains or blinds, that allowed anyone walking past his office to look inside, and that the corridor outside his office was heavily used by students going to and from class. His description of the window was corroborated by several witnesses, including Ms. Bonelli herself. Mr. DeWitt also testified that the door to his office was always open, unless he was having a meeting with parents or a disciplinary meeting with a student, and that his secretary sat only a few feet from that open door. Mr. DeWitt's testimony as to his office practices and the physical layout of his office was supported by that of his secretary, Chris Landes, and by Dean Wait, the director of guidance, whose office was across the hall from Mr. DeWitt's. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt asked her to go into the school's media center bathroom with him. The media center was above the guidance office. To the left of Mr. DeWitt's office was a stairwell leading to the media center. Ms. Bonelli stated that she saw Mr. DeWitt walk into the teacher's bathroom near the media center, and that he motioned for her to follow him in. She testified that she declined. Mr. DeWitt denied that this incident ever occurred. It is noted that Ms. Bonelli's description of this alleged incident is remarkably similar to an admittedly false story she later helped concoct and spread through Riverview about Mr. DeWitt and Kendra Simpkins, discussed below. Ms. Bonelli vaguely recalled grabbing Mr. DeWitt's crotch over his clothes on one occasion. Christine Ross testified that she witnessed this event, and that it occurred in a crowded hallway between classes at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt denied that this ever happened. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt once asked her about "cybersex," which she defined as "a form of talking dirty over the internet." Mr. DeWitt asked her what it was, and she gave him some examples. He asked her what she would say to someone if she were having cybersex. Ms. Bonelli stated that she never engaged in cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli approached him at school one day early in 1998 and asked if he had ever "cybered." Mr. DeWitt told her he had no idea what she was talking about. Ms. Bonelli told him it was something people do on America On- Line ("AOL"), doing "fantasy things" with other people. Mr. DeWitt told her that he didn't have AOL. Mr. DeWitt's testimony on this point is credited. Mr. DeWitt testified that other disturbing computer- related incidents occurred at about the same time, approximately March 1998. Linda Brooks, the parent of a student in the IB program, had questions about her daughter's science class. She met with Mr. DeWitt, and they exchanged e-mail addresses. She saw Mr. DeWitt write down her e-mail address in his daily planner, which generally sat open on his desk. Ms. Brooks testified that she attempted to send an e- mail message to the school system address he had given her, but it came back as undeliverable. Shortly thereafter, she received an e-mail purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt. The message was short, something about wanting to make contact, and was signed, "Dave." Ms. Brooks testified that this seemed strange because it was too casual. She had never called him "Dave," and had never heard him refer to himself as anything other than "David DeWitt" or "Mr. DeWitt." She nonetheless wrote a lengthy response and used the "reply" button to send it. She noted that the address displayed was "DavidDeWitt@aol.com." Ms. Brooks testified that she never received a response to her e-mail, so she phoned Mr. DeWitt about the information she was requesting. During the conversation, she mentioned that she had sent an e-mail, and Mr. DeWitt told her he had never received it. Ms. Brooks told him that her e-mail was a response to the one he had sent her over the weekend. Mr. DeWitt told her that he had never sent her an e-mail. Ms. Brooks told him that the e- mail had come from an AOL account. Mr. DeWitt told her he had never had an AOL account. Ms. Brooks printed the e-mail and brought it to Mr. DeWitt at Riverview. She testified that Mr. DeWitt was very concerned that someone was pretending to be him. As they were discussing the situation, Ms. Brooks recalled that Mr. DeWitt had written her e-mail address in his daily planner, and she asked him who had access to the planner. Mr. DeWitt told her that he has an open door, and his planner usually sits open on his desk, meaning that any number of people could have copied Ms. Brooks' address. Mr. DeWitt suspected Ms. Bonelli. About a week later, he asked Ms. Bonelli if she had sent an e-mail to Ms. Brooks. Ms. Bonelli's answer was equivocal. Mr. DeWitt told her that he believed she took Ms. Brooks' e-mail address from his planner. Ms. Bonelli answered, "You think I'd go into your office and get the address out of your planner?" Mr. DeWitt said, "Yes." Ms. Bonelli said, "Well, maybe I did." Mr. DeWitt testified that he investigated no further, because this satisfied him that Ms. Bonelli was the culprit. Ms. Bonelli testified that she never sent an e-mail to Linda Brooks. Ms. Bonelli's denial is not credible. Blair Johnson testified that on June 18, 1997, he received an e-mail from an account named after Mr. DeWitt. He found it odd that Mr. DeWitt would send him an e-mail, because he didn't know Mr. DeWitt very well. Mr. Johnson's internet account was not identifiable as his, meaning that the sender could not have discovered his e-mail address by search or happenstance. Mr. Johnson would have had to give his address to the sender. This added to Mr. Johnson's suspicions concerning the sender's identity. Mr. Johnson testified that he knew Ms. Bonelli was interested in Mr. DeWitt, and he asked for her opinion on the e- mail. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Johnson that she had been chatting with Mr. DeWitt on-line and had given Mr. Johnson's e-mail address to Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Johnson found this strange, but did not ask Mr. DeWitt about the matter. The next day, Mr. Johnson received another e-mail from "David DeWitt." Mr. Johnson was now certain that Ms. Bonelli was the sender, and decided to play along with the game by responding to "DeWitt." He then telephoned Ms. Bonelli, who admitted to sending the bogus e-mails and to receiving Mr. Johnson's response. She told Mr. Johnson she did it as a joke, and told him he was not the only person receiving "DeWitt" e-mails. Concluding the joke, Ms. Bonelli sent a reply to Mr. Johnson's response, still in the "DeWitt" character. This e-mail was sent on June 24, 1997. As noted above, this e-mail indicates that Ms. Bonelli knew the names of Mr. DeWitt's wife and children, as well as the children's ages and where they went to school, months before she began working in the guidance office at Riverview. Ms. Bonelli testified that she never impersonated Mr. DeWitt on an e-mail. She claimed to have herself received an e- mail purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt. She testified that she tried to check the AOL profile of the sender, but there was no profile. Ms. Bonelli's testimony is not credible. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt quizzed her about what she had done sexually with boyfriends. She stated that Mr. DeWitt wanted details of these experiences, but that she refused to provide them. Mr. DeWitt denied that such conversations ever occurred. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt never asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. She stated that, at the Fall 1997 homecoming dance, she told him she would like to have sexual intercourse with him. Mr. DeWitt told her to wait until she graduated from high school. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did chaperone the Fall 1997 homecoming dance, but that no such conversation ever occurred with Ms. Bonelli. He stated that if Ms. Bonelli had made such an overture, he would have reported it to the principal and to Deputy Richard Foster, Riverview's Student Resource Officer ("SRO"). Ms. Bonelli testified that one night around New Years Day 1998, she was driving home from a Riverview basketball game. She pulled up at a stop light next to Mr. DeWitt, and he asked her to pull into Albritton's, a fruit stand off Proctor Road. She testified that they talked there for about an hour and a half. Mr. DeWitt asked her to try to find out who had been vandalizing his home mailbox, because he suspected Riverview students. He promised to take her to dinner if she found out the culprits. Mr. DeWitt denied that this meeting ever took place. Kendra Simpkins Ms. Bonelli testified that when Kendra Simpkins started working in the guidance office in mid-January 1998, Mr. DeWitt began speaking to Ms. Simpkins rather than to her during the period. Ms. Bonelli was upset and jealous over the attention Mr. DeWitt was showing Ms. Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt suddenly stopped reciprocating her advances, and that she assumed this was because Mr. DeWitt wanted to start an affair with Kendra Simpkins. As noted in more detail below, Ms. Bonelli habitually accused any female student she saw speaking to Mr. DeWitt of having an affair with him, or of wanting to have an affair with him. At the time of her testimony, Kendra Simpkins was a senior at Riverview, scheduled to graduate in June 2000. She began at Riverview in 1996, and attended the school throughout her high school career. She played on the softball and volleyball teams. Ms. Simpkins lives with her mother, stepfather, and two younger brothers, Clayton and Maxwell. In about January 1998, Ms. Simpkins began work in the guidance office. She testified that she did this to obtain community service credit hours, which enhance a student's resume. She worked there during sixth period, roughly noon to 12:45 p.m., performing clerical tasks assigned by Mr. DeWitt's secretary. At the time she began work in the guidance office, Ms. Simpkins was an ROTC cadet. She testified that her first personal contact with Mr. DeWitt was his passing compliment about her ROTC uniform. Ms. Simpkins stated that from that point, she and Mr. DeWitt began having conversations about school, her activities, and her personal life, including boyfriends. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did compliment Ms. Simpkins on her ROTC uniform, but did so at the suggestion of Colonel McClellan, the ROTC instructor at Riverview. Col. McClellan had seen Ms. Simpkins in the guidance office, and inquired of Mr. DeWitt whether she worked there. When Mr. DeWitt answered in the affirmative, Col. McClellan told him that Ms. Simpkins was having trouble in school, and trouble in general, but that she liked ROTC and might benefit from some positive reinforcement in that regard. Mr. DeWitt complimented her the first time he saw her in the uniform, but stated that he did so in the interest of Ms. Simpkins' self-esteem. Mr. DeWitt testified that this was no different than the positive comments he gives to students generally, whenever he can find a reason to do so. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had conversations with Ms. Simpkins. These conversations were similar to those he had with other students seeking direction and looking for advice. He recalled that Ms. Simpkins was on the junior varsity volleyball team, but had the opportunity to play on the varsity team. She was very anxious about the situation and went to Mr. DeWitt for advice, saying she was more comfortable playing with the junior varsity team. Mr. DeWitt advised her to play on the varsity, because playing with better people would make her a better player. Mr. DeWitt also recalled that Ms. Simpkins came to him with problems she was having at home, concerning the relationship between her mother and stepfather. Mr. DeWitt stated that their conversations never veered into areas that made him feel uncomfortable. He saw her speaking with female counselors, and assumed she would go to them with any "deep problems." Ms. Simpkins testified that the subject of "cybersex" came up during the course of her conversations with Mr. DeWitt. She stated that while browsing America On-Line ("AOL") one day, she found a screen name that appeared to be Mr. DeWitt's, and wrote an e-mail to him. An on-line chat ensued, during which cybersex arose as a topic. Ms. Simpkins later asked Mr. DeWitt in person about the chat, but he denied having an AOL account or knowing anything about the on-line chat. However, Mr. DeWitt was interested in the subject of cybersex and pressed Ms. Simpkins for an explanation. Ms. Simpkins testified that she responded that she wasn't "into that," and declined to talk about cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt denied having "cybersex" conversations with Ms. Simpkins, and denied ever chatting with Ms. Simpkins on AOL. Mr. DeWitt's denial is credited. If Ms. Simpkins indeed innocently chatted on AOL with someone pretending to be Mr. DeWitt, that person was likely Jennifer Bonelli. It is also noted that, as will be discussed below, a time came when Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli got together and compared their stories about Mr. DeWitt. It is likely that Ms. Simpkins' "cybersex" story had its origins in these conversations with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt touched her in Spring 1998. One day, she walked into his office to get a yearbook for someone who needed to see a photo of a graduate. Mr. DeWitt was sitting at his conference table. As Ms. Simpkins passed behind his chair, he leaned back in his chair and pretended to stretch his arms. While stretching, he grabbed Ms. Simpkins' genitals. Ms. Simpkins believed this was not accidental, though she admitted it might have been. She stated that Mr. DeWitt offered a sarcastic apology. She said she accepted the insincere apology because she really didn't mind what he did. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt always avoided the subject of his personal life. If she asked about his wife and children, he would change the subject. Ms. Simpkins knew Mr. DeWitt was married because Ms. Bonelli had told her so. She knew Mr. DeWitt had children because her brother played baseball at Twin Lakes Park, where Mr. DeWitt's son played. Ms. Simpkins stated that during the spring of 1998, she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt. She said this was because Mr. DeWitt seemed to take an interest in her. He came to one of her softball games. He was polite and "looked out for me." She believed that Mr. DeWitt reciprocated her feelings, but admitted that Mr. DeWitt's actions were equivocal and that she chose to interpret them in a manner to her liking. Ms. Bonelli testified that she and Ms. Simpkins developed a "very superficial" relationship in the spring of 1998. This relationship consisted primarily of the two young women quizzing each other as to their dealings with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli was trying to figure out if "something was going on" between Ms. Simpkins and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli stated that after about a month of this relationship, she opened up to Ms. Simpkins and told her what had gone on between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Simpkins replied that Mr. DeWitt had also asked her to "talk dirty" to him, and that she did it, but she would not tell Ms. Bonelli exactly what she said to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Simpkins everything she had done with Mr. DeWitt, including the masturbation incidents. Ms. Simpkins seemed upset at learning that Mr. DeWitt also had a relationship with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Bonelli admitted to being fiercely jealous of Ms. Simpkins. Ms. Simpkins stated that her earliest experience of Ms. Bonelli was unpleasant. Ms. Bonelli was jealous and spreading rumors about Ms. Simpkins, because she had seen Ms. Simpkins talking to Mr. DeWitt and assumed that "things were going on." Christine Ross confirmed that Ms. Bonelli was telling stories about Ms. Simpkins and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that she told Ms. Bonelli that nothing was going on between her and Mr. DeWitt, and that Ms. Bonelli had no place spreading such rumors. Ms. Simpkins testified that she then "talked things out" with Ms. Bonelli and they became friends. Ms. Bonelli did not characterize Ms. Simpkins as her "friend." After they became friendly, in about March 1998, Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Simpkins that she had a crush on Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she would meet Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park, and that "he didn't want anything to do with her." Ms. Bonelli's story changed after Ms. Simpkins admitted that she, too, had a crush on Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli then told Ms. Simpkins that she and Mr. DeWitt "actually did stuff." Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Simpkins that she would kiss and masturbate Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. "She would do him" or give him a "hand job" was Ms. Simpkins' recollection of Ms. Bonelli's claim. Ms. Bonelli did not tell her how many times this occurred. Ms. Bonelli also claimed she had brought someone with her to witness the fact that Mr. DeWitt would meet her at the park. Ms. Simpkins testified that she believed Ms. Bonelli's stories, though she admitted that the changes in the stories gave her reason to doubt Ms. Bonelli's truthfulness. Ms. Simpkins thought that the stories sounded like things Mr. DeWitt would do. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him about her discussions with Ms. Simpkins. It appeared to Mr. Johnson that the two girls were engaged in a one-upmanship contest concerning their alleged encounters with Mr. DeWitt. One girl would say she talked to Mr. DeWitt. Then the other would say she went into Mr. DeWitt's office and talked to him. Then the first girl would relate a story about intimate discussions of family matters, and so the tales would escalate. Ms. Bonelli testified that once after school, she and Ms. Simpkins went through Mr. DeWitt's desk looking for photographs of female students. Ms. Simpkins did not believe Ms. Bonelli's assertion that Mr. DeWitt had photographs of Ms. Bonelli and Jennifer Rizi, another student assistant in the guidance office. Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins rifled Mr. DeWitt's desk in search of the photos. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli was jealous of Jennifer Rizi, and believed something was going on between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Rizi. Bonelli admitted confronting Jennifer Rizi and asking her if she was having a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt, and that Ms. Rizi denied it. Ms. Rizi testified that she knew Mr. DeWitt from church, and that he also knew her stepsister and mother. Ms. Rizi considered Mr. DeWitt a friend of the family and spoke to him often about school, family, and boyfriend problems. She never felt Mr. DeWitt was prying into her sex life or otherwise acting inappropriately. Ms. Rizi testified that she knew Ms. Bonelli as an acquaintance. Ms. Bonelli had introduced herself to Ms. Rizi and "pumped" her for information about Mr. DeWitt whenever she saw her. In April or May 1998, Ms. Bonelli asked her if she and Mr. DeWitt had "hooked up" in a romantic way. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Rizi that she had an unrequited crush on Mr. DeWitt and was jealous of Ms. Rizi talking to him. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Rizi that nothing inappropriate had occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Rizi testified that she was completely appalled at the suggestion that she and Mr. DeWitt had some sort of romantic relationship. She told Ms. Bonelli that nothing was going on between Mr. DeWitt and her, and inquired why she would even ask such a thing. Ms. Rizi testified that she did not speak to Ms. Bonelli again after this incident. Ms. Simpkins recalled that she was in Ms. Bonelli's car one day that spring when Ms. Bonelli saw Mr. DeWitt driving his car in the opposite direction. Ms. Bonelli made a U-turn and followed Mr. DeWitt down Proctor Road for a few blocks, close enough that Mr. DeWitt could see who was following him. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli did not tell her why she turned to follow Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she jogged at Sarasota Middle School. Ms. Simpkins also testified that she once accompanied Ms. Bonelli to Sarasota Middle School in search of Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli denied ever going to Sarasota Middle School for the purpose of seeking out Mr. DeWitt. The Trespassing Incident Mr. DeWitt testified that in early 1998, he and his wife suspected that someone was coming onto their property at night. During this period, Mr. DeWitt also told Mr. Flynn, the principal of Riverview, that he believed Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins were "stalking" him. Ms. Bonelli testified that she knew where Mr. DeWitt lived because she had friends in his neighborhood, Saddle Creek. The DeWitts live in the first house on the left, just past the entrance to Saddle Creek. They own a five-acre lot, and their house is set back about 330 feet from the road. Ms. Bonelli admitted that she trespassed on Mr. DeWitt's property three or four times in Spring 1998. She and a group of friends would drive out to Saddle Creek at night and walk on Mr. DeWitt's property. Ms. Bonelli named Christine Ross, Kendra Simpkins, Blair Johnson, and several other boys as her companions on one or more of these trips. In fact, Mr. Johnson did not accompany Ms. Bonelli on these excursions. Ms. Bonelli stated that they did "stupid kid things," such as running around in Mr. DeWitt's back yard and looking into the windows of the house. She stated that they would stay on the property for as long as an hour. Ms. Bonelli testified that they would sometimes go up to the windows to look inside, and that she would see both Mr. DeWitt and his wife, thus confirming in her mind that Mr. DeWitt was indeed married. As found above, Ms. Bonelli well knew that Mr. DeWitt was married long before these trespassing incidents. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him that she had been at Mr. DeWitt's house on two or three occasions. She told him she had dressed in dark or camouflage clothing and looked in Mr. DeWitt's windows, observing his family. She told Mr. Johnson that she hid in an enclosure next to the house and watched Mr. DeWitt take out his trash. Mr. Johnson testified that he knew where Mr. DeWitt lived because Ms. Bonelli had pointed it out to him. One evening, as Mr. Johnson was driving home from the house of a friend who lived in Mr. DeWitt's neighborhood, his way was blocked by two cars, a Jeep and a sedan, stopped in the middle of the road near Mr. DeWitt's property. The occupants of the cars appeared to be talking to each other. Several teenage boys were standing in the Jeep, talking loudly. Mr. Johnson pulled up close, waiting for them to move so that he could get by. At that moment, he saw Ms. Bonelli run out of the woods fronting Mr. DeWitt's property. She was dressed in dark clothing. She jumped into the sedan, which drove off. The Jeep sat there, and its occupants watched Mr. Johnson as he drove past. Mr. Johnson confronted Ms. Bonelli later about the incident. She seemed surprised, then relieved that the person in the car that night was a friend who would not report her. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Bonelli laughed and joked about the incident. Ms. Bonelli testified that she did not personally vandalize Mr. DeWitt's house or steal anything from his property, but that on one occasion her companions did. On Saturday, April 17, 1998, at around 11 p.m., Ms. Bonelli drove to the DeWitt residence, dropped off Kendra Simpkins and Christine Ross, then drove through the neighborhood. Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross threw eggs at Mr. DeWitt's front door, put eggs in his mailbox, and stole from the yard an animal skull belonging to Mr. DeWitt's young son. Ms. Bonelli returned to the house, picked up Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross, and drove away. Ms. Bonelli attempted to minimize her role in this incident, testifying that Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross asked her to drop them off and that she couldn't see what they were doing. She said they asked her to give them a couple of minutes, so she drove away, then turned around in a church down the road and came back. Ms. Bonelli's testimony that she merely dropped off the other girls and was unaware of what they did is not credible. Ms. Simpkins admitted that it was she and Ms. Ross who actually egged the house, and admitted that she and Ms. Ross stole the animal skull "as a souvenir." However, Ms. Simpkins testified that egging the house was Ms. Bonelli's idea. Ms. Bonelli picked up Ms. Simpkins, then stopped at Kash'n'Karry on the way to Ms. Ross' house and bought the eggs. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli gave her the receipt for the eggs to place in Mr. DeWitt's desk as a joke. Ms. Simpkins stated that she later placed the receipt in Mr. DeWitt's desk. Ms. Simpkins' testimony is credited on this point. Ms. Ross testified that the eggs were already in the car when the other two girls arrived to pick her up. She stated that both Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli told her that egging the house was Ms. Simpkins' idea. Ms. Ross is believable in stating that Ms. Bonelli told her that it was Ms. Simpkins' idea to egg the house, but she is not credible when she claims that Ms. Simpkins herself took credit for the idea. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife were in bed when he heard a loud banging against the front door. He got up, ran to the front door, took the alarm off, and opened the door. When he went out the door, he stepped on some eggs. He ran out and saw two females running away from the house. Mr. DeWitt could see two female figures as they ran from the house to the edge of the property, but he could not positively identify them in the dark. He had a "hunch" that it was Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and/or Ms. Ross. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife found unbroken eggs on window ledges and other places around the house, which he took as a message that the perpetrators had been looking in the windows. Mr. DeWitt also noticed that his son's animal skull was missing. Because of the late hour, Mr. DeWitt took no action that evening, aside from cleaning up his front door and steps. He did not call the police that weekend, because he believed the incident was school related and that he could deal with it on Monday morning. Mr. DeWitt testified that when he arrived at school on Monday, April 20, 1998, the animal skull had been placed on his parking spot. He wondered if the perpetrators thought they were casting a hex on him. Ms. Simpkins testified that she placed the skull in Mr. DeWitt's parking space so that he would find it on Monday morning. Ms. Bonelli drove Ms. Simpkins to the school to place the skull on Mr. DeWitt's parking space. Mr. DeWitt told School Resource Officer (SRO) Rick Foster about Saturday evening's events. The two men agreed they would look into the matter. SRO Foster would seek leads through his sources in the school, and Mr. DeWitt would talk to people in the Saddle Creek area. Mr. DeWitt testified that he didn't immediately drop everything to investigate this incident. He maintained a regular schedule of parent conferences and other daily activities. During that week, Mr. DeWitt questioned Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and Ms. Ross separately. All three girls denied any involvement in the egging. Also during that week, Mr. DeWitt found in his desk the Kash'n'Karry receipt for the eggs. Ms. Simpkins later slipped into his office and took back the receipt. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli, after initially claiming no knowledge, returned to his office and told him that she knew it was Ms. Simpkins who egged his house. As proof, Ms. Bonelli provided Mr. DeWitt with a print-out of an on-line discussion she had with Ms. Simpkins, in which Ms. Simpkins admitted to "doing some snooping" in Mr. DeWitt's desk and retrieving the receipt for the eggs. Mr. DeWitt then called Ms. Simpkins into his office. SRO Foster was also present at this meeting. Ms. Simpkins again denied any knowledge of the egging. Mr. DeWitt bluffed Ms. Simpkins by asking if she was aware he had considered placing a surveillance camera on his property. Ms. Simpkins asked if Mr. DeWitt had caught her on tape, thus admitting her involvement. Mr. DeWitt produced the print-out Ms. Bonelli had given him, and he asked Ms. Simpkins to quit playing games and tell the truth. At this point, Ms. Simpkins confessed to participating, but quickly added that Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross were also involved. She told Mr. DeWitt that it was Ms. Bonelli's idea, and that Ms. Bonelli bought the eggs. She falsely claimed that Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross threw the eggs. Ms. Simpkins claimed she didn't even know what Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross were doing. SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt then brought in Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross, each of whom also admitted to the incident. Mr. DeWitt bluffed Ms. Bonelli about the presence of a surveillance camera, and Ms. Bonelli responded that he might have Ms. Ross and Ms. Simpkins on tape, but he couldn't have her because she never got out of the car. Ms. Bonelli also told Mr. DeWitt that she thought she had seen the nonexistent surveillance camera when she was walking around his house. Since she did not leave her car during the egging incident, this statement amounted to a confession that she had been on Mr. DeWitt's property on at least one other occasion. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife had actually considered buying a surveillance camera, due to their suspicions that people were trespassing on their property and due to the fact that over a period of weeks their mailbox had been repeatedly vandalized. No evidence was presented to establish the culprits in the mailbox vandalism, which was a problem for the whole neighborhood, not only for the DeWitts. Mr. DeWitt stated that he did not actually tell the girls there was a camera on his property, but that he did not deny it when his hints led the girls to that conclusion. Ms. Bonelli's recollection was that Mr. DeWitt did affirmatively claim he had somebody on film, and it was this claim that caused her to admit her participation while contending she never got out of the car. Even if Ms. Bonelli's testimony on this point is credited, it still amounts to no more than Mr. DeWitt bluffing Ms. Bonelli to prod an admission from her. Petitioner contends that Mr. DeWitt's bluff is evidence of his dishonesty. This contention ignores the context of Mr. DeWitt's actions, which was an effort to get the truth from three girls who had already lied during their initial questioning. Petitioner's contention is rejected. SRO Foster recalled that his involvement in these incidents commenced with a conversation with Mr. DeWitt in the lunchroom, at some time prior to the egging. Mr. DeWitt told SRO Foster that he suspected someone was trespassing on his property, and asked SRO Foster for his advice. SRO Foster told Mr. DeWitt that because he lived fairly far out of town, he needed to be cautious. SRO Foster said that he might be able to call the Crime Suppression Unit if matters required surveillance, but for the time being Mr. DeWitt should take precautions until he could get information as to the identity of the trespassers. Mr. DeWitt testified that this conversation occurred in January 1998. He stated that for some time previous, he would walk into his yard and think he saw someone. At first he dismissed these suspicions, thinking that he was only seeing a deer, but eventually he became certain that he was seeing people in his yard. Mr. DeWitt testified that on about March 17, 1998, he had another conversation with SRO Foster. Ms. Bonelli had approached Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park on the previous day. Mr. DeWitt was becoming uncomfortable with the frequency of Ms. Bonelli's appearances and, to a lesser extent, of Ms. Simpkins' appearances in his daily travels. He wanted SRO Foster to know these concerns and look into the situation. SRO Foster testified that Mr. DeWitt later came to him and said he had information about students who may have been involved in the trespassing. SRO Foster stated that Mr. DeWitt gave him the names of Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and several others. SRO Foster did not recall asking Mr. DeWitt how he learned those names. SRO Foster testified that he called his supervisor and told him an administrator at Riverview was complaining about students trespassing on his property. SRO Foster requested an intervention officer to come in and investigate the matter. SRO Foster testified that it was standard procedure to call in another detective to work on cases involving teachers or staff members, so that there could be no allegations of favoritism or bias. Detective Carolyn Price was sent to lead the investigation. After Det. Price arrived, the detectives pulled the named students from their classes one at a time and talked to them about the incident. SRO Foster testified that at first they were strictly investigating a trespassing incident, because Mr. DeWitt had not told them about the theft of the skull or about any stalking or sexual allegations. SRO Foster recalled that they spoke to all the students named by Mr. DeWitt and to some others whose names came up during the course of the interviews. Det. Price recalled that her first meeting with Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster was on April 29, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. They told her that Mr. DeWitt had a problem with people trespassing on his property in the late evening. The trespassing had occurred off and on for the last month. There had been some vandalism and there was at least one item missing from the yard. Mr. DeWitt had since discovered that students at Riverview were involved. Det. Price stated that SRO Foster had a list of students potentially involved, but she didn't know where he got the list. Det. Price could not recall whether Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster told her on the first day that there was stalking or harassment involved in the case. She returned to Riverview several days in a row between April 29 and May 8, and said that it could have been on the second day that all the information came out. However, it was "very definitely" her understanding that she was investigating a crime involving stalking, though the primary complaint was trespassing, loitering, and prowling. Det. Price recalled Mr. DeWitt coming to her and telling her that one of the items missing from his property had turned up at school in front of his parking space. He also told her that a couple of the people involved in the trespassing had shown up at Twin Lakes Park and Sarasota Middle School when he had gone to jog, prior to the trespassing incident. SRO Foster also recalled Mr. DeWitt telling him of seeing the girls when he went to jog, but did not recall the precise timing of Mr. DeWitt's statements. As noted above, Mr. DeWitt testified that this conversation occurred in March 1998. Det. Price could not recall the order in which the students were interviewed, but recollected that they interviewed the girls on the first day and the boys the next day. She stated that all of the students were cooperative, and all admitted to trespassing on Mr. DeWitt's property. She stated that Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster were present during the interviews. SRO Foster recalled that they interviewed Ms. Bonelli at least twice, first alone, then with her parents, and that Ms. Bonelli admitted to the trespassing when they called her parents. Det. Price testified that they called in her parents because the matter involved criminal charges and there was as yet no indication that Mr. DeWitt would forego prosecution. Det. Price recalled speaking only to Ms. Bonelli's mother, because her father was not available to come in on that day. SRO Foster recalled speaking to Ms. Bonelli's mother at one point, and to both parents later. Mr. DeWitt had a more specific recollection. He stated that Mrs. Bonelli arrived for the conference without her husband, and told Mr. DeWitt and the detectives that her husband was Italian, had a temper, and she would prefer that he not be involved. Mr. DeWitt spoke up and insisted that Mr. Bonelli be involved. Mrs. Bonelli telephoned her husband and he came to the school. While they waited for Mr. Bonelli to arrive, they went through the facts with Mrs. Bonelli. They later explained the situation to Mr. Bonelli. Det. Price did not recall discussing with Mrs. Bonelli the subject of Jennifer's crush on Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster testified that Ms. Bonelli's parents were upset and apologetic to Mr. DeWitt. Linda Bonelli, the mother of Jennifer Bonelli, testified that she received a phone call from Mr. DeWitt's secretary, who said that something serious had happened and that she and her husband needed to come to the school and meet with Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Landes that her husband was out walking and that she would have to come in alone. Mrs. Bonelli came in to the school. She testified that she met with her daughter, Mr. DeWitt, and SRO Foster. Mr. DeWitt started the meeting, stating that Jennifer had been on his property. Mr. DeWitt then said he thought it best to let Jennifer tell her mother the details. Mrs. Bonelli stated that Jennifer told her that she and some other girls had been on Mr. DeWitt's property, that one of the girls had taken an egg and smeared it or thrown it on the front door, and that one of the girls had stolen an animal skull from the yard. Mrs. Bonelli testified that nothing about a crush or any subject other than the trespassing incident came up at the meeting. Mr. DeWitt ended the discussion by stating that he was not sure how he was going to handle the whole matter. Mrs. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt's statement raised a red flag in her mind, because she was uncomfortable leaving the matter unresolved. She told Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster that she would like to have another meeting with them that afternoon, and that her husband would attend the second meeting. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she wanted a "male influence" in the room. The Bonellis came in for the second meeting, again with Jennifer, Mr. DeWitt, and SRO Foster. Mrs. Bonelli testified that this meeting covered the same subject matter as the earlier one, and that nothing about a crush or Twin Lakes Park was ever mentioned. Stanley Bonelli, Jennifer's father, confirmed that the trespassing incident was the only topic of discussion. The Bonellis assured Mr. DeWitt that Jennifer would never go onto his property again, and Mr. DeWitt stated that he would not press charges. Det. Price and SRO Foster recalled interviewing Ms. Simpkins, who admitted being on Mr. DeWitt's property. They also recalled meeting Ms. Simpkins' mother, Trudy Burkhardt, who was upset and crying, worried about the effect this would have on her daughter's ability to get a college scholarship. Det. Price specifically recalled making sure that Ms. Burkhardt knew about the crush, that it was the cause of her daughter's actions and that it was not reciprocated by Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster testified that both Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins appeared remorseful, and expressed their remorse to Mr. DeWitt. During the interviews, the two girls also admitted their crushes on Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster stated that the subject came up because they were trying to develop a motive for the girls' trespass on Mr. DeWitt's property. SRO Foster stated that Mr. DeWitt did not seem shocked or surprised when the girls told of their crushes. Det. Price's recollection was slightly different. She remembered Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster telling her that they believed one or both of the girls was infatuated with Mr. DeWitt, and that was partly the reason they followed him to the park and trespassed on his property. Det. Price could not recall Mr. DeWitt giving her any corroboration about the park incidents. Mr. DeWitt told her that he felt the girls were infatuated with him. He also brought up something about conversations going back and forth on computers involving him, that someone had logged on pretending to be him and then carried on conversations with the girls. Det. Price concluded that the crush was the motive for the crime. She believed there was some jealously or rivalry between the girls. She asked both Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins if there was anything going on besides a strictly student/teacher relationship, and they both denied that there was. Both girls admitted they had told stories to other students implying that the crush was mutual, and said they had made up those stories. Det. Price stated that Mr. DeWitt repeatedly said there were never any reciprocal feelings on his part. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli directly admitted to the detectives that her motive was anger because Mr. DeWitt had not reciprocated her crush on him. Mr. DeWitt ultimately waived prosecution of all the students involved in the trespassing incidents. He told SRO Foster that he believed it was a matter that should be dealt with internally at Riverview, not through the criminal process. Mr. DeWitt testified that the parents were emotional and extremely apologetic, promising that nothing like this would happen again, and that he believed the students had learned their lesson. Mr. DeWitt signed a waiver of prosecution on May 5, 1998. The detectives had each student sign trespass warnings, to the effect that they would be arrested if they were found on Mr. DeWitt's property again. Det. Price and SRO Foster warned Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins not to spread rumors about Mr. DeWitt or about the trespassing incident. Both girls acknowledged that they would not discuss these matters with fellow students. Ms. Bonelli recalled Det. Price giving her a lecture, saying that it was okay to like her teacher, but that she couldn't follow him to places where he goes to run. Ms. Bonelli stated that this lecture "came out of nowhere," because the subject of her crush on Mr. DeWitt had not come up in the interviews. As to the crush, Ms. Bonelli's testimony is not credible, because SRO Foster, Det. Price, and Mr. DeWitt all testified that she admitted to the crush. Ms. Bonelli testified that she tried to explain that she had not followed Mr. DeWitt. As noted above, the evidence established that she had been following Mr. DeWitt around town for a period of months. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt, sitting outside Det. Price's field of vision, glared at her as if to say, "Don't you dare open your mouth." Ms. Bonelli testified that she said no more about her alleged liaisons with Mr. DeWitt. Both SRO Foster and Det. Price testified that Mr. DeWitt was present for most, if not all, of their student interviews. They saw nothing wrong with Mr. DeWitt's presence because, based on their knowledge of the facts, Mr. DeWitt was the victim of the crime. Further, Mr. Flynn testified that he had given Mr. DeWitt authority to deal with the situation. Neither Ms. Bonelli nor Ms. Simpkins gave the detectives any indication that Mr. DeWitt had done anything inappropriate, or that their crushes were somehow reciprocated by Mr. DeWitt. Both detectives stated that Mr. DeWitt did not participate actively in the interviews of the students and parents, and neither noticed any effort by Mr. DeWitt to intimidate any of the students. Det. Price testified that she could see Mr. DeWitt during the interviews, though she conceded her attention was mostly focused on the girls. On April 29, 1998, Ms. Simpkins wrote a note of apology to Mr. DeWitt. The note expresses her regret at the problems she caused to Mr. DeWitt and his family, especially to his young son by the theft of his animal skull. In her direct testimony, Ms. Simpkins stated that everything in the apology was true and sincere. In cross-examination, counsel for Mr. DeWitt asked her if she was being sincere when she wrote that Mr. DeWitt was a "really kind person." Ms. Simpkins replied that she was just "sucking up" to avoid prosecution. Ms. Bonelli also wrote a note of apology to Mr. DeWitt, expressing her regret for the harm she had caused to Mr. DeWitt and his family, especially his son. The note was attached to a model boat, a gift from Ms. Bonelli to Ryan DeWitt. Blair Johnson testified that at some point after the trespassing incident, he came forward to assistant principal Dan Cronin and told him about the vandalism on Mr. DeWitt's property, as well as the rumors Ms. Bonelli had been spreading about her alleged sexual encounters with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Cronin told Mr. Johnson that the incident was already under investigation through the school administration, and he couldn't discuss the matter with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Cronin did not testify at the hearing; thus, it cannot be determined what actions, if any, Mr. Cronin took after his meeting with Johnson. Neither Kevin Flynn, the principal of Riverview, or Allen Wilson, the district human resources director, mentioned any involvement by Mr. Cronin in the investigation. The Spielman Note Karen Spielman was an art teacher at Riverview. Christine Ross was a student in her class. On March 25, 1998, Ms. Ross approached Ms. Spielman and told her she had a friend who was having a relationship with an assistant principal. The friend needed to talk to someone because she was upset. Ms. Spielman told Ms. Ross she was available to talk to her friend. Ms. Ross testified that she went to Ms. Spielman because she considered her a strong figure, and because she believed the issue of Ms. Bonelli's relationship with Mr. DeWitt should be investigated. Ms. Ross brought Ms. Bonelli to Ms. Spielman's classroom after school on the same day. Ms. Spielman had a long conversation with both girls. Ms. Bonelli told her the entire story of her alleged dealings with Mr. DeWitt, both at school and at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Spielman testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she was involved with the assistant principal and she was upset because he had "kind of dropped her" and she didn't know what to do. Ms. Bonelli told her of the sexual conversations she'd had with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told her there had been no sexual intercourse, but there had been "touching." Ms. Spielman assumed the touching was in an "inappropriate place." Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Spielman that she was afraid to tell her parents about Mr. DeWitt, because they would blame her and be very angry if they found out. Despite Ms. Bonelli's statements, Ms. Spielman believed that Ms. Bonelli's mother knew about her daughter's accusations against Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that she knew this story must be reported. She called central administration the next day and arranged a meeting with Allen Wilson, the director of human resources. The meeting took place on March 27, 1998. She told Mr. Wilson the story without revealing Ms. Bonelli's name. Mr. Wilson told her that nothing could be done unless the girl came forward and was willing to be identified. Ms. Spielman later spoke with Ms. Bonelli, who was unwilling to come forward. Ms. Spielman took no further action until April 28, 1998. This was the date on which Mr. DeWitt first confronted Kendra Simpkins and Jennifer Bonelli about the trespassing incident. Ms. Spielman testified that after school, a girl came into her classroom and asked if she had seen Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Spielman said she hadn't. The girl said she had seen Ms. Bonelli crying in Mr. DeWitt's office and was concerned. Ms. Bonelli had earlier told Ms. Spielman that a girl named Kendra Simpkins was also involved with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman asked this girl if her name was Kendra, and the girl said it was. Ms. Spielman didn't ask Ms. Simpkins why she sought her out for information about Ms. Bonelli, but the inference can be drawn that either Ms. Bonelli or Ms. Ross had told Ms. Simpkins about their meeting with Ms. Spielman. Ms. Spielman stated that Ms. Bonelli later came to her classroom and said "something had happened" and "things had changed." Ms. Bonelli did not tell her exactly what had happened, only that she and some other girls had done something to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman drafted a one-page memorandum to Mr. Wilson outlining the charges made by Ms. Bonelli during their first meeting on March 25. The memorandum is dated April 28, 1998, though she did not take it to Mr. Wilson's office until May 6, 1998. Ms. Spielman's only explanation for the gap between writing and delivering the memo was that "it took me a while to type this up." The memorandum references Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and Ms. Ross without naming them. It briefly restates Ms. Bonelli's story, but only vaguely, referencing "sexual conversation" and "touching." It states that Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt never had sexual intercourse. It does not mention specifics regarding the alleged masturbation, though Ms. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Spielman about this during their first conversation. The memorandum calls for immediate action to be taken, and expresses Ms. Spielman's belief in the credibility of the girls' story. Ms. Spielman did not tell Mr. DeWitt about the memorandum, out of concern for Ms. Bonelli's confidentiality. Ms. Spielman also did not provide a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Flynn, the Riverview principal, even after Mr. Wilson asked her to do so. Ms. Spielman testified that it was "common knowledge" that Mr. Flynn was grooming Mr. DeWitt for the principal's job, that the two men were close, and thus sending the memorandum to Mr. Flynn might jeopardize Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt testified that as the conference with Ms. Bonelli, her parents, and the detectives was ending on April 29, Ms. Bonelli mentioned to him that she had told Ms. Spielman about her alleged relationship with him. Mr. DeWitt stated that he was unaware at the time that Ms. Spielman had written a memorandum. Ms. Bonelli claimed not to know how Mr. DeWitt found out about her conversations with Ms. Spielman. She speculated that perhaps Christine Ross told Mr. DeWitt. She claimed that Mr. DeWitt suddenly pulled her from class shortly after the meeting with the detectives and confronted her about Ms. Spielman. Ms. Ross denied telling Mr. DeWitt, stating that she learned from Ms. Bonelli that Mr. DeWitt knew about Ms. Spielman. Mr. DeWitt's version of how he learned about Ms. Spielman's involvement is credited. Mr. DeWitt testified that he told Ms. Bonelli they needed to go to Ms. Spielman's classroom immediately and tell her the truth. Ms. Bonelli apologetically agreed. Mr. DeWitt told SRO Foster that he was going to see Ms. Spielman, that Ms. Bonelli said she had told a teacher about the alleged affair and he was taking her down to get her to tell the truth. Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli then walked to Ms. Spielman's classroom. Mr. DeWitt told Ms. Spielman that Ms. Bonelli had something to tell her. He offered to leave, but Ms. Bonelli asked him to stay. Ms. Bonelli then told Ms. Spielman that she had made up the whole story, that it was a lie and she felt badly for doing this. Mr. DeWitt then said that Ms. Spielman had heard what she needed to hear, that he wanted to make sure she heard what Ms. Bonelli had to say. Mr. DeWitt then went back to his office and Ms. Bonelli went to her next class. According to Ms. Bonelli, when Mr. DeWitt confronted her about Ms. Spielman and asked how much she knew, Ms. Bonelli told him that Ms. Spielman knew "everything." Mr. DeWitt replied, "We need to change that. You need to fix it." Mr. DeWitt walked her to Ms. Spielman's classroom, telling her that "everything will be okay" if she would tell Ms. Spielman her story was false. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Spielman that her story was false. Ms. Bonelli testified that after the meeting with Ms. Spielman, Mr. DeWitt told her, "Don't fuck up." Mr. DeWitt denied Ms. Bonelli's version of this episode. Ms. Spielman recalled meeting Mr. DeWitt alone first. Mr. DeWitt told her that Ms. Bonelli had disclosed to him her conversations with Ms. Spielman, and he wanted to clear up the matter. He told her about the girls coming to his house, the egging, and the theft of the cow skull. He mentioned videotaping the girls, though Ms. Spielman stated that she never saw any tape. He was concerned about what Ms. Spielman thought of him after hearing Ms. Bonelli's story. Mr. DeWitt did not recall meeting with Ms. Spielman prior to bringing Ms. Bonelli to her classroom. Ms. Spielman testified that less than an hour later, Mr. DeWitt returned to her classroom, this time with Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt said that Ms. Bonelli had something to say. Mr. DeWitt asked Ms. Bonelli if she wanted him to leave, but she declined the offer. Ms. Bonelli proceeded to tell Ms. Spielman that she had lied about everything. Ms. Spielman was upset. She asked Ms. Bonelli, "What about everybody else who knows about this?" Ms. Bonelli said there was no one else. Ms. Spielman knew this was not true, because she was aware that Ms. Ross knew and she suspected that Ms. Simpkins also knew. Nevertheless, Ms. Spielman said nothing to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that she saw Mr. DeWitt a third time during her lunch period. Mr. DeWitt again told her that Ms. Bonelli's story was not true, and that Ms. Bonelli was stalking him around town. Mr. DeWitt did recall a follow-up meeting with Ms. Spielman. He testified that he went back to Ms. Spielman later that day, or possibly the next day, and talked to her about the situation. He testified that Ms. Spielman was a colleague and he wanted to make sure she understood that this matter had been looked into by SRO Foster and Det. Price, that the girls had admitted to walking around his house at night and egging it, and that they had been stalking him. He asked Ms. Spielman if Ms. Bonelli had told her these things. Ms. Spielman said that she had not. Det. Price testified that no one gave her any information about Ms. Spielman's involvement. She stated that Ms. Spielman's information would have been relevant to her investigation. She also stated that a teacher who had been told by Ms. Bonelli about an affair would have been obligated to file a report with the state. Ms. Spielman did not make such a report, aside from her memorandum to Mr. Wilson. Det. Price never saw the memorandum. Ms. Spielman testified that she did not meet with Mr. Wilson when she delivered her memorandum on May 6, 1998. She recalled speaking with Mr. Wilson by telephone afterwards, and telling him that Ms. Bonelli had come to her and said her story was a lie. Mr. Wilson testified that after he received the memorandum, he called Mr. Flynn and asked him to begin an investigation. Mr. Flynn told him that an investigation was already underway concerning Mr. DeWitt and two female students, and that Mr. Flynn would make sure that Mr. Wilson received a copy of the police report. Mr. Wilson testified that it is not School Board policy to allow the individual under suspicion to participate in the investigation, and he did not anticipate that Mr. DeWitt would be involved. Mr. Wilson followed up on the matter with Ms. Spielman, who reported that nothing new had occurred. Mr. Wilson later received a report stating that the girls indicated they had made up the story about sexual misconduct by Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Wilson took no further action on the allegations recited in Ms. Spielman's letter, believing the matter was over. Mr. DeWitt recalled having a meeting with Mr. Flynn and Mr. Wilson a few days after the detectives concluded their investigation. Mr. DeWitt stated that Mr. Wilson assured him that "we know who you are and what you are about," and told Mr. DeWitt that an educator has to expect this sort of thing. Mr. DeWitt stated that Mr. Wilson never told him about the Spielman memorandum. Mr. Wilson recalled meeting with Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Flynn, but did not recall the details. He did not deny telling Mr. DeWitt that this was the kind of thing an educator should expect. He testified that under the circumstances of the accusations and apparent exoneration, it was something he might have said to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that a couple of weeks later, she saw Ms. Bonelli in the hallway at Riverview. At that time, Ms. Bonelli told her, "I lied about lying." In other words, Ms. Bonelli was now claiming that her original story was true. Ms. Spielman told Ms. Bonelli she had a feeling her story was true. Ms. Spielman testified that, "I just didn't feel like she could make up a story like that and I felt she was under pressure when she was telling me she lied when he was present." Reflecting on her meetings with Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Spielman testified that she began to believe that Mr. DeWitt may have pressured Ms. Bonelli into recanting her story. Despite her professed belief in Ms. Bonelli's recantation of her previous denial, Ms. Spielman took no further action on the matter. No further events relevant to this proceeding occurred at Riverview during the 1997-98 school year, or during the first half of the 1998-99 school year. Blair Johnson testified that during the summer of 1998, he bluntly confronted Ms. Bonelli about her actions. He told her he could not believe she had created these stories about Mr. DeWitt. He told her she was in over her head. Ms. Bonelli responded that he was right, and she did not know what she was going to do. Ms. Bonelli later sent Mr. Johnson an e-mail expressing regret at the "whole Dave mess" and saying that she had "gotten over my older guy phase." She also wrote: "I have never done anything more than kiss a guy and you know that. I wouldn't know the first thing to do." Spring 1999 Kendra Simpkins Ms. Simpkins testified that after Mr. DeWitt accepted her apology for the trespassing incident, everything seemed all right between them. She took summer classes in 1998, and had conversations with Mr. DeWitt, but stated that nothing out of the ordinary occurred. In Fall 1998, Ms. Simpkins was no longer an aide in the guidance office and so had little regular contact with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that during Fall 1998, Mr. DeWitt began showing interest in her again. She stated that her crush on him had dissipated after the trespassing incident, but that Mr. DeWitt’s renewed attention made her happy and reignited her crush. She stated that Mr. DeWitt would say, “I think something’s going to happen,” or “We should start something.” She assumed he meant they should start some sort of relationship, though he was never specific about the “something” he had in mind. Ms. Simpkins testified that at about 10 a.m. on December 22, 1998, during the school’s Christmas break, she went to Riverview to give Mr. DeWitt a Christmas card. Mr. DeWitt was wearing black shorts and a black striped shirt. They talked. Mr. DeWitt read the Christmas card, on which Ms. Simpkins had written, “I hope you get everything you want for Christmas.” Mr. DeWitt asked what her note was implying. She responded that it meant exactly what it said. Ms. Simpkins testified that this conversation led Mr. DeWitt to suggest they meet somewhere. She told him that she had to go buy Christmas presents, and he told her to come back to school when she was done. She did so, returning to the school at about 2:30 p.m. When she arrived, Mr. DeWitt said, “Let’s go somewhere.” Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt drove off in a Honda Accord and she followed him, heading east on Proctor Road away from Riverview. Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt pulled off the road a couple of times as they drove. He first stopped at the intersection of Swift Road and Constitution Boulevard, and asked her where they should go. She said she didn’t know. He told her to follow him. They drove a bit farther, then stopped at the corner of Swift and Clark Roads. Mr. DeWitt said that he wanted to stay in the vicinity so that Ms. Simpkins could make it to her waitress job at 4 p.m. She told him it didn’t matter. Mr. DeWitt said, “Okay, Twin Lakes.” Ms. Simpkins testified that she followed Mr. DeWitt to the parking lot at Twin Lakes Park. She stated there were no other cars anywhere near them in the lot. She saw no other people. Ms. Simpkins testified that she pulled her car up next to Mr. DeWitt’s, on the left, and rolled down her passenger side window. They talked about mundane matters for a few minutes. Mr. DeWitt then asked her to “talk dirty.” She refused. Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt then said, “What are you going to do while I’m doing this?” She testified that he was masturbating. She could not actually see into his car, but could tell what he was doing by his arm movements. There was no doubt in her mind about what he was doing. She said that he did this for approximately three minutes. Ms. Simpkins testified that she was "disgusted" and told Mr. DeWitt that she had to go to work. She stated that she was wearing jeans and a tank top, and that she changed into her work uniform there in the car. She testified that Mr. DeWitt could tell what she was doing but could not see anything. She put the work shirt on over her tank top, then removed the tank top. She stated that Mr. DeWitt continued to masturbate while she changed clothes. He asked her to “show me something.” She refused. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt became more excited as she changed her clothes and started masturbating faster. He never told her whether he reached orgasm. She testified that the encounter ended when she had to go to work. She had to report for work at 4 p.m. Before she left, they talked about meeting again in the park. Mr. DeWitt told her to come by his office the next day. Ms. Simpkins testified that she went to his office the next day. Mr. DeWitt told her that he needed to go Christmas shopping after work. He told her to meet him at Twin Lakes Park at 6 p.m. Ms. Simpkins stated that she didn't go because her mother made her take her younger brothers to a movie. January 4, 1999, was the first day of school after the Christmas break. Ms. Simpkins testified that her next conversation with Mr. DeWitt occurred after classes on that day. She had not seen Mr. DeWitt during the school day, but saw him leaving school in his car. They pulled their cars to the side of the road. Mr. DeWitt told her to meet him at Twin Lakes Park at 5:30 p.m. She went to the park, arriving first. She parked in the lot, away from the other cars. She testified that “nothing was going on” in the park. Mr. DeWitt arrived and parked next to her. They sat in their respective cars and talked for about an hour. Ms. Simpkins stated that, without prompting, she got out of her car and into Mr. DeWitt’s Honda Accord at about 6:30 p.m. She testified, “I wanted something to happen.” She stated that she “had no clue” how to put her desire into action. As she sat in the passenger seat, Mr. DeWitt told her to “make the first move.” She took off her shirt, but left on her bra. Mr. DeWitt kissed her and touched her breasts. He then kissed her breasts and touched her vagina through her clothing. Ms. Simpkins testified that it was dark outside when this episode occurred. The windows of Mr. DeWitt’s car were rolled up. She said the windows were tinted, making it difficult to see into the car even in daylight. Ms. Simpkins stated that it was dark inside the car, and that she couldn’t actually see Mr. DeWitt masturbating. She could tell that he had pulled down the top of the sweatpants he was wearing, and she could make out his arm movements. She was not sure if he reached orgasm, but said she heard some grunts that indicated he might have. Ms. Simpkins stated that after they had been in his car together for about ten minutes, Mr. DeWitt began getting “really paranoid.” Cars were driving by, and he was worried about being caught. He told Ms. Simpkins to put on her shirt. Mr. DeWitt categorically denied all of Ms. Simpkins’ allegations concerning the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999. After learning of the allegations, Mr. DeWitt and his wife made efforts to put together a chronology of what they actually did on those dates. Mr. DeWitt testified that as an administrator, he was required to work during Christmas break. On December 22, 1998, he arrived at Riverview for work at 7:30 a.m. He testified that during the break, he would not have worn coat and tie, but did wear slacks and a comfortable shirt to work. He never wore shorts to work. He stated that he did own a black-striped golf shirt, but would not have worn it to work because it was “not a real dressy shirt.” Karen DeWitt testified that her husband always dressed "professionally," even during the Christmas break. She never saw him go to school in shorts. Mr. DeWitt's secretary, Chris Landes, testified that she never saw him dressed in shorts at work, even during non-office hours. Mr. DeWitt testified that he worked with Ms. Landes and caught up on phone calls and paperwork that morning. He was supposed to work until after 3 p.m., but left school at about 11 a.m. to do some Christmas shopping with his wife. Karen DeWitt testified that David called her from his office to set up where and when they were going to meet. One key to the DeWitts' recreation of the events of that day was their son's recent hospitalization for an asthma attack, from December 17 through December 19. The DeWitts were instructed to monitor their son closely, and to get him out into the fresh air and let him walk about. Both David and Karen DeWitt testified that their main motive in going shopping on December 22 was to get their son out of the house and let him move about outdoors. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did not see Kendra Simpkins that morning or at any other time during the Christmas recess. He did receive a Christmas card from her that year, but could not recall when it came. He found it on his conference table with several other cards and gifts from students. He did not keep the card, but recalled that Ms. Simpkins did write on it something to the effect of “hope you get everything you want for Christmas.” He did not recall having a conversation with Ms. Simpkins about the card. Mr. DeWitt met his wife and children at University Shopping Center, an outlet mall, at about 11:30 a.m. They shopped there until about 1 p.m. Mr. DeWitt produced a credit card receipt indicating that a purchase was made at a store in the mall at 11:50 a.m. The receipt was signed by Karen DeWitt, but both DeWitts testified that their entire family was present. The DeWitts left the mall and went to Chick-Fil-A for lunch. They frequented this Chick-Fil-A because it has a playground. Mr. DeWitt testified that the restaurant was crowded. It took them some time to get their food, then they allowed their children to play. They stayed there for a little more than an hour. The DeWitts next drove to Southgate Mall, at about 2:30 p.m. They shopped there until about 4 p.m., though they could not produce receipts for any purchases. Karen DeWitt testified that they bought only ice cream cones at Southgate Mall, and paid cash for them. David DeWitt was sure of their time of departure, because he recalled wanting to get home before rush hour traffic. They drove home, arriving at about 4:45 p.m., and then went through their normal evening routine of dinner, baths, and putting the children to bed. The DeWitts also reconstructed the events of January 4, 1999. This was the first day of school after the Christmas break. Mr. DeWitt stated that he was at Riverview from 7 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. He did not talk to Kendra Simpkins that day. Karen DeWitt confirmed that David went to work at 7 a.m., because she was still at home when he left. She left with the children shortly thereafter. At 3:15 p.m., Mr. DeWitt drove to Ashton Elementary School, where his wife works and his son Ryan attends school. Karen DeWitt usually brings Ryan home with her, but on this day she was holding a computer training session for teachers after school. Thus, David DeWitt took Ryan home on January 4. This was the date of the national championship football game between Tennessee and Florida State. Mr. DeWitt and his son were going to buy a pizza and "make a big deal" out of watching the game together. Mr. DeWitt testified that it took about a half hour to drive from Riverview to Ashton Elementary, park, walk in and get Ryan, then touch base with Karen regarding their evening plans. They decided that Karen would pick up a pizza from Papa Johns on her way home. Mr. DeWitt produced a canceled check, to the order of Papa Johns and signed by his wife, dated January 4, 1999. After picking up Ryan, Mr. DeWitt drove to Concordia Lutheran School to pick up his daughter from her preschool. He signed her out at 4 p.m. He drove home with the children. Karen DeWitt testified that she did not know who would have had her children from 4 to 6 p.m. if they were not with David, because the DeWitts did not use babysitters. Karen came home with the pizza and they ate dinner at about 6 p.m. The children were prepared for bed prior to the 8 p.m. pregame show. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and Ryan watched the first half of the game, then he put Ryan to bed. Mr. DeWitt never left his house after coming home with the children. The Investigation Events began to reach a head in early February 1999. The witnesses were unclear as to the precise chronology of events leading to the investigation, because everything appeared to be happening at once. To allow for a rational narrative, these events will be treated in the order that Mr. DeWitt became aware of them. Mr. DeWitt's version of events began with hearing a rumor that someone in Ms. Wallace's English class had blurted out something to the effect of, "What's up with Jennifer Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt?" Mr. DeWitt recalled that he heard about this incident either from a student or from another assistant principal. Mr. DeWitt immediately alerted SRO Foster, who notified Det. Price to come in and assist with student interviews. SRO Foster testified that it was typical for SROs to get involved in squelching rumors, but that an intervention officer such as Det. Price also had to be called in when the rumor dealt with a faculty member. Det. Price's report indicates that SRO Foster contacted her on February 8, 1999, and that she came to the school the next day. SRO Foster testified that they interviewed a number of students, and determined that a student named Dominique McAnn made the statement in the English class. The detectives told the students that the incident at Mr. DeWitt's house had been investigated, the girls had been spoken to, and it was inappropriate to spread rumors. Dominique McAnn told them she had heard rumors about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, and the detectives told her it was something that had already been dealt with. Mr. DeWitt was present for these interviews. SRO Foster testified that he and Det. Price thought they were doing a "clean-up" from the earlier investigation. Ms. Bonelli testified that she confronted Dominique McAnn in the hallway after class and asked her why she spoke in the class. Ms. McAnn answered that she had heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she then proceeded to tell Ms. McAnn what "really happened" between Mr. DeWitt and her, the "dirty talk" and masturbation. Dominique McAnn testified that she did not know Jennifer Bonelli until the hallway confrontation. She knew Ms. Bonelli's face because Ms. Bonelli would come into the restaurant where she worked and call her by name, though she didn't know Ms. Bonelli's name and didn't know how Ms. Bonelli knew hers. Ms. McAnn did not put the name with the face until Ms. Bonelli confronted her about the statements in English class. Ms. McAnn testified that one of Ms. Bonelli's friends, Beverly Pitchford, was talking in the class about Ms. Bonelli and her accusations against Mr. DeWitt. This irritated Ms. McAnn, because the class was supposed to be reading quietly. Ms. McAnn could not recall the precise words of her response, but remembered it was "something mean" about Ms. Bonelli, to the effect that Ms. Bonelli was "weird" or "crazy" and should just leave Mr. DeWitt alone. Her statement was loud enough that other students could hear it. Ms. McAnn testified that she had previously heard rumors about a girl named Jennifer Bonelli who claimed that she and Mr. DeWitt had some sort of sexual relations. She stated that this rumor was widespread among her circle of 40 or so friends, but that they did not believe it. Ms. McAnn testified that Ms. Bonelli came up to her in the hallway during lunch, crying about what Ms. McAnn had said. Ms. McAnn at first didn't know who she was. Ms. Bonelli proceeded to tell her the story of her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that it started when she was a student assistant in the guidance office. Ms. Bonelli said something about going jogging with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she and Mr. DeWitt communicated via "IM," or Instant Messenger, an AOL feature allowing real-time conversations between users who know each others' screen names. Ms. Bonelli was not positive that the person she spoke to was Mr. DeWitt, but she believed it was him. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she had "provocative" conversations with this person, including "cybersex." Ms. McAnn testified that Ms. Bonelli appeared to believe that she was having cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. McAnn's testimony contrasts with Ms. Bonelli's own testimony, in which she claimed that Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of "cybersex" in a conversation, but did not claim that they actually engaged in "cybersex." It is found that no "cybersex" actually occurred between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, but that Ms. Bonelli told varying untrue stories on the subject. Ms. Bonelli suspected Ms. McAnn and her best friend of having sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt, because they often talked to him and appeared to be on good terms with him. Ms. McAnn testified that nothing sexual ever occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her or her friend. This is yet another instance of Ms. Bonelli's accusing or suspecting any girl who talked with Mr. DeWitt of having some sexual relationship with him. Ms. McAnn thought Ms. Bonelli was "weird" and "obsessive" about Mr. DeWitt, because "when I talked to her, what I got from her was she was very much in love with Mr. DeWitt.” Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn about the trespassing incident, and told her that Mr. DeWitt stopped having anything to do with her because he was paying attention to Kendra Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she had tried to get close to Ms. Simpkins so that Ms. Simpkins would tell her what she was doing with Mr. DeWitt, but that Ms. Simpkins would not tell her. Other than the cybersex, Ms. Bonelli mentioned to Ms. McAnn only one other incident of a sexual nature involving Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli said that Mr. DeWitt wanted her to watch him masturbate. Mr. DeWitt had said something to the effect that he wanted her to perform sexual acts on him, and she didn't know how, so he was going to show her. Ms. Bonelli didn't specify the sexual acts Mr. DeWitt had in mind, but made gestures that left Ms. McAnn with the impression she was talking about masturbation or oral sex. Ms. McAnn wasn't sure whether Ms. Bonelli was claiming to have seen Mr. DeWitt masturbate, or whether Mr. DeWitt had only talked about masturbating. SRO Foster testified that among the students interviewed were Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins, both of whom denied any involvement in spreading rumors. SRO Foster indicated that he never believed they were involved in this incident, but called them in to tell them about the matter so they would not be caught off-guard by hearing the rumor in the hallways. During these discussions, Ms. Bonelli denied to the detectives that anything of a sexual nature had ever occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster were "really rude" to her during the questioning, not giving her an opportunity to explain. She stated that Mr. DeWitt told her he was mad at her for spreading these rumors, and asked her why she did it. Ms. Bonelli told him that Dominique McAnn had done it. Ms. Bonelli said she was as upset as Mr. DeWitt that the subject had come up again. Ms. Bonelli testified that she did not recall telling the detectives that the rumors were untrue. Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price also went to Ms. Wallace's English class. Mr. DeWitt intended to address the class about Ms. McAnn's statement, but Ms. Wallace talked them out of it. Ms. Wallace told them that only a small part of the class heard what was said, and that she herself learned about it only because a student told her later. Mr. DeWitt took her advice, deciding that addressing the class might blow the matter out of proportion. Mr. DeWitt recalled that they also interviewed a student named Jody Schinzel, whose mother was a clinic aide at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt stated that Jody Schinzel was very defensive, and did not want to come in unless her mother was also present. The Schinzels came in and offered no information. They were argumentative with Det. Foster. Mr. DeWitt testified that Mrs. Schinzel had a tendency to allow students who weren't sick to "hang out" in the clinic. Mr. DeWitt stated that if there were 30 kids in the clinic, 28 of them were not sick and were there watching TV or videos, hanging out, period after period, day after day. During the 1997-98 school year, Mr. DeWitt was the clinic aide supervisor, and was sent by Mr. Flynn to talk with Mrs. Schinzel about why these students were hanging around all the time. Mr. DeWitt testified that it "wasn't pleasant," and that a single conversation was not sufficient to settle the matter. Mrs. Schinzel was not receptive to any discussion about the kids hanging out. Mr. DeWitt threatened to place something in writing in her employment file, and she said she would complain to the union. Mr. DeWitt stated that it was an awkward situation and that their relationship was strained thereafter. At about the same time as the Dominique McAnn incident, Jennifer Bonelli and her friend, Mike Caffelle, spread a false rumor around the school, to the effect that Mr. DeWitt and Kendra Simpkins had been seen going into the faculty restroom together and did not emerge for several minutes. Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins told the same story about the alleged bathroom incident. As Mr. DeWitt walked down the hall toward his office after lunch, Ms. Simpkins approached him to complain about the fact that Ms. Bonelli had thrown pennies at her car and called her "whore" when they passed in the hallways. As they approached his office, they saw Ms. Bonelli standing there. Mr. DeWitt did not want a confrontation, so he told Ms. Simpkins to ignore Ms. Bonelli and continue telling him what happened. They walked past the office and up the stairs toward the media center and faculty bathroom. By the time they reached the top of the stairs, Ms. Simpkins had finished her story. Mr. DeWitt told her to avoid Ms. Bonelli and let SRO Foster know if the harassment continued. Ms. Simpkins walked out of the media center and Mr. DeWitt went into the bathroom. Mr. DeWitt emerged a few minutes later and noticed Mike Caffelle sitting at the computer lab. Mr. Caffelle looked at Mr. DeWitt, who nodded in acknowledgement. Mr. Caffelle had been sent up the back stairs by Ms. Bonelli to observe Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins after they passed Mr. DeWitt's office. After Mr. DeWitt emerged from the bathroom, Mr. Caffelle reported back to Ms. Bonelli that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins had gone into the bathroom together. They proceeded to spread this story around the school. Shortly thereafter, SRO Foster showed Mr. DeWitt some notes he'd gotten from a student concerning a rumor that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins had gone into the bathroom together. They determined that Mr. Caffelle was the main source of the rumor and called him in to talk about it. Mr. Caffelle admitted starting the rumor with Ms. Bonelli, and admitted that he had not seen Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins enter the bathroom together. Ms. Bonelli testified that a few days before the detectives began their investigation of the bathroom rumor, she was having discussions with Dominique McAnn, Jody Schinzel, and Mrs. Schinzel about Mr. DeWitt. The evidence establishes that these conversations occurred on or before February 3, 1999. The investigation of the rumors commenced on February 9, 1999. The record is unclear as to how many days elapsed between the episode in the English class and Mr. DeWitt's becoming aware of it and alerting the detectives. The evidence leads to the inference that it must have been several days, because Ms. Bonelli was certain that her confrontation with Ms. McAnn just after the English class episode preceded these discussions about Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Schinzel told Ms. Bonelli that she was not the only student with whom Mr. DeWitt had had sexual relationships, that Mr. DeWitt had done this "a lot." Mrs. Schinzel named Melissa McBride as a student who'd had a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she believed Mrs. Schinzel, who did not testify at the hearing. Melissa McBride testified at the hearing. She graduated from Riverview in 1997, and had worked in the attendance office near Mr. DeWitt's office during her senior year. She testified that Mr. DeWitt hugged her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable, but that she didn't feel that he was trying to provoke a sexual response. She testified that Mr. DeWitt denied having a wife and children, even when she told him that she knew better. She felt that his "body language" indicated he was interested in a relationship with her, but that Mr. DeWitt did nothing overt to pursue such a relationship. She did not have a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. The Schinzels urged Ms. Bonelli to make a written statement against Mr. DeWitt. They told her that other girls were writing statements, and it would "help out" if she also wrote one. They assured her that her name would "just be caught up in the jumble." They told her that someone else could write the statement for her. Jody Schinzel and Dominique McAnn urged Ms. Bonelli to go see teacher Mary Kenne. She went, along with Jody Schinzel. Ms. Kenne sat down with the girls and had Ms. Bonelli tell her story. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Kenne then asked her to write a statement, to go along with the statements that other people were writing. Ms. Kenne would not tell her who the other people were, and assured her that her own statement would be held in confidence. Ms. Bonelli dictated a statement, and Jody Schinzel wrote it down. Ms. Kenne testified that Jody Schinzel had come to see her on February 3, and asked to speak privately. Ms. Schinzel showed Ms. Kenne handwritten notes passed between her and Ms. Bonelli. The notes briefly recapitulated Ms. Bonelli's accusations: Mr. DeWitt's telling her about his "problem," their jogging together, and the sexual conversations. The note stated: "Basically we never did anything physical. He always wanted me to watch him jerk off and I did once. But I wanted to get physical . . . never happened. Then along came Kendra. " [Emphasis in original] Ms. Schinzel told Ms. Kenne that Ms. Bonelli had been involved with Mr. DeWitt and that another girl at Riverview was involved with him. Ms. Kenne testified that she read half the notes and then told Ms. Schinzel that if these things were true, she needed to hear them directly from Ms. Bonelli, that Ms. Bonelli must be willing to come forward and state that these things happened. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Schinzel that she was required by law to take action on these accusations. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Schinzel came back on February 4 and told her that Ms. Bonelli would come to see her the next day. Ms. Schinzel brought Ms. Bonelli with her to Ms. Kenne's classroom on February 5. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Kenne her allegations against Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Bonelli told of events that had happened the previous year, such as trespassing at Mr. DeWitt's house, and of their relationship at Twin Lakes Park and around school. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Kenne that in 1998 she had gone to Karen Spielman and told her the allegations, but that she had later recanted them. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Bonelli that if she wanted to take the matter further, she would have to write down her allegations in a signed statement. Ms. Kenne denied forcing or intimidating Ms. Bonelli into writing the statement, and made no mention of having told Ms. Bonelli that other girls were also writing statements. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Kenne "encouraged" her to write the statement, but did not "pressure" her to do so. When he interviewed Ms. Bonelli a few days later, Principal Flynn made a notation that Ms. Bonelli told him that she "felt pressure from the clinic lady and Ms. Kenne to write it down." Ms. Kenne left Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Schinzel alone to produce the statement. Ms. Bonelli didn't have time to finish it before her next class, so she took it with her. She finally gave it to Ms. Kenne during sixth period. Ms. Kenne testified that she glanced at it quickly, made a copy, and cut Ms. Bonelli's name out of the copy. Ms. Kenne testified that just after school on February 5, Ms. Bonelli returned to her room with Christine Ross, who told Ms. Kenne that she witnessed one of the incidents at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Ross told her that she was in the back of Ms. Bonelli's car, covered in blankets, while Ms. Bonelli had a conversation with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross said she was aware of other things that had happened between Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Ross that if she wanted the matter taken further, she would have to make a written statement. Ms. Ross wrote a statement and gave it to Ms. Kenne. Ms. Ross' written statement consisted of allegations that she had witnessed Mr. DeWitt talking to Ms. Bonelli at football games and at Twin Lakes Park. She had also seen Mr. DeWitt having conversations with other students. She claimed to have confronted Mr. DeWitt about his alleged actions, and claimed that he would neither confirm nor deny those actions. Ms. Ross' written statement makes no mention of the sexual conversation she claimed in her testimony to have heard between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, though Ms. Kenne recalled that Ms. Ross told her about it. Ms. Kenne testified that she took the statements to Velton Hodges at the Sarasota Classified Teachers Association, the local teachers' union. Mr. Hodges made copies and took them to Mr. Witt at the Superintendent's office. Ms. Kenne stated that on Monday morning, February 8, Mr. DeWitt came to her room at about 10:45 a.m. and asked to speak with her. Mr. DeWitt said he had heard she was conducting an investigation and taking statements from girls. Ms. Kenne told Mr. DeWitt that she was not conducting an investigation, that some girls had come to her, she had them write down what they had to say, and she turned it in. Ms. Kenne testified that Mr. DeWitt asked her for the statements. She did not have the statements, having given her copies to a friend for safe keeping. Mr. DeWitt asked her why she hadn't come to him about the situation. Ms. Kenne responded that she was not comfortable doing that, because Mr. DeWitt was involved in the allegations, and because she had a bad experience in the past with a similar, unrelated situation. Ms. Kenne told Mr. DeWitt what the girls had said about him, but she refused to identify the girls because they had come to her in confidence. Mr. DeWitt told her that he already knew it was Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt's recollection of this meeting was similar to Ms. Kenne's, except that he could not recall whether he mentioned Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins by name. Ms. Kenne stated that at about 12:30 p.m. on the same day, SRO Foster called and asked her to meet with him and Mr. DeWitt in Mr. Flynn's office. She went to Mr. Flynn's office, and they discussed the allegations. Ms. Kenne stated that much of the discussion involved why she had not come to Mr. DeWitt or SRO Foster before turning the girls' statements in to the administration. Ms. Bonelli testified that, during the course of her interview with Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price about the McAnn incident and bathroom rumors, Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of her written statement to Ms. Kenne. Mr. DeWitt recalled that he learned of the statements from Dominique McAnn. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price that her written statement was not true. SRO Foster testified that Ms. Bonelli told them that Jody Schinzel had pressured her to make the statement, and that the events described therein never happened. Det. Price recalled that Ms. Bonelli did not tell them exactly what she had written, but led them to believe it was not very damaging to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told them that she thought Christine Ross had embellished or fabricated some of her statement, and implied that it was Ms. Ross' statement that was the source of Ms. Kenne's concerns. Ms. Bonelli told Det. Price that Ms. Ross and her mother hated Mr. DeWitt because he had refused to allow Ms. Ross out of class early to go to work. Mr. DeWitt recalled the incident with Ms. Ross and her mother, though he was obviously not privy to their reaction to his denial of early release for Ms. Ross. Ms. Bonelli stated that she was later alone with Mr. DeWitt, and he told her to get the statement back from Ms. Kenne. Ms. Bonelli testified that she tried to get the statement back, but that Ms. Kenne did not have it. Linda Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt called her at home on the evening of February 8, at about 5 p.m. Mr. DeWitt said there was a matter at school, and he wondered if she knew anything about it. Mrs. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt did not specify the "matter," but that she understood his reference because Jennifer had told her about it. Mr. DeWitt asked her to tell him what she knew and when she learned about it. Mrs. Bonelli told Mr. DeWitt that Jennifer had come home from school one day last week and told her that a girl named Dominique had made a comment about Jennifer and Mr. DeWitt in Ms. Wallace's English class. Jennifer's friends had alerted her to the comment, and Jennifer took Dominique aside and told her to keep her nose out of her business. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she asked Jennifer if that took care of the matter, and Jennifer answered that she thought it did. Mrs. Bonelli testified that Jennifer did not tell her the subject matter of Dominique's comment, only that there was a comment and it displeased her. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she assumed the comment dealt with the trespassing incident, and that she had no clue about any romantic relationship between her daughter and Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Bonelli's profession of ignorance is not credible. As will become clear in the findings below, the essence of her testimony was that she believed Jennifer was telling the truth, though she had no idea what Jennifer was telling the truth about and never made any inquiry as to the subject matter, even after the police became involved a second time and even though she believed that her daughter was afraid of and intimidated by Mr. DeWitt. Based upon the entirety of her testimony and that of her husband and daughter, it is far more reasonable to find that Mrs. Bonelli was aware of Jennifer's situation at least as early as the trespassing incident, and was attempting to keep Mr. Bonelli from learning the details. It would be speculative to determine whether Mrs. Bonelli failed to come forward because she did not think Jennifer would be believed, as she intimated in her testimony, or because she herself did not believe Jennifer, or merely because she feared her husband's reaction. Returning to her telephone conversation with Mr. DeWitt, Mrs. Bonelli testified that she went on to tell him that a couple of days after Jennifer told her about the English class incident, Jennifer came home and said Ms. Kenne had approached her. Ms. Kenne told Jennifer that she had heard things from Ms. Wallace about Jennifer and Mr. DeWitt, and wanted her to make a statement. Ms. Kenne told Jennifer that other girls had complaints about Mr. DeWitt, and that Jennifer should make a statement about what Mr. DeWitt was doing. Again, Mrs. Bonelli stated that Jennifer did not tell her the subject matter of the things she knew, and that she did not ask. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Jennifer not to make a statement unless she was absolutely sure of the facts, because someone's life could be ruined. Mrs. Bonelli testified that at this point in the telephone conversation, Mr. DeWitt wanted to speak to Jennifer and her together on the phone. Mrs. Bonelli replied that Jennifer was out running and, besides, the family had just moved, the phones weren't set up, and it would be tough to get everyone on one line. Mr. DeWitt told her that he would appreciate it if she would get the phones hooked up so that he could call back later and get the matter straightened out. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Mr. DeWitt she would like to get it straightened out, too, because she had not told her husband about any of this. Mr. Bonelli had suffered a heart attack in October 1997 and was supposed to avoid stress, and Mrs. Bonelli kept this matter from him "because I didn't think anything was going to go further with this." Mrs. Bonelli set up the phones, and Mr. DeWitt called back. Mrs. Bonelli and Jennifer got on the phone with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli was in the room, and shouted to his wife that she was to tell Mr. DeWitt to have no further contact with Jennifer; if Mr. DeWitt wanted to speak to Jennifer, he was to call Mr. Bonelli and set up a meeting in his office. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she relayed this statement to Mr. DeWitt, who said, "Okay." Mrs. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt then said, "So, Jen, you can get back that statement tomorrow and all this will go away." Jennifer agreed, and that was the end of the conversation. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she did not ask Jennifer what this matter was all about. She stated that she was curious, but felt that Jennifer had been intimidated by and was scared of Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli testified that he did not question Jennifer about the matter because he figured it was just some girls getting together and making allegations, and he didn’t put too much credence in it. He thought it was just girls being girls, and didn't know that Mr. DeWitt was involved in it. He thought Mr. DeWitt was on the phone in his role as an administrator, not as a participant in the matter. He testified that his statements about Jennifer not speaking to anyone without his knowledge was a general comment, not directed at Mr. DeWitt in particular. Mr. Bonelli's testimony is credible. Mr. DeWitt testified that he called the Bonelli residence and asked Mrs. Bonelli to get her husband and Jennifer on the phone. Mrs. Bonelli made the excuse about the telephones still being in boxes. Mr. DeWitt told her that he wanted the phones hooked up and Mr. Bonelli on the phone when he called back. Mr. DeWitt called the second time, and Jennifer and her mother were on the phone. Mr. DeWitt again asked Mrs. Bonelli to put her husband on the phone. Mr. DeWitt testified that Mr. Bonelli seemed to be "a player" in the earlier trespassing situation and a decision-maker in the house, so he wanted to be sure that Mr. Bonelli heard what took place at school that day with his daughter. However, Mrs. Bonelli would not put her husband on the phone. Mr. DeWitt's version of this exchange is credited. Mr. DeWitt went over the matter of the rumor, and told Mrs. Bonelli that Jennifer did not start the rumor and had nothing to do with it. He could hear Mr. Bonelli speaking in the background, but could not understand what he was saying. Mr. DeWitt was certain that he heard Mr. Bonelli say to his wife that she should ask Mr. DeWitt to "make sure no one contacts my daughter." Ms. Kenne testified that on the next morning, February 9, Ms. Bonelli came in and asked her to return her statement. Ms. Bonelli told her she had changed her mind about testifying and wanted nothing more to do with the matter. Ms. Bonelli did not deny the truth of her written statement, but told Ms. Kenne that she did not want to hurt Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Bonelli that she had already turned in the statement and given her own copy of the statement to a friend for safe-keeping, so she could not return it. At about 8:30 a.m., Det. Price, SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt came to Ms. Kenne's classroom and asked for the statements. Ms. Kenne told them that she had been unable to get them from her friend, and that she would bring them in the next morning. Ms. Kenne testified that Det. Price became belligerent, and told her that she could be arrested for interfering with a felony investigation and obstructing justice if she didn't produce the statements. Ms. Kenne testified that Mr. DeWitt was yelling at her, and that all three were threatening her. Det. Price testified that Ms. Kenne was very agitated. Ms. Kenne told them that she didn't have the statements, that she had sealed them in an envelope and given them to a friend to hold. Det. Price told her that she needed the statements as part of a criminal investigation and she was to turn them in to her the next day. Det. Price stated that Ms. Kenne started to argue and say she didn't know if she could do that. Ms. Kenne started crying and accusing them of yelling at her. Det. Price testified that she was prepared to arrest Ms. Kenne for obstruction if she did not turn in the statements. Ms. Kenne testified that she gave the statements to Det. Price on Wednesday morning, February 10, 1999. Det. Price brought a security officer with her to Ms. Kenne's classroom, telling Ms. Kenne that she did not want to be accused of intimidating her again. Ms. Kenne had no further conversations with Det. Price, SRO Foster, or Mr. DeWitt about the statements. SRO Foster testified that while he and Mr. DeWitt were interviewing Dominique McAnn on February 9, he received a phone call from Todd Hunger, an assistant state attorney. Mr. Hunger told SRO Foster that he had been approached at the YMCA by Jennifer Bonelli the previous weekend. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Hunger that she was having a relationship with an unnamed Riverview administrator, and that SRO Foster was helping Mr. DeWitt to cover it up. Foster testified that this, on top of everything else he was investigating, was "unbelievable." While some of SRO Foster's actions during the investigation could be second guessed, particularly his allowing Mr. DeWitt to remain personally involved for as long as he did, there was no credible evidence that SRO Foster was engaged in a cover-up or that he performed his duties less than competently and conscientiously. Stanley Bonelli testified that his daughter approached the assistant state attorney for advice on how to get her statement back from Ms. Kenne. Jennifer was upset, and didn't understand why she couldn't get the statement back, so she approached this attorney and asked him about the matter. SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt went to Principal Flynn's office and briefed him on the situation. Mr. Flynn told Mr. DeWitt to have no further contact with the students during this investigation. SRO Foster contacted his superiors, who decided to pull Det. Price and SRO Foster from the case and assign two more experienced detectives, Chris Iorio and Robert Bang, to the case. Det. Iorio and Det. Bang were generally assigned to investigate crimes against juveniles. Det. Iorio was the lead detective on the case. Det. Iorio's first recollection was getting a phone call from SRO Foster that there were rumors going around Riverview and an investigation was beginning. Shortly thereafter, SRO Foster and Det. Price met with Det. Iorio's supervisors, who determined that SRO Foster and Det. Price's relationship with the school was such that they should back away from the case. Det. Iorio was informed of Ms. Bonelli's accusations and assigned to investigate. Det. Price had already called the Bonelli home and spoken to Linda Bonelli. Det. Price arranged for the Bonellis to come down to the police station for an interview after school on February 10. Det. Bang and Det. Iorio interviewed Jennifer briefly, and concluded that nothing had happened between Mr. DeWitt and her because Jennifer recanted everything in the written statement she had given to Ms. Kenne. Det. Iorio talked to Jennifer and her parents. Det. Iorio testified that he told them that Jennifer should not be making up this kind of thing and that, as far as he was concerned, the matter was concluded. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she and her husband did not go into the room when Jennifer was interviewed, that Jennifer did not tell her husband and her what happened, and that she did not ask Jennifer about it. Mrs. Bonelli did concede that the detectives showed them Jennifer's statement. Mr. Bonelli testified that Jennifer went in alone with the detectives, and they came out saying that Jennifer had retracted her statement and they were filing no charges against Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli was upset, both from reading the statement and from his daughter's retraction of it. He testified that he could see that Jennifer was emotionally upset and he figured this was not the time to question her about the matter. He intended to speak to her about it the next day when she came home from school. The Bonellis left the station, and Det. Iorio relayed his information to SRO Foster. Jennifer Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt knew she was going down to meet with Det. Iorio and Det. Bang, and that Mr. DeWitt told her that the entire matter would "go away" if she just denied the truth of her written statement. She said she reported to Mr. DeWitt after the meeting, told him that she had recanted her statement and that he was in the clear. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt was happy, and told her, "good job." Ms. Bonelli testified that the next morning, February 11, a security guard pulled her out of class and sent her to Mr. Flynn's office. The guard would not tell her why she was there. She was then sent into a room where Mr. Flynn, Mr. Cronin, and her father were already having a discussion. Mr. Flynn was speaking to her father about recommending her for expulsion based on her false written statement. Ms. Bonelli testified that she spoke up and said the statement was not false, that she had recanted it to save Mr. DeWitt's job. Ms. Bonelli received a ten-day suspension pending the investigation, but was not expelled from Riverview. Stanley Bonelli testified that he called Mr. Flynn on February 11 to arrange a meeting. He was upset because his daughter had been "forced" by Ms. Kenne to give a statement, without informing her parents. Mr. Bonelli was also upset that Mr. DeWitt had called his home and spoken to his wife and Jennifer, and that he did not know what the conversation was about, other than someone named Dominique had made an allegation about his daughter and Mr. DeWitt. He was upset that Mr. DeWitt had talked to his daughter at school without his permission. In light of all these concerns, he wanted to speak to Mr. Flynn, and the meeting was arranged. Mr. Bonelli's version of the meeting generally agrees with his daughter's. Mr. Flynn told Mr. Bonelli that he was going to expel Jennifer for inappropriately degrading the reputation of an administrator. Mr. Flynn told him that Jennifer had lied in her written statement. Mr. Bonelli testified that when his daughter saw that she was going to be expelled, lose all her enrollment credits and scholarship, and perhaps not go to college for two years, she said, "I'm not going to protect anyone. I did not lie." Mr. Bonelli testified that Mr. Flynn then said that he was suspending Jennifer for ten days pending an investigation. Mr. Bonelli told Mr. Flynn that he was hiring an attorney. Mr. Flynn's version of the meeting also agrees in most essentials with that of Jennifer and Stanley Bonelli. The only telling difference is that Mr. Flynn did not recall Jennifer saying, "I'm not going to protect anyone." Mr. Flynn's recollection was that Jennifer said, "I'm not going to be expelled for this." Mr. Flynn testified that as soon as Jennifer said that her statement was true, he stopped the interview and called Det. Price into the room to confirm what Jennifer had just said. Det. Price talked to Ms. Bonelli and reminded her that this would lead to a police investigation because she was alleging crimes. Det. Price told her that if it was found she was lying, she could be prosecuted for filing a false police report. Ms. Bonelli wanted a police investigation. Det. Price testified that she read Ms. Bonelli her Miranda rights. Det. Price stated that though Ms. Bonelli was a victim at this point for investigative purposes, she had changed her story so many times that it was best to read Ms. Bonelli her rights for her own benefit and safety. Det. Price stated that this was the end of her involvement in the case. Mrs. Bonelli testified that on February 11, after coming home from the meeting with Mr. Flynn, Jennifer told her that the statement was true. Mrs. Bonelli testified that this was the first time she knew that Jennifer had some sort of relationship with Mr. DeWitt. She testified that she had no hint of such a thing before this. As noted above, Mrs. Bonelli is not credible on this point. Jennifer Bonelli returned to the police station on February 11, accompanied by an attorney hired by her father, and met with Det. Iorio and Det. Bang again. Det. Iorio testified that he advised her that he was investigating a possible crime, and that if she lied there could be penalties, even prosecution. He read Ms. Bonelli her rights, swore her in and she gave a taped statement as to what she said really occurred. Ms. Bonelli told Det. Iorio that she started working in Mr. DeWitt's office, that she openly had a crush on him, that it started out as them making small talk. Mr. DeWitt would ask about her relationships with boyfriends, what types of sexual encounters they had. It got to the point where there was some touching. At some point they met at Twin Lakes Park, where Mr. DeWitt jogged. They reached the point of Mr. DeWitt masturbating in his car while Ms. Bonelli talked dirty to him. Det. Iorio believed Ms. Bonelli was being truthful, and decided to pursue the investigation further. Det. Iorio testified that Ms. Bonelli mentioned the name of Kendra Simpkins and told him she was involved with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins was called down to the police station. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Simpkins was very embarrassed about the interview, but eventually told them us she was having a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt and would give a sworn taped statement of those events. Ms. Simpkins related her version of the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, discussed above. Ms. Simpkins also related the story of Mr. DeWitt's alleged reaching back in his chair and touching her crotch. Det. Iorio testified that his investigation revealed the names of other girls who might have been victims of Mr. DeWitt: Melissa McBride; Jennifer Rizi; Bethany Donato; Katy Seib; Dominique McAnn; and Lori Gully. He and Det. Bang interviewed as many of these witnesses as they could contact. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. McBride told him that she was a student of Mr. DeWitt's, and that although she never had a physical relationship with him, Mr. DeWitt made it very clear that if she was available, so was he. She was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt was having relationships with girls at Riverview, because it was a common occurrence for him to be "hitting on" the girls at school and to be lenient on girls in disciplinary matters. As noted above, Melissa McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt would hug her in a way that made her uncomfortable, and that his "body language" made her believe he was interested in a relationship. Ms. McBride also testified that she had permission to leave the campus after third period to attend the Sarasota County Technical Institute, and that she discussed meeting Mr. DeWitt for lunch at Subway. They never actually had lunch together. Mr. DeWitt never overtly proposed a sexual relationship with Ms. McBride. Ms. McBride also testified that Mr. DeWitt denied to her that he had a wife and children. Ms. McBride stated that she knew Mr. DeWitt was married, and told him that she knew, but that he continued to deny those facts. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never gave Ms. McBride an embrace as she described it, though he may have hugged her shoulder-to-shoulder as he did other students. He denied asking Ms. McBride to lunch. He also denied ever discussing his marital status with Ms. McBride, stating that it would not have been any of her business. Mr. DeWitt again stated that he has never denied having a wife and children to anyone. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Donato said she had heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. She remembered Ms. Bonelli telling her she'd gone to Twin Lakes Park with Mr. DeWitt and given him a "hand job." Ms. Donato told Det. Iorio that Mr. DeWitt told her he wanted to take her for a spin in his car and look at the stars when she turned 18. Ms. Donato did not testify at the hearing. Mr. DeWitt denied ever telling Ms. Donato he would like to take her out in his car, or saying anything to her that could have been construed to mean he would like to take her out. The detectives' version of Ms. Donato's statement must be viewed in light of the fact that virtually every witness who testified at the hearing or via deposition disputed at least certain aspects of the detectives' report. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Seib told him that she'd had no sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt, but that Mr. DeWitt made comments about her breasts and short skirts, and asked her what kinds of sexual relations she was having with her boyfriends. Katy Seib testified at the hearing. She testified that Mr. DeWitt never made comments about her breasts and that she did not remember telling Det. Bang or Det. Iorio that he had. She testified that Mr. DeWitt made comments about her skirts, but in the context of letting her know they were inappropriate school attire. Mr. DeWitt was her grade level administrator, and she talked to him about personal problems, including boyfriend problems. She testified that nothing inappropriate was ever discussed between Mr. DeWitt and her. She testified that she felt intimidated by the detectives, and felt they were trying to manipulate her into saying something they could use against Mr. DeWitt. Det. Iorio testified that Dominique McAnn had no knowledge of inappropriate behavior by Mr. DeWitt, but suggested they talk to Lori Gully, a teacher who had recently left Riverview. Ms. McAnn testified at the hearing, and confirmed that she may have given the detectives the name of Lori Gully. Ms. McAnn testified that the rumor went around the school that something may have occurred between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Gully, a former teacher at Riverview. This rumor was based on the fact that Ms. Gully left the school shortly after working closely with Mr. DeWitt on the initiation of the IB program. Det. Iorio spoke with Ms. Gully by telephone. Det. Iorio reported that Ms. Gully said she never had any sexual contact with Mr. DeWitt, but that Mr. DeWitt would make innuendoes or make it known he was available for an affair. Det. Iorio also reported that Ms. Gully was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt would have sexual contact with students at Riverview. Lori Gully testified at the hearing. She worked at Riverview for one year, 1996-97. She worked closely with Mr. DeWitt on the IB program before taking a new job in Fort Myers. She characterized Mr. DeWitt as a hard worker, very active with students, and focused on student achievement. She testified that Mr. DeWitt never made any overt advances toward her, but that she perceived an undercurrent of something she didn't like. She was never uncomfortable being alone with him, or threatened by him. Ms. Gully testified that Mr. DeWitt would say things that could be taken two ways, insinuating some desire for a more than professional relationship. For example, prior to an out-of- town conference they would both attend, Mr. DeWitt said to her, "Maybe we'll get to spend some time together, do you know what I mean?" Ms. Gully had a vague impression that Mr. DeWitt was ready to have an affair if she was, but stated that he was always professional with her. She conceded that her impression was just a "weird feeling" that she couldn't explain but was undeniably there. She never saw Mr. DeWitt act inappropriately toward anyone at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt testified that his relationship with Ms. Gully was always professional, courteous, and cordial. They never had any conversations of a sexual nature, and he never said anything intended to give her the impression that he had romantic feelings toward her. Ms. Gully testified that she did not tell the detectives that Mr. DeWitt made it known he was ready for an affair; this was her intuitive feeling, not a statement made by Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Gully also denied telling the detectives that she was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt was involved with students. She actually told them she was not surprised they were calling her, because a friend had told her about the DeWitt investigation. She testified that her actual feeling was that it would be out of character for Mr. DeWitt to be involved with students. Det. Iorio testified that he and Det. Bang determined it would be very important to their investigation to capture Mr. DeWitt on tape discussing the allegations. Ms. Simpkins' mother agreed to allow Kendra to wear a listening device, commonly called a "body bug," and attempt to engage Mr. DeWitt in a conversation. They also had Kendra place two tape-recorded "control calls" from the police station. Audible tapes and transcripts of one "body bug" conversation and one control call conversation were entered into evidence, over Mr. DeWitt's strenuous objection. Det. Iorio listened to the tapes during the investigation, and testified that he heard nothing on the tapes that would cause him to end the investigation. In particular, Det. Iorio found that the "obscenities" used by Mr. DeWitt told him there was definitely "something there." On the tapes, Mr. DeWitt says nothing clearly exculpatory or incriminating. Ms. Simpkins, having been coached by the detectives not to directly raise questions about the alleged sexual episodes, tells Mr. DeWitt that she has to go talk to the police and asks Mr. DeWitt what she should say. Mr. DeWitt testified that he assumed Ms. Simpkins was going to be questioned about the bathroom rumor, because he believed that was the only thing the police were investigating that could possibly involve Kendra Simpkins. He tells Ms. Simpkins to tell the police that nothing happened. Ms. Simpkins continues to question Mr. DeWitt with variations on the same query. Mr. DeWitt keeps telling her that the police want to know about the bathroom rumor. Ms. Simpkins keeps saying that the police must "know something." Mr. DeWitt says there is "nothing to know." In frustration, Mr. DeWitt does at one point exclaim, "God damn," which is the "obscenity" referred to by Det. Iorio. Mr. DeWitt never plainly tells Simpkins to just go in and tell the truth, though he testified that at some point he did tell her to tell the truth and that statement must have been on one of the "inaudible" tapes referenced above. Mr. DeWitt repeatedly tells Ms. Simpkins that the police "don't know anything," and that she should tell them the same thing she told SRO Foster and Det. Price. However, Mr. DeWitt is saying these things in the context of trying to calm the apparently frantic Kendra Simpkins. He is also plainly exasperated with Ms. Simpkins' going over and over the same ground in repeated meetings and phone calls. Ms. Simpkins was directly asked about the instructions given by the detectives. She testified that they told her to ask questions that would draw out Mr. DeWitt, rather than "yes" or "no" questions. She testified that she didn't think to ask him about specific things such as Twin Lakes Park. She testified that even if she had asked him specific questions, his answers would have been the same. Several times on the tapes, Mr. DeWitt encourages Ms. Simpkins to get her mother involved in the matter, and wants to make sure that her mother knows everything that is happening. Mr. DeWitt in fact called Ms. Burkhardt that evening to make sure she knew about the bathroom rumor and that Kendra had talked to the detectives that day. Despite the controversy at the hearing over the admissibility of the recordings, they are not persuasive one way or the other as to Mr. DeWitt's culpability. On March 12, 1999, the detectives filed a probable cause affidavit recommending that Mr. DeWitt be charged with one count of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a 15-year-old child. This charge related to Mr. DeWitt's alleged grabbing of Kendra Simpkins' crotch in his office in 1998, when Ms. Simpkins had not yet turned 16. The detectives determined that no other charges could be filed because Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli were both at least 16 years old when the alleged acts occurred. On April 5, 1999, the State Attorney's office filed a memorandum declining to prosecute, because Kendra Simpkins did not wish to pursue the case and because there were no independent witnesses. Joy Perez After he was removed from the case, Det. Foster was approached by a Riverview teacher, who claimed to have heard that Mr. DeWitt had had an affair with a student when he was teaching in Miami. Det. Foster gave this information to Det. Bang and Det. Iorio, who went to Miami to investigate. A great deal of testimony was elicited as to this Miami investigation, which ultimately proved fruitless. The Sarasota County School Board ultimately found Joy Perez through a private investigator. The testimony about Det. Iorio and Det. Bang's Miami investigation had to do with their accusations that the faculty and staff of Miami Sunset High School were engaged in a cover-up of Mr. DeWitt's alleged affair with Joy Perez. The detectives' allegations are without merit. The evidence established that Det. Iorio and Det. Bang arrived at the school unannounced, armed with misinformation as to the name of the person they were seeking, attempted to bully faculty and staff members, decided that everyone they spoke to at Miami Sunset was lying when they denied knowledge of an affair between Mr. DeWitt and a former student, and then twisted the witnesses' statements to suit their theory of a "cover-up." It is not necessary to detail the detectives' accusations and the contrary testimony of the Miami Sunset witnesses because this controversy is not relevant to the allegations against Mr. DeWitt. The undersigned has thoroughly reviewed all the testimony, and finds that any conflicts in the testimony must be resolved in favor of the Miami Sunset witnesses. The credibility of Det. Iorio and Det. Bang's report was already rendered questionable during the Sarasota phase of the investigation, where Lori Gully and Katherine Seib denied making damaging statements attributed to them by the report. Joy Perez attended Miami Sunset Senior High from 1988 until her graduation in 1991. During her junior and senior years, she served as an athletic trainer. In the 1990-91 season, when Mr. DeWitt was the head basketball coach, Ms. Perez was assigned as a trainer to the basketball team. She was 18 years old when the relationship with Mr. DeWitt is alleged to have occurred. Ms. Perez testified that there were two to four female trainers at every basketball game. The trainers usually sat on the same side of the court as the team, and less frequently sat across from the team, with the fans. After the games, the trainers would collect the equipment and store it. The trainers also attended team practices. Ms. Perez testified that she was at most games and practices, but could not say she was at all of them. Mr. DeWitt's assistant coach was Andy Chiles, another teacher at Miami Sunset and a friend of Mr. DeWitt's since high school. Ms. Perez testified that she was on good terms with Mr. Chiles. Ms. Perez testified that she met Mr. DeWitt at the start of basketball season. They would talk. She recalled that Mr. DeWitt was very flattering, complimenting her looks. She testified that these talks progressed into a relationship. They began going out together. Ms. Perez testified that she had no romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt before he commenced his flattery. They would talk at school, and at some point Ms. Perez realized that Mr. DeWitt was interested in more than just flirting. She stated that he was the aggressor in the relationship. Ms. Perez testified that now, nine years after the fact, she had no clear recollection of how they progressed from talking to going out together after school. She recalled that Mr. DeWitt would come over to her house after school. Ms. Perez testified that most of their meetings occurred after school, not at night. They would go out to eat. Ms. Perez testified that she introduced Mr. DeWitt to her mother. She stated that she wanted to make sure her mother approved of the fact that she was dating a teacher. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt had discussions with her mother about the relationship, and that her mother never tried to stop it. She said her mother was "okay" with it, though she was unaware that it later progressed to a sexual relationship. Ms. Perez testified that the dating commenced in about January 1991. She stated that they held hands and kissed on these dates. Miami Sunset was an open campus, meaning that students were allowed to leave the grounds for lunch. Ms. Perez testified that she and Mr. DeWitt would go to lunch together at various restaurants. Ms. Perez recalled in particular going with Mr. DeWitt to a Pizza Hut three or four miles from the Miami Sunset campus. She was concerned that another student would see them, because the Pizza Hut was frequented by her friends and classmates. She stated that an acquaintance did see her getting into Mr. DeWitt's car and warned her to be careful. Ms. Perez could not recall how many times she went there with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Perez stated that she and Mr. DeWitt also went to the Sizzler once, just after lunchtime. She stated that this restaurant was not near the school and was not frequented by students. She stated that they went to dinner at Tony Roma's, also not in the neighborhood of Miami Sunset. Ms. Perez testified that she and Mr. DeWitt were concerned about teachers seeing them, so they did not make their relationship public. They did not hold hands or kiss at school. Ms. Perez testified that the relationship finally progressed to sexual intercourse. She stated that she had sexual intercourse with Mr. DeWitt in his car, at hotels, and at his mother's house, all while she was still a student at Miami Sunset. She estimated they had sexual intercourse fewer than ten times. Ms. Perez testified that they did not engage in oral sex, and that Mr. DeWitt never asked her to "talk dirty" to him or masturbated in her presence. Ms. Perez stated that they went to hotels, usually between noon and 5 p.m. Mr. DeWitt would wait for her at the corner, then they would go to the hotel in his car. They went to more than one hotel, but she could not remember their names. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt gave her gifts, "little things." She recalled receiving a charm, and a T-shirt that Mr. DeWitt brought back from the Final Four basketball tournament. She did not know where any of these items now were. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt told her he was separated from his wife. Ms. Perez testified that she did not know Mr. DeWitt's wife, nor did she have any idea what his wife looked like. Ms. Perez testified that she never met Mr. DeWitt's wife at basketball games, or ever saw Mr. DeWitt talk to anyone he later said was his wife. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt told her that he had a young son. Mr. DeWitt also told her that his wife and child lived in the Kenlands, an apartment/condominium complex not far from the school. Mr. DeWitt told her that he also lived in the Kenlands, with his wife and child. He told her that he lived with his wife for financial reasons, but that they had separate bedrooms. At the time, Ms. Perez accepted this explanation of the DeWitts' "separation," in part because her own parents had slept in separate bedrooms. Ms. Perez admitted that she didn't know if there was a written separation agreement, or whether the DeWitts were having sexual relations. Ms. Perez knew Mr. DeWitt's mother, Marilyn DeWitt, who was also a teacher in the Miami-Dade public school system. Ms. Perez took a night class in pottery from Marilyn DeWitt at Miami Sunset. Ms. Perez testified that she knew her teacher was DeWitt's mother. Ms. Perez stated that she never saw Marilyn DeWitt at a basketball game. Ms. Perez testified that the sexual relationship ended in about April 1991. She stated that she began feeling that Mr. DeWitt's story about being separated from his wife was not true. She testified that Andy Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt "might" still be married. Under cross-examination, Ms. Perez admitted that Mr. Chiles actually showed her a high school yearbook photo of Karen DeWitt and that he tried to warn her that Mr. DeWitt was married. Ms. Perez testified that after Mr. Chiles showed her the yearbook picture, she again asked Mr. DeWitt if he was really married. She stated that Mr. DeWitt repeated the story that he was separated. Ms. Perez testified that she did not ask the other trainers if Mr. DeWitt was married. Ms. Perez testified that she considered her relationship with Mr. DeWitt to be private, and did not discuss it with anyone at school. Ms. Perez testified that she ended the relationship. There was not a clean break. Mr. DeWitt continued to call her at home, but she was not interested in continuing the relationship because she did not believe he was really separated. Ms. Perez stated that she allowed the relationship to "dwindle off." Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt would bother her in the hallways. When class was dismissed, he would wait around in the halls for her. If she was speaking to a male, Mr. DeWitt would come up and interrupt the conversation. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt would also drive by her house. She did not know whether Mr. DeWitt had friends in her neighborhood or any other legitimate reason to go past her house. Ms. Perez testified that after she graduated and went to college, she continued to receive calls from Mr. DeWitt, seeking to renew the relationship. She was not hostile towards him, but had no interest in resuming the relationship. Ms. Perez estimated that she would speak to Mr. DeWitt about twice a year. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt called to tell her he was moving to Sarasota to take an assistant principal position. He called her after he moved to Sarasota, to inquire as to how she was. Ms. Perez testified that she last saw Mr. DeWitt about four years before the hearing. He called and told her he was coming to Miami and wanted to see her. Mr. DeWitt told her that he was now divorced. Ms. Perez agreed to meet Mr. DeWitt, but told him to bring the divorce papers with him. Ms. Perez testified that they had dinner at St. Michel, a restaurant in Coral Gables. Mr. DeWitt brought photocopies of some forms that appeared to be divorce papers. Ms. Perez stated that the papers were unclear, and that the information contained therein did not coincide with things Mr. DeWitt had told her over the years. She knew that Mr. DeWitt had a child at the time their relationship commenced, but the papers indicated the child was born after she graduated. Ms. Perez stated that this caused her to conclude these were not real divorce papers. After the dinner at St. Michel, Ms. Perez had no desire to see Mr. DeWitt again. She told him as much at the dinner. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt never called her again after the dinner, and she never saw him. Ms. Perez did not ask for or keep a copy of the divorce papers. She stated there was no reason to keep them. Once she concluded the papers were not legitimate, she had her proof. Ms. Perez was asked how she could be sure the child mentioned in the divorce papers was the same child she knew about from her days at Miami Sunset. She answered that someone had told her Mr. DeWitt had another child, but Mr. DeWitt denied it every time she asked him. Ms. Perez testified that she never reported her relationship with Mr. DeWitt to anyone in authority at the school. In retrospect, she believed that she should have done so. She stated that she knew it was wrong to have a sexual relationship with a married man, even when the relationship was active. Ms. Perez learned of this case when she was contacted by the Sarasota County school system's private investigator, who took her recorded statement. Ms. Perez testified that Marilyn DeWitt phoned her a few months prior to the hearing. Mrs. DeWitt wanted to know why Ms. Perez was testifying against her son. Ms. Perez told Mrs. DeWitt that the Sarasota authorities approached her and that she was just telling the truth, without any intent to hurt anyone. Mr. DeWitt recalled Joy Perez as an athletic trainer for the basketball team when he was head coach. He testified that she worked at all home and away games, as well as most practices. Mr. DeWitt estimated that he saw her two to four hours a day, six days a week, during the basketball season. Mr. DeWitt denied having any sort of sexual relationship with Joy Perez. He denied holding hands with or kissing her. Karen DeWitt came to every home basketball game, sitting in the fan seating across from the team bench. She brought their infant son, Ryan, who was born on October 27, 1990, just before the basketball season began. Marilyn DeWitt came to some of the home games, and sat with Karen and Ryan. Andy Chiles' fiancée, Julie, would also sit with Karen DeWitt. The DeWitts often socialized with Mr. Chiles and his fiancée after the games. Mr. DeWitt estimated that average attendance at the basketball games was about 100 people. Immediately after the game, Mr. DeWitt would go into the locker room, talk to the players, get the uniforms together, and clean up the locker room. This process took 15 to 30 minutes. Mr. DeWitt would then come out and find Karen and make plans for the rest of the evening. Sometimes they would go out to eat with Mr. Chiles and his fiancée; other times, Karen and Ryan would go home and wait for David. By the time Mr. DeWitt came out after the game to see Karen, there would be very few people left in the gym, mostly the custodian and the trainers. The fans were encouraged to clear out immediately after the game so that the bleachers could be rolled up and the gym cleaned. Mr. DeWitt did not recall seeing Joy Perez talking to his wife. He did recall that Ms. Perez once came into the locker room and told him that someone outside wanted to talk to him. When he went out of the locker room, Karen was waiting to see him. Karen DeWitt had a clear recollection of sending Joy Perez into the locker room to find her husband. She testified that the trainers were her "lifeline" into the locker room. If she needed to take Ryan home, she would ask a trainer to get Mr. DeWitt for her. She gave Joy Perez such a message. Karen DeWitt testified that any other conversations she ever had with Joy Perez were of the "hi, how are you?" variety. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez and the other trainers were made to feel part of the team. They were invited to all team functions, including banquets, dinners, and after- game socials. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez sought him out for counseling. Her father had died in a scuba diving accident in the Florida Keys, and Ms. Perez was very upset and emotional about it. Mr. DeWitt stated that Ms. Perez talked at length about how it happened and the void it caused in her life. Ms. Perez also talked to Mr. DeWitt about general high school issues, where she should go to college, and boyfriend issues along the lines of wondering who would ask her to the prom. Mr. DeWitt testified that after a time he concluded Ms. Perez was showing him too much attention. She was always around, and was showing a fondness for Mr. DeWitt that gave him a feeling she was romantically interested in him. He conceded that Ms. Perez' actions could have been simply an eager trainer trying to impress her coach. Mr. DeWitt raised the issue with Deborah Fries-Furton, a teacher who had been the head athletic trainer and was still deeply involved with the basketball team and the trainers. Mr. DeWitt testified that he knew Ms. Fries-Furton was close to Ms. Perez and her family, and asked her to let Ms. Perez know that he was happily married. Mr. DeWitt asked Ms. Fries-Furton to do so in a manner that was non-threatening. He believed that Ms. Fries-Furton had that conversation with Ms. Perez. Mr. DeWitt testified that he didn't report Ms. Perez because he didn't feel she had "crossed the line." Ms. Perez had done nothing inappropriate or threatening. She never came out and asked Mr. DeWitt to have sex with her. Mr. DeWitt stated that it was just a sense he had that she was becoming enamored of him. He never directly told her to cut back on the attention she was showing him. Mr. DeWitt testified that he visited the night pottery class taught by his mother, and that Joy Perez was sitting in the class doing a pottery assignment. His mother introduced him to the class. Karen DeWitt recalled David taking her to the pottery class for a visit. Karen was curious about the class, and David took her there the first time so that she would know where it was. Karen recalled that she was still pregnant with Ryan on her first visit. Marilyn DeWitt introduced them as her son and his wife. Karen recalled subsequent visits after Ryan was born, and Marilyn showing off Ryan to the class. Karen remembered seeing Joy Perez in the class, but did not remember talking to her there. Ms. Perez denied ever seeing Mr. DeWitt's wife or child come into the pottery class. Mr. DeWitt stated that he "absolutely never" told Ms. Perez that he was separated from his wife, and never said anything that would lead her to think that. He lived with Karen and Ryan in a condominium in the Kenlands, off Kendall Drive. His mother lived about two miles away, and they spent a lot of time at her house, but he never lived apart from his wife. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never told Ms. Perez that he was "separated from but living with" his wife, and that he never showed her where he lived. Karen DeWitt confirmed that Mr. DeWitt never lived anywhere else during this period, and testified that they had no marital problems that approached the level of a separation. Mr. DeWitt stated that every basketball player knew where he lived. All the players had his home phone number. He stated that his house was not far from the school, and that players would stop by before and after practice and on the weekends. Ms. Fries-Furton also knew where Mr. DeWitt lived. It would not have been difficult for Ms. Perez to learn where Mr. DeWitt lived from the players or from Ms. Fries-Furton. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never showed his mother's house to Joy Perez, and that she was never in that house with his or his mother's permission. He stated that there was a spring basketball league that took place at the junior college directly behind Marilyn DeWitt's house. A path through the woods led directly from his mother's house to the college. Mr. DeWitt coached in the spring league. He would walk from there to his mother's house with a player or two from Miami Sunset, before and after the games. They would get something to eat and play basketball in Mrs. DeWitt's back yard, where she had a lighted court. They would swim in her pool. Again, it would have been easy for Ms. Perez to learn from these players where Mr. DeWitt's mother lived. Mr. DeWitt denied ever being alone with Ms. Perez in any restaurant. He was familiar with the Pizza Hut discussed by Ms. Perez, and stated that she might have been there on some occasion when he took the entire team for pizza, but never alone with him. Mr. DeWitt was also familiar with the Sizzler restaurant, which was only 100 feet away from his condominium in the Kenlands. He stated that he and Karen would put Ryan in his stroller and walk there for meals, but that he was never there with Joy Perez. Mr. DeWitt knew of a Tony Roma's in Miami, and stated that he and his wife may have eaten there during the 1990-91 school year, but he denied ever taking Joy Perez there. Karen DeWitt remembered going to Tony Roma's with her husband on her birthday, because the restaurant gave free meals to people on their birthday. Mr. DeWitt denied taking Joy Perez to the St. Michel restaurant in Coral Gables. He stated that he has never been to that restaurant, which he said was "quite expensive." After the birth of Ryan in October 1990, Karen DeWitt took maternity leave until April 1991. Mr. DeWitt testified that during this period, he would come home for lunch with Karen and Ryan every day. They either ate at home or walked to the Sizzler. Both David and Karen DeWitt testified that they could not recall a day during her maternity leave that they did not have lunch together. Karen testified that David's coaching duties often kept him away from home in the evenings, so he took the opportunity at lunch to spend time with Ryan and her. He would spend at least an hour at home during lunch. Mr. DeWitt recalled giving Joy Perez a Final Four T- shirt, as he did to all the players and trainers. He testified that the school sent the basketball coaches to the Final Four. The year he was head coach, Mr. DeWitt went to Indianapolis with two assistant coaches. He testified that they walked around the various vendor exhibits, and companies such as Puma, Nike, Converse and Adidas gave away free merchandise, including T- shirts. They brought back shirts for everyone on the team and for the trainers. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez' mother told him that Joy was fond of and attracted to him. He made sure Joy's mother knew that it was not reciprocated. He never discussed with her mother a desire to date Joy. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never went to see Joy Perez at home. He stated that he would take students home after practice or games, especially after away games when they returned to the school at 11 p.m. It was not uncommon for players or trainers to need a ride home, and Mr. DeWitt would take them if no one else was coming for them. Mr. DeWitt believed he gave Joy Perez a ride home under such circumstances on at least one occasion. Mr. DeWitt recalled phoning Joy Perez' home after she graduated, but stated he was returning a call from Ms. Perez' mother regarding the schedule of Joy's younger sister Gigi, who was still a student at Miami Sunset. He did not recall if he had any assigned responsibilities for Gigi. Mr. DeWitt stated that because he had known her mother and sister for some time, Gigi felt comfortable approaching him for assistance and that their relationship was very cordial. He denied calling the Perez residence after Gigi graduated. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had no contacts with Joy Perez after he moved to Sarasota. He denied ever showing divorce papers to Joy Perez. He denied ever telling anyone that he and Karen were divorced or separated, or separated but still living together. He stated that he might have run into Joy Perez at a mall when he went back to visit Miami, but denied ever arranging a meeting with her. Mr. DeWitt speculated that Joy Perez' motive for lying about him may have been his declining to attend her graduation party. He recalled that she came by his office with a "fancy" invitation to a gathering with her family, something that "sounded like a big to-do." She wanted to introduce Mr. DeWitt to her friends and family. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never went to graduation parties with students, so he told her that he was not interested in going. He stated that she gave him a cold look and said, "It doesn't mean that much to you, does it?" Mr. DeWitt testified that he had meant to convey a general disinterest in attending such functions, but that Ms. Perez appeared to take his refusal personally. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Perez then said something like, "Some day you will know," or "You will realize." Mr. DeWitt stated that it was a "chilling" comment. She then turned and walked out of his office. Prior to obtaining her statement, the Sarasota investigators told Joy Perez that Mr. DeWitt was under investigation for sexual misconduct with students. Prior to her testimony at the hearing, Ms. Perez was provided with a copy of the police report of the Sarasota investigation. As noted above, Joy Perez claimed that one of her sexual liaisons with Mr. DeWitt occurred in his mother's house. Mr. DeWitt claimed that Ms. Perez had never been inside the house with his or his mother's permission. Petitioner offered in evidence a diagram that Joy Perez drew of the floor plan of Marilyn DeWitt's house in Miami. Marilyn DeWitt has since sold the house and moved to Sarasota, living in a house on her son's property. Marilyn DeWitt also drew a diagram of her Miami house, and offered extensive testimony as to its layout. Ms. Perez' diagram indicates that she came in the front door and went down the hallway directly to the first bedroom on the left. She testified that Mr. DeWitt told her this was his bedroom. Her diagram details only what she saw of the living area from the front door, and the bedroom she went into. The diagram does not correspond entirely to the actual layout set forth by Marilyn DeWitt. Keeping in mind that Ms. Perez saw the living area only once, eight years ago before drawing her diagram, it cannot be found that the disparities conclusively demonstrate that she was never in the house. However, it must also be noted that Ms. Perez' diagram could as easily be derived from peeking through the front window of the house, or from a description provided to her by someone who had been there. Ms. Perez' diagram indicates that there was a photo on the mantel of the living room of Mr. DeWitt wearing a tuxedo. Mr. DeWitt was alone in the photo. Marilyn DeWitt testified that the only photograph of David DeWitt wearing a tuxedo that she owned was his wedding photo, which also included Karen DeWitt. Further, Marilyn DeWitt testified that there was no mantel in her living room. Ms. Perez' description of the bedroom is problematic. Her diagram indicates a full or queen size bed and dark wood furniture in the room. Marilyn DeWitt testified that she had converted this room into a nursery a couple of months before Ryan's birth in October 1990, well before Ms. Perez alleges she was in the house with David DeWitt. Mrs. DeWitt testified that the room contained a full-size crib, a playpen, a chest painted off-white, toys, and a rocking chair. The next room down the hallway was a guest room with twin beds. The only room with a full-size bed was the master bedroom, which Ms. Perez' diagram labels a "possible bedroom," indicating she never went into the room. The testimony of Marilyn and Karen DeWitt further established that Marilyn DeWitt's house would not have been a convenient place for an assignation. Marilyn worked during the day, but Karen had a key to the house and went there with Ryan almost every day during her maternity leave. Marilyn's nephew lived there during that period. He was looking for work and spent a great deal of time around the house. Marilyn DeWitt also had a maid who came at least once a week and spent the entire day at the house. No witnesses were produced to corroborate Joy Perez' claim that she had an affair with Mr. DeWitt, or even to establish that she and Mr. DeWitt had anything more than a student-teacher relationship. Especially significant is the lack of testimony from Joy Perez' mother, who Joy claimed knew about her dating Mr. DeWitt and approved heartily of it. In contrast, several witnesses who knew Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez in Miami during the relevant period testified on behalf of Mr. DeWitt. These included Barbara Silver, who at the time was the principal of Miami Sunset; Dennis Davis, who at the time was an assistant principal at the school; and George Phaelen, who was the athletic director. These three witnesses consistently denied any knowledge of an affair or even rumors of an affair between Mr. DeWitt and any student. They also consistently stated that the report filed by Det. Iorio and Det. Bang distorted what they told the detectives. Also testifying on behalf of Mr. DeWitt were Andrew Chiles and Deborah Fries-Furton, both of whom were deeply involved with the basketball team during the 1990-91 school year. Their testimony merits detailed findings. Andrew Chiles was the head coach of the junior varsity team and the sole assistant coach of the varsity team during the season that Mr. DeWitt served as head coach. Mr. Chiles had known Mr. DeWitt since 1978, when they played basketball together for Miami Sunset. They were best friends then, and have remained close throughout the subsequent years. Mr. Chiles has also known Karen DeWitt (then Karen Burmeister) since 1978, becoming friends with her even before he learned that she was David DeWitt's girlfriend. Mr. Chiles began teaching at Miami Sunset in 1987, one year prior to Mr. DeWitt's joining the staff. They were both assistant coaches in the basketball program. When the head coach quit abruptly prior to the 1990-91 season, Mr. Phaelen, the athletic director, named Mr. DeWitt the interim head coach. Mr. Chiles testified that this decision was based on the fact that Mr. DeWitt had been working mostly with the varsity team, while Mr. Chiles was the head coach of the junior varsity. Mr. Phaelen believed that it would be best for the players if Mr. Chiles remained the junior varsity coach and assisted Mr. DeWitt with the varsity team. Mr. Chiles attended all varsity practices, and all varsity games, home and away. He knew Joy Perez as a trainer for the basketball team. Mr. Chiles stated that Ms. Perez was supervised at all times, by the main trainer, Mike McGowan; by Deborah Fries-Furton, who had given up her official position as head trainer but still performed many of those duties; and by the coaches. Mr. Chiles stated that he and Mr. DeWitt would take players home after late games, but that it was more common for them to have the player call a parent and to wait with the player until his ride arrived. Mr. Chiles did not remember either he or Mr. DeWitt giving a female trainer a ride home during the 1990-91 season. Mr. Chiles testified that he never saw Mr. DeWitt do anything improper with any student, including Joy Perez. He was aware of no student complaints against Mr. DeWitt. No member of the faculty or administration ever said anything to Mr. Chiles about Mr. DeWitt engaging in any improper conduct. Mr. Chiles heard no rumors, though he conceded that he would be the "last person" to hear such things because it was commonly known at the school that he was Mr. DeWitt's best friend. Mr. Chiles testified that Karen DeWitt was at all the home games, and sat with his fiancée, Julie. Marilyn DeWitt came to some of the games, and sat with Karen and Julie. They sat across from the bench. Mr. Chiles recalled Joy Perez asking him if Mr. DeWitt was married. He told her that Mr. DeWitt was married. This was toward the beginning of the basketball season, in October or early November, when she came aboard as a trainer and everyone got to know each other. Mr. Chiles stated that he had no idea why Joy Perez would now claim not to know Mr. DeWitt was married. Mr. Chiles met Joy Perez' mother, who attended "quite a few" basketball games. He saw her talking with Mr. DeWitt in the gym after basketball games. Mr. Chiles testified that Joy Perez never indicated to him that she had had sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt. Joy's mother never indicated such a thing to Mr. Chiles. Mr. Chiles testified that he saw no signs of Joy Perez having a crush on Mr. DeWitt. After games, the coaches were in charge of closing the concession stand, cleaning the court, and putting away the score clock, scorer's table, the team's chairs and the bleachers. After cleaning up, they would go into the locker room and talk to the team. Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Chiles would then adjourn to the office and talk about the game. Mr. Chiles stated that the trainers were responsible for all the athletic gear. The trainers ran a training room separate from the locker room. He stated that it was not unusual for the trainers to stay after the game and help with the clean- up. Mr. Chiles stated that he and Mr. DeWitt would emerge from the locker room after their post-game meeting to speak with Julie and Karen, perhaps making dinner plans. He testified that Joy Perez would be there on the court when Mr. DeWitt came out to speak with his wife. The only way Ms. Perez could have missed this regular occurrence would have been if she happened to go upstairs to the training room after the game, because the gym floor was not visible from the training room. Deborah Fries-Furton was the athletic trainer until June 1990. The head trainer's job was to take care of all injuries, the injury-reporting system, and serve as a liaison between the coach and athletes regarding injuries. Though she was not officially the head trainer when Mr. DeWitt became head coach, she performed most of the same functions. Mr. DeWitt testified that he was unaware that Ms. Fries-Furton was not the head trainer, because he went to her with any problems or questions he had in that area. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she usually rotated between four to six student trainers within any given sport. There were male and female trainers. They worked year-round, in different sports. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that she spent "countless" hours with Joy Perez, so much that Joy's mother jokingly called her Joy's "second mother." Ms. Fries-Furton observed Mr. DeWitt interact with the trainers, and never saw anything inappropriate. None of the female trainers ever complained about Mr. DeWitt. When Mr. DeWitt was head coach, Ms. Fries-Furton went to all home and some away games. She sometimes traveled on the team bus. The trainers would go to away games if there was an injured player on the team. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that the trainers and the cheerleaders would ride on the team bus. Joy Perez was one of her student trainers. Ms. Fries- Furton characterized Joy Perez as a good student and a hard worker. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she maintained Joy's acquaintance, and that of her family, until four years after Joy's younger sister Gigi graduated from Miami Sunset. She became friends with Joy's mother. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy Perez' mother was extremely happy with the role Mr. DeWitt had played in her daughter's life as a teacher and confidant for her problems, someone who gave her good solid advice. She recalled Joy's mother talking about Mr. DeWitt being "wonderful" in helping Joy to resolve the issues surrounding her father's death. Joy Perez herself told Ms. Fries-Furton that she confided in Mr. DeWitt and that it was very helpful to discuss her father's death with a man. Ms. Fries-Furton saw Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez together, but never witnessed any inappropriate behavior by either of them toward the other. Joy Perez never expressed to Ms. Fries-Furton any feelings for Mr. DeWitt beyond a normal teacher-student relationship. Ms. Perez was dating a boy she was "very involved with," and expressed no romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy had concerns about the type of relationship her boyfriend wanted. She counseled Joy to maintain her attitude, which was abstaining from any sexual relationship while in school. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that Joy Perez was always "very clear" about the fact that she had abstained from having sex with her boyfriend or anyone else. Ms. Fries-Furton said that, during the basketball season, she heard a rumor about Mr. DeWitt and Joy Perez, but that it was stated jokingly by other students, who said that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez had "a thing" for each other. There was no mention of any sexual impropriety. She recalled discussing with the trainers the rumor about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez. She stated that they all laughed about it because they thought it was very funny. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that there are always rumors about coaches and any females around them. Ms. Fries-Furton heard rumors that she herself was involved with Mr. DeWitt and with Mr. Chiles. Her student trainers told her the rumor about herself and Mr. DeWitt, because they thought it was funny. She took all these rumors as part of working with teenagers in the school system. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that had she taken these rumors seriously, she would have reported them immediately to Mr. Phaelen, and stated that she had done so in the past. She did not positively recall talking to Mr. DeWitt about the rumor, but she did remember Joy Perez telling her that there was no relationship between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Perez told her that she simply valued Mr. DeWitt's willingness to listen to her. Ms. Fries-Furton did not talk to Ms. Perez' mother about the rumor, because Joy had told her there was nothing to it and she had no reason not to believe her. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she never saw Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez together outside of school functions. She stated that she always stayed after basketball games until the trainers were picked up, and that she would take Joy home if her mother asked. Ms. Fries-Furton never saw Mr. DeWitt or Mr. Chiles taking Joy Perez home. Ms. Fries-Furton was the scorekeeper at all home games during the 1990-91 season, sitting at a table next to the team bench. She saw Karen DeWitt at the games, and would talk to her before the games and at halftime. She saw Marilyn DeWitt at some of the games. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that Joy Perez would have been in a position to see Karen and Marilyn DeWitt together at the games, and that most of the trainers knew them and would speak to them. She could not specifically recall Joy Perez having a conversation with Karen DeWitt, but knew that Karen spoke to most of the trainers at the games. Ms. Fries-Furton never had an understanding that Karen and David DeWitt were separated, nor did she hear any rumors of marital problems between them. Joy Perez never asked Ms. Fries- Furton if Mr. DeWitt was separated or having problems, or if he was married. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she simply understood that Joy knew David DeWitt was married to Karen DeWitt. Joy Perez never gave her any indication that she doubted Mr. DeWitt's marital status. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she continued to see Joy Perez even after her younger sister Gigi graduated, because they had been very close and Joy was a young woman she admired and respected. Ms. Fries-Furton would attend craft shows with Joy's mother, and stated that she had been to the mother's home more times than she could count. She never heard any member of the Perez family complain about the conduct of David DeWitt, or ever so much as insinuate that Joy Perez had an affair with David DeWitt. Joy Perez testified that she "knew of" Ms. Fries- Furton, but that she never confided in her or talked to her about personal problems. She became friendly with Ms. Fries-Furton only after she graduated. Ms. Perez stated that she could not recall whether she discussed her father's death with Ms. Fries- Furton. She flatly denied seeking counsel with Mr. DeWitt about her father's death. She conceded that Ms. Fries-Furton became friends with her mother, but claimed not to know when this friendship began or to know much else about it. Ms. Perez' denial of her friendship with Ms. Fries- Furton cannot be credited. Ms. Perez' denial that she sought the counsel of Mr. DeWitt regarding her father's death cannot be credited. Post-Suspension Stalking Mr. DeWitt was suspended with pay on February 17, 1999, after the Sarasota police completed their investigation of events at Riverview. Their report indicated that they had been unable to locate the former student in Miami with whom Mr. DeWitt was alleged to have had a sexual relationship. The Sarasota County School Board hired a private investigator to look into the Miami allegations. The investigator found Joy Perez and obtained a statement from her confirming that she had had a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt while she was a student at Miami Sunset. The investigator filed a report on April 15, 1999. On April 16, 1999, Mr. DeWitt's employment was terminated. Mr. DeWitt offered extensive testimony on events that transpired after his suspension and termination. While these events have no bearing on the charges that were lodged against Mr. DeWitt, they are relevant in that they call into question the veracity and credibility of Kendra Simpkins, one of Mr. DeWitt's primary accusers. Mr. DeWitt testified that after the trespassing incident, Jennifer Bonelli ceased her practice of following him around town. However, Kendra Simpkins began engaging in what Mr. DeWitt termed "stalking" behavior at about the time she began to drive a car. Her stalking intensified at the time Mr. DeWitt was suspended on February 17, 1999. On February 18, 1999, the day after Mr. DeWitt's suspension, an incident occurred at Ashton Elementary School, where Karen DeWitt worked as the instructional technology facilitator. Mari Usher was a technology support person at the school and worked closely with Karen DeWitt. Ms. Usher testified that late that morning, a girl came into the hallway between her office and that of Karen DeWitt. The girl stated that she was looking for Mrs. DeWitt. Ms. Usher told the girl that Mrs. DeWitt was off campus, and asked what reason she had to see her and whether she could be of assistance. The girl became nervous and said there was nothing Ms. Usher could do for her. The girl then asked Ms. Usher to give a message to Mrs. DeWitt. She asked Ms. Usher to tell Mrs. DeWitt that she would be picking up her brother at the end of the day. Ms. Usher testified that this made her suspicious, because as technology facilitator Karen DeWitt did not have a regular class of students and would not ordinarily be in charge of dismissing students at the end of the day. Ms. Usher asked the girl the name of her brother. The girl responded that his name was Clayton and he was in the second grade. Ms. Usher told her she would give the message to Mrs. DeWitt. The girl then turned and walked out of the school. Ms. Usher followed her, because she was suspicious. After the girl was gone, Ms. Usher spoke to the receptionist. The girl had not signed in or been given a hall pass. Ms. Usher then went to the school registrar and asked whether there was a student named Clayton in the second grade. There was no such student. Ms. Usher testified that the school's principal had told her that morning to be careful of high school students or reporters asking for Karen DeWitt, because of the press coverage of David DeWitt's suspension. Ms. Usher went to an assistant principal and reported the incident. The assistant principal sent her to the school's SRO, who wrote up a report. Ms. Usher also reported the incident to Karen DeWitt, who appeared concerned. Ms. Usher testified that her children attend Riverview, and that when she went home she looked for the girl's picture in the Riverview yearbook. She testified that she found the girl's picture, and that the girl was Kendra Simpkins. Kendra Simpkins has a brother named Clayton, though he did not attend Ashton Elementary School. On February 27, 1999, David DeWitt and his son Ryan were driving to Sports Authority to buy Ryan a new baseball glove. As they turned from Clark Road onto Proctor, Mr. DeWitt saw Kendra Simpkins driving on Clark Road. She saw him, made a U-turn in the middle of Clark Road, then followed Mr. DeWitt's car to Sports Authority. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan went into the store, soon followed by Ms. Simpkins and another girl. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan looked at the baseball gloves. Ms. Simpkins also looked at baseball gloves while talking with her friend. They stood near Mr. DeWitt and his son. Mr. DeWitt made no eye contact and did his best to ignore Ms. Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan chose a glove, paid for it, and walked out of the store. Ms. Simpkins and her friend were standing outside next to Simpkins' car. They looked at Mr. DeWitt and his son, and laughed. Mr. DeWitt drove out of the lot, followed by Ms. Simpkins. Soon thereafter, Ms. Simpkins ceased following them. Later the same day, Karen DeWitt saw Ms. Simpkins at Twin Lakes Park during Ryan's little league game. Ms. Simpkins walked past Ryan's field several times. This was not an uncommon occurrence. David DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins often came to Ryan's games, which DeWitt coached. She would stand at the fence and stare at Mr. DeWitt. She would park her car near that of the DeWitts, and would sit in her car and stare at them as they left the park. The DeWitts' story was confirmed by Teresa Flannelly, whose son played little league baseball and soccer with Ryan DeWitt. She testified that on the first day of the 1999 season, her son's team was playing against Ryan's. Ms. Flannelly was sitting in the bleachers, and Mr. DeWitt was coaching first base. Mr. DeWitt motioned her over to the fence. When she came to the fence, Mr. DeWitt pointed out a girl standing at the fence opposite them, and told Ms. Flannelly that this was Kendra, the girl who had been following him and accusing him. Ms. Flannelly watched Ms. Simpkins for the rest of the game. Ms. Simpkins was alone, and stood by the fence and stared at Mr. DeWitt for the greater part of the game. Ms. Flannelly testified that she later looked at the Riverview yearbook and confirmed that the girl she saw at the field was Kendra Simpkins. She also reviewed the roster of her son's team and confirmed that Ms. Simpkins' brother, Clayton, was not on the team. The DeWitts testified that at about the time of David's suspension, Kendra Simpkins also began to appear at their church, Sarasota Baptist. David DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins' appearances at the church were sporadic. He stated that there were times when she appeared in the parking lot but did not go into the church. When she did go into the church, she always sat in a place that allowed her to observe the DeWitts. Karen DeWitt testified that she spoke to Ms. Simpkins at church in early March 1999, after they became aware that Ms. Simpkins seemed to be following them in and out of the church. Karen DeWitt testified that she stopped Ms. Simpkins by placing her hand lightly on Ms. Simpkins' arm, to let her know she wasn't there as a threat. Karen told Ms. Simpkins that she was David DeWitt's wife. Karen DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins' reaction was "kind of strange." Ms. Simpkins said, "Oh, my God, oh, my God, oh, my God. I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry." That was the extent of their conversation. Ms. Simpkins actions would vary from week to week, but followed the same general pattern. She would find a parking space next to the DeWitts' car. She would seat herself in the church so that she could watch the DeWitts. Both David DeWitt and his mother testified that the family changed its regular pew to try to avoid Ms. Simpkins, but she would move to their vicinity. Sometimes Ms. Simpkins would circle the parking lot in her car, waiting for the DeWitts to leave, then follow them home. Vicki McClenathen was a neighbor of the DeWitts. Her son played baseball with Ryan DeWitt, which led to a friendship between the boys. Ms. McClenathen's son attended a youth group at Sarasota Baptist Church with Ryan DeWitt. Ms. McClenathen visited the church one Sunday, and witnessed Kendra Simpkins following Mr. DeWitt and staring at him during the social period after the church service. She also witnessed Ms. Simpkins driving her car up and down the rows of the parking lot, apparently so that she could drive past the DeWitts as they walked to their car. She saw Ms. Simpkins drive out of the lot, then make a U-turn over a curb and come back just in time to follow the DeWitts' car as it pulled out of the lot. Mr. DeWitt and his son were fans of the University of Miami's football team, and Mr. DeWitt had a Miami Hurricanes license plate border on his car. On Sunday, November 7, 1999, Ryan noticed that the border was gone. Mr. DeWitt told Ryan that someone must have needed it and taken it. Ryan was not satisfied with this answer. He wanted to know why someone would come up to their car and take the license plate border, and wondered who would do such a thing. Mr. DeWitt testified that he tried to "make a positive" out of the situation, telling Ryan that at least there was now one more person driving around with a Miami Hurricanes border. He told Ryan they would go buy a new one. When they arrived at church that morning, Ms. Simpkins pulled in right behind them. When they got out of their car, Ryan looked over at Ms. Simpkins' car and said, "Dad, there's your Miami Hurricanes plate. How can your plate be on that car? Do you think that's the person who stole your plate?" Mr. DeWitt testified that he knew the border on Ms. Simpkins' car was his, because it was faded at the bottom. Mr. DeWitt tried to minimize the matter for Ryan's benefit, but discussed with his wife the fact that matters had now reached the point where Ms. Simpkins was stealing the license plate border from his car. There were various other instances of Ms. Simpkins following the DeWitts around town during 1999. Mr. DeWitt recalled a second incident at Sports Authority. He was there buying a baseball bat for Ryan, and Ms. Simpkins appeared. She asked him if he minded her going to his church. Mr. DeWitt answered that it wasn't "his" church, but that she needed to speak to his attorney before she had any conversation with him. Ms. Simpkins said that she hoped Mr. DeWitt could return to Riverview, because she needed a letter of recommendation for college. Mr. DeWitt thought her statement odd under the circumstances, but gave her his attorney's card and told her she would have to speak to the lawyer before having any conversations with him. Ms. Simpkins asked if she would have to tell the lawyer that she lied about Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt told her "that would be a start," but that he wasn't comfortable having this conversation with her at the moment. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins read the attorney's card, which included the word "counselor." Ms. Simpkins said, "Counselor? Why do you think I need a counselor? People think I need counseling. Everybody's telling me." Mr. DeWitt testified that he could not follow exactly what Ms. Simpkins was saying, and he walked out of the store. On one occasion, Ms. Simpkins followed Mr. DeWitt and his mother as they drove to pick up his daughter Megan from preschool at Concordia Lutheran Church. The DeWitts were driving down Clark Road to Proctor when Ms. Simpkins spotted them and made a U-turn. Mr. DeWitt testified that he was concerned because he didn't want Ms. Simpkins to know where his daughter went to school. He drove up and down various roads, leading Ms. Simpkins on a wild goose chase while trying to lose her. He pulled into a parking lot and waited for her to pass. She quickly picked him up again when he pulled out of the lot. Eventually, Mr. DeWitt managed to lose her long enough to pick up Megan, though Ms. Simpkins again found them as they headed home. She followed them all the way home. On August 3, 1999, Ms. Simpkins followed David and Karen DeWitt home as they left a school board meeting. On August 28, 1999, Karen DeWitt drove to Publix in her husband's car. David DeWitt was out of town that day, and encouraged Karen to use his car because it is newer and he feels it is safer. Karen was in the deli section of Publix, and saw Kendra Simpkins come rushing around the corner. As Ms. Simpkins rounded the corner, she stopped and looked at Karen DeWitt, who called it a "bone chilling" kind of stare. Ms. Simpkins then turned on her heel and ran out of the store. As noted above, Vicki McClenathen's son played baseball with Ryan DeWitt. In Spring 1999, Ms. McClenathen would sit with Karen DeWitt at the baseball games. The boys were becoming best friends, spending time at each other's houses, and Karen DeWitt felt she needed to make Ms. McClenathen aware of the situation involving Kendra Simpkins. Karen gave Ms. McClenathen a physical description of Ms. Simpkins, gave her the license plate number of Ms. Simpkins' white Honda, and told her the car had a "Mercedes" plate on the front. The DeWitts asked Ms. McClenathen to feed Marilyn DeWitt's dogs twice a day for a week while the family went to their house in North Carolina. Marilyn DeWitt had retired from her teaching job in Miami and now lived in a house on David DeWitt's property in Sarasota. The DeWitts gave Ms. McClenathen a list of phone numbers where they could be reached, including their North Carolina number. Ms. McClenathen placed the list of numbers on a table in Marilyn DeWitt's garage, and put a can of insect repellant on top of it to keep it in place. One day, Ms. McClenathen came to feed the dogs and noticed that the can of insect repellant was on the ground and the list of phone numbers was gone. She told the DeWitts about it when they returned. The DeWitts told her that on the day she found the phone numbers missing, they began receiving hang-up phone calls in North Carolina. On September 16, 1999, Ms. McClenathen saw a car fitting the description given to her by Karen DeWitt as she drove out of the Saddle Creek subdivision. The white Honda was parked off the side of the road just past the DeWitts' house. Ms. McClenathen checked the license plate on the car. The number matched that given to her by Karen DeWitt. She drove past the car, and could see in her rear-view mirror that there was a Mercedes tag on the front of the car. Ms. McClenathen called the DeWitt house on her cell phone and spoke to David DeWitt, who told her that Ryan was playing outside and he needed to go check on him. David asked her to come back, so she drove back to the DeWitts' house and pulled into the driveway. The DeWitts walked out to meet her. The white Honda was parked just past the southeast corner of the DeWitts' property. No one was in the car. Ms. McClenathen stayed at the DeWitts' house for about 30 minutes. At length, she saw a young girl, teenaged, with medium length brown hair, in the bushes in the corner of the property near the Honda. The girl's head came up from the bushes, and she looked around. Ms. McClenathen pointed her out to the others. David DeWitt testified that they watched her for about ten minutes, but she waited them out. They all went into the house, and the girl drove away. Ms. McClenathen later consulted the Riverview yearbook and confirmed that the girl she saw was Kendra Simpkins. David DeWitt testified that on September 20, 1999, he was playing catch with Ryan in the front yard and saw Kendra Simpkins' car parked at the front gate of his property. She looked at them, then sped away. David DeWitt testified that on September 22, 1999, he was leaving his house at about noon. He stated that he and Karen were now in the habit of looking around the yard for Kendra Simpkins when they went outside. He did not see her in any of her "usual places." Then as he drove out of his driveway, he saw Ms. Simpkins' car backed into a culvert across the street from his house, apparently stuck in the mud. He circled back around to make sure it was her. He confirmed that it was Ms. Simpkins' car, but did not see her near the car. He turned around and drove back into his driveway, and saw Ms. Simpkins hiding in the bushes on the front of his property. Mr. DeWitt called Ms. McClenathen and asked her to drive by and take a photo of the car stuck in the ditch. She did so. When she drove by, she saw Kendra Simpkins sitting in the driver's seat of the car. On October 23, 1999, Ryan DeWitt was playing in the yard with a friend. Ryan and the friend came running into the house, upset, and told David DeWitt that somebody was watching them in the yard. Karen and David DeWitt both ran outside, in different directions. Karen could see Kendra Simpkins hiding behind the trees just off their property. Later, Karen tried to calm Ryan by telling him that it was probably just someone riding down the horse trail. Ryan said, no, she was hiding behind the tree watching them. The above findings are illustrative, not an exhaustive listing of the stalking activities of Kendra Simpkins during 1999. There were numerous instances of hang-up phone calls, of her following David and Ryan DeWitt to Twin Lakes Park and back home again, of her following the DeWitts to church and Bible studies, of her following Marilyn DeWitt when she drove David's car, of a general pattern of what can only be termed an obsessive stalking of David DeWitt and his family. The DeWitts warned their circle of friends, their co- workers, their church, and their children's caretakers about Kendra Simpkins. They made inquiries of the authorities, but did not seek a protective order, injunction, or other legal protection to end Kendra Simpkins' stalking. However, it must be noted that Ms. Simpkins had already signed a trespass warning on April 29, 1998, at the conclusion of the investigation into the egging incident. Ms. Simpkins admitted that she had "stalked" Mr. DeWitt along with Ms. Bonelli during the period leading up to the trespassing incident in 1998, but denied the allegations that she continued to trail Mr. DeWitt and his family around Sarasota up to and including the time of this hearing. Ms. Simpkins denied ever going to Ashton Elementary School. Ms. Simpkins testified that she has attended Sarasota Baptist Church since March or April 1999, but said she began going there because her grandparents attend the church. She testified that she didn't know Mr. DeWitt attended the church when she began going there. She stated that she was surprised to see him there, and tried to avoid him. She denied choosing her seat based on the DeWitts' location, denied waiting for them in the parking lot, and denied following them in her car after church. Ms. Simpkins denied going to Mr. DeWitt's house or trespassing on his property after she signed the trespass warning. She testified that she has a friend in the Saddle Creek subdivision whose house she goes to "all the time." This friend lives a "couple of houses down" from Mr. DeWitt, on the other side of the street. Ms. Simpkins admitted driving a white Honda. She stated that she got the car in Summer 1998, on her 16th birthday. Ms. Simpkins denied ever parking her car on Mr. DeWitt's property or in front of his property. She admitted having her car in a ditch near Mr. DeWitt's property, but stated that this was the result of attempting to teach a friend to drive with a stick shift. The friend ran the car into the ditch. Ms. Simpkins testified that her younger brother plays baseball at Twin Lakes Park, and she goes there often to watch him play. She stated that Mr. DeWitt saw her at the games, but never asked her to leave or even talked to her. Ms. Simpkins admitted seeing Mr. DeWitt twice at the Sports Authority. She stated that the first time, she was there with her friend and their younger brothers. They were buying a hat for her friend's brother. Ms. Simpkins stated that she saw Mr. DeWitt there with a "little kid" she assumed was his son. She stated that she did not try to talk to Mr. DeWitt or otherwise bother him. She denied having followed Mr. DeWitt to the store. Ms. Simpkins stated that the second meeting at Sports Authority occurred in June 1999. She was alone, buying workout clothes. She did not approach him, but when he walked by and said hello, she started talking to him. They talked about church, and she asked him if he minded that she was going there. Mr. DeWitt said that he didn't. Ms. Simpkins asked him about his situation with the School Board, and Mr. DeWitt told her that he was not upset with her. They talked about his termination. Mr. DeWitt never became angry, never asked her to leave him alone, never accused her of stalking him. Mr. DeWitt asked her why she "told them everything," and told her that she could have lied. Ms. Simpkins answered that she could not have lied. The DeWitts' version of the stalking incidents, supported by independent witnesses, is credited. Ultimate Facts Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Jennifer Bonelli. Counsel for both parties correctly observed that the essence of this case is "he said/she said." The primary consideration is the credibility of Mr. DeWitt and of his accusers. An important secondary consideration is the corroborating evidence, which includes the credibility of the testimony offered by other witnesses. Mr. DeWitt took some actions that were questionable. He confronted Ms. Spielman without involving SRO Foster or Det. Price. He remained involved in the investigation well after he should have recused himself. However, these actions are as consistent with outraged innocence as with a scheme to conceal the facts. Aside from his freelance effort with Ms. Spielman, Mr. DeWitt consistently involved SRO Foster and/or Det. Price in his investigative activities. Each time a new rumor circulated or other event occurred, Mr. DeWitt's first act was to call SRO Foster and involve him. At the appropriate times, SRO Foster would call in Det. Price. These actions are inconsistent with an effort by either Mr. DeWitt or SRO Foster to cover up Mr. DeWitt's activities. Mr. DeWitt's actions were in the main consistent with his professions of innocence. If he had engaged in sexual improprieties with Jennifer Bonelli and wished to keep them concealed, it seems the last thing he would do is involve the police in the relatively minor matters of his being followed around town or the egging of his house, and thus provide Ms. Bonelli with an official platform to air her accusations. Petitioner suggests that Mr. DeWitt called in the police to provide himself with leverage against Ms. Bonelli by way of the threat of prosecution, thus ensuring that she would remain quiet. No evidence supported this suggestion. At the time the investigation of the egging commenced, Ms. Bonelli had given no indication to Mr. DeWitt that she had any intention of coming forward. Even if he were guilty, Mr. DeWitt had no motive to precipitate a crisis that might cause Ms. Bonelli to break her silence. Even prior to the egging, Mr. DeWitt had discussed the suspected trespassing and stalking with both SRO Foster and Mr. Flynn. He named names to both men. It makes no sense that Mr. DeWitt would go out of his way to link himself with these students in the minds of his boss and a police deputy if he were engaged in illicit activities with them. Not only the three main accusers, but Melissa McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt was at least coy about his marriage, if he did not outright deny being married. On the other hand, Katy Seib testified that Mr. DeWitt told her he was married. Jennifer Rizi knew he was married. Mr. DeWitt testified that he maintained a strict separation between his business and private life, and would not discuss family matters with students. Even if he said such things to these girls, Mr. DeWitt plainly could not have intended actually to convince anyone that he was unmarried. The actual facts could be ascertained by asking any adult and many students at the school. Mr. DeWitt was seen all over town with his family. They shopped together. He coached his son's baseball and soccer teams with his wife in attendance. The family attended church together. No one who was genuinely curious could possibly remain ignorant of Mr. DeWitt's marital status, even if he denied it. Mr. DeWitt's testimony that he never told anyone that he was not married must be credited. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it cannot be found that Mr. DeWitt engaged in the sexual activities alleged by Ms. Bonelli, including the "dirty talk." This failure of proof rests largely on the fact that Ms. Bonelli was not a credible witness. Ms. Bonelli freely admitted lying to the detectives, teachers, and school officials on the several occasions when she denied a relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Petitioner contended that these lies were motivated by fear of reprisal from Mr. DeWitt. Even crediting this rationale for Ms. Bonelli's lies to the authorities, the fact remains that Ms. Bonelli was also less than truthful in her testimony at the hearing. She testified that she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt while she worked with him in the guidance office. Two other witnesses testified that she actually became romantically interested in Mr. DeWitt the previous year, before she had ever met him. Blair Johnson testified that during the summer before she began work in the guidance office, Ms. Bonelli was already jealously referring to Mr. DeWitt's wife as a "bitch" and a "slut." Ms. Bonelli testified that when she was working in the guidance office, she was unsure of Mr. DeWitt's marital status. In fact, she not only knew he was married, she knew the names of his wife and children, the ages of the children and where they went to school. As early as the summer before she started working in the guidance office, she was sending e-mails to Blair Johnson stating that "we need to get rid of Karen." Ms. Bonelli denied going to Sarasota Middle School to "stalk" Mr. DeWitt. Kendra Simpkins testified that she accompanied Ms. Bonelli there for that purpose on at least one occasion. Ms. Bonelli denied following Mr. DeWitt in her car. Kendra Simpkins, Christine Ross, and Blair Johnson all testified that they were with her when she did so. Ms. Bonelli denied sending e-mails to Blair Johnson or Linda Brooks purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt, though the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that she was the culprit. It is also noted that sending an e-mail to Ms. Brooks required Ms. Bonelli to sneak into Mr. DeWitt's office and copy the e-mail address from his daily planner. Ms. Bonelli's description of Twin Lakes Park as dark and semi-deserted was contradicted by the testimony of several witnesses, who described a well-lighted and very busy park. Though she testified that she did nothing more than "talk dirty" to Mr. DeWitt while he masturbated, Ms. Bonelli at various times told people that she had given him a "hand job," that she had performed oral sex on him, and that she had engaged in full sexual intercourse with him. She told Jennifer Rizi that she had done nothing at all with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli denied spreading rumors of her sexual activities with Mr. DeWitt. Blair Johnson testified that she would brag about her alleged exploits to virtually anyone who would listen. Dominique McAnn testified that the 40 or so people in her circle of friends at Riverview were well aware of Ms. Bonelli's alleged exploits. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt raised the issue of "cybersex" with her in an office discussion. Dominique McAnn credibly testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she believed she had actually engaged in "cybersex" with Mr. DeWitt, using AOL. Ms. Bonelli testified that she was merely the driver for the egging incident, and that she did not even know what Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross were doing after she dropped them off at Mr. DeWitt's house. This was patently untrue. While there was conflict as to which girl had the idea to egg Mr. DeWitt's house, there was no question that Ms. Bonelli was present when the eggs were purchased and well knew why they were going to Mr. DeWitt's house that evening. Ms. Bonelli testified that she had no idea how Mr. DeWitt learned of her conversations with Ms. Spielman. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Bonelli herself told Mr. DeWitt. Some of Ms. Bonelli's untruths regarded inconsequential matters; others went to the heart of her alleged relationship with Mr. DeWitt; all demonstrated that Ms. Bonelli's accusations against Mr. DeWitt cannot be accepted, without corroboration, in light of Mr. DeWitt's steadfast denial of each and every particular. Several witnesses testified that they heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt, or that Ms. Bonelli herself told them some version of the story she related at the hearing. However, the only witness who attempted to corroborate Ms. Bonelli's story with eyewitness testimony was her friend Christine Ross. As noted above, Ms. Ross was not a credible witness. Her testimony changed significantly between her deposition and the hearing, and changed in ways that conveniently eliminated discrepancies between her story and that of Ms. Bonelli. Details that were wrong in Ms. Bonelli's testimony, such as the type of car driven by Mr. DeWitt, were wrong in the same way in Ms. Ross' testimony. Another factor undercutting Ms. Bonelli's credibility is that she was unwilling to stand behind her story until she was cornered by Principal Flynn and threatened with expulsion. Petitioner argues that up to that point, Ms. Bonelli's chief concern was to avoid being responsible for Mr. DeWitt's termination, and that she was willing to lie to protect him. Under the facts of the case, it is more plausible to state that Ms. Bonelli found herself in a situation in which she had no choice but to assert the truth of her story, regardless of whether or not it actually happened. Finally, the key witness against Ms. Bonelli was Blair Johnson, one of her best friends at Riverview. Mr. Johnson was entirely credible, and testified that Ms. Bonelli admitted to him more than once that her story about a relationship with Mr. DeWitt was an invention. In summary, Mr. DeWitt was a much more credible witness than was Ms. Bonelli, and the corroborating evidence also tended to support Mr. DeWitt's denial of the sexual relationship with Ms. Bonelli, including the alleged "dirty talk." Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Mr. DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Ms. Bonelli, except insofar as his manner may have served to encourage Ms. Bonelli in her pursuit of him. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Kendra Simpkins. When Ms. Simpkins began working in the guidance area, she drew the attention of Ms. Bonelli, who initially spread offensive rumors about Ms. Simpkins, then drew Ms. Simpkins into her own obsessive orbit. Once Ms. Simpkins admitted that she, too, had a crush on Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Bonelli regaled her with stories of her adventures with Mr. DeWitt, including kissing and masturbating him. Ms. Simpkins apparently felt the need to match Ms. Bonelli's stories, because she told Ms. Bonelli that she, too, had "talked dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. At the hearing, Ms. Simpkins denied "talking dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. Blair Johnson's testimony provided the most accurate assessment of the Bonelli/Simpkins relationship: they were engaged in a contest, attempting to one-up each other with their stories of intimate encounters with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins credibly testified that she believed Ms. Bonelli's stories. The first allegation by Ms. Simpkins was that Mr. DeWitt grabbed her crotch in his office. Even Ms. Simpkins admitted this may have been an accident. The tenor of her testimony left the impression that she hoped it was not an accident. Mr. DeWitt denied that the incident occurred at all. Mr. DeWitt's testimony is credited. It must be noted that Ms. Simpkins' story of the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, is similar in its particulars to Ms. Bonelli's story, involving "dirty talk" and Mr. DeWitt's masturbating in a car at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Simpkins story includes the additional elements of some kissing and fondling during the second episode. It is noted that Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she had kissed and masturbated Mr. DeWitt, indicating that the similarities were virtually complete in Ms. Simpkins' mind. Petitioner argues that this similarity demonstrates a pattern in Mr. DeWitt's predatory behavior. It would be at least as plausible to find that the similarity demonstrates Ms. Simpkins' susceptibility to Ms. Bonelli's stories and her desire to match or exceed Ms. Bonelli's alleged experiences with Mr. DeWitt. Based on the evidence presented, and the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, it is no less plausible that Ms. Simpkins invented her story than that it actually happened. Ms. Simpkins' story regarding her sexual encounters with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park ultimately founders on the dates she chose. The DeWitts convincingly recreated the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, and showed that Mr. DeWitt's whereabouts during the critical times were accounted for and did not include Twin Lakes Park. Petitioner argues that Karen DeWitt's alibi testimony should be discarded on the basis of bias and a lack of independent corroboration. Potential bias is an element to consider for nearly every fact witness in this proceeding, and Karen DeWitt's relationship with David DeWitt must obviously be taken into account. Nonetheless, Karen DeWitt was a credible witness. Petitioner offered no particular instances of untruthful or even inconsistent testimony by Karen DeWitt. The undersigned declines Petitioner's invitation to presume she is lying because she is married to Mr. DeWitt. As to the lack of "independent corroboration," it is assumed that Petitioner refers to the fact that the DeWitts were able to produce only a single receipt from their December 22, 1998 shopping trip, and the sign-in sheet from Concordia Lutheran and the canceled check from Papa Johns to support their version of events on January 4, 1999. To the contrary, it is found that these items were sufficient to support the generally consistent and credible testimony of the DeWitts. Innocent people going about their daily business do not take great care to document their every move. Innocent people are generally unable to recall every minute of a randomly selected day nearly a year ago. The DeWitts remembered what they could and produced what they could find, several months after the fact, and what they found was consistent with their recollection of those dates. Kendra Simpkins, on the other hand, was plainly untruthful when she denied stalking the DeWitt family in 1999. David DeWitt, Karen DeWitt, Marilyn DeWitt, and Vicki McClenathen all offered credible and consistent testimony regarding Ms. Simpkins' activities. Petitioner argues that even if Ms. Simpkins is disbelieved on this point, her stalking activities have no bearing on her allegations against Mr. DeWitt. As noted above, the undersigned agrees that her stalking activities are not relevant to the allegations. However, her lying about her stalking activities is relevant to her overall credibility and veracity. Ms. Simpkins also lied to Mr. DeWitt twice about her participation in the egging of his house. After she admitted her involvement, she lied about the extent of that involvement. The evidence, including Ms. Simpkins' own testimony and demeanor, established that she was extremely susceptible to the manipulations of Ms. Bonelli. She joined Ms. Bonelli in the rifling of Mr. DeWitt's desk for photos of other students. She participated in the egging of Mr. DeWitt's house at a time when she had no grievance against Mr. DeWitt, simply because Ms. Bonelli suggested it. Her stories about events between her and Mr. DeWitt closely track those of Ms. Bonelli. She, too, claimed that she had a "cybersex" conversation with Mr. DeWitt. Her story that Mr. DeWitt hinted that "something’s going to happen" was similar to Ms. Bonelli’s story about Mr. DeWitt’s hinting about a "problem." Ms. Simpkins, too, claimed she went to Twin Lakes Park, and in that busy, bustling public place committed sex acts with Mr. DeWitt in a car. Petitioner’s theory that these stories confirm Mr. DeWitt’s guilt because they indicate a pattern in his predatory behavior would be more persuasive if Petitioner’s chief witnesses were at all credible. The only witnesses to the alleged sexual episodes were Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins. It is too much to ask that Mr. DeWitt be found guilty based on the word of two witnesses who were untruthful about so many other facts, important facts as well as trivial, in their testimony and in their dealings outside the courtroom. There is no choice but to find it equally as likely that these stories are fantasies invented by two girls with competing obsessions for the same man, as that they actually happened. The burden of persuasion rests on Petitioner, and it could not carry that burden with these highly dubious witnesses. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Joy Perez. Ms. Perez’ allegations present the most plausible case against Mr. DeWitt, because they are straightforward. Ms. Perez’ story does not include the obsessive elements that rendered Ms. Bonelli’s and Ms. Simpkins’ stories questionable even aside from their many outright falsehoods. Ms. Perez’ story is simple: she met Mr. DeWitt; they liked each other; they began to date; dating progressed to sex; and she ended the relationship because he lied to her about his marriage. Further, unlike Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins, Ms. Perez had no obvious motive to lie about her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. She was not wildly jealous of another girl, or threatened with expulsion from school. Ms. Perez kept her silence for more than eight years, and had to be sought out to tell her story. Even on the witness stand, Ms. Perez appeared somewhat reluctant to go into the details of her alleged relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Perez was vague on the origin of her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. He flattered her, she liked it, and they began going out after school. She recalled going to a Pizza Hut more than once, and a lunch at the Sizzler, and a dinner at Tony Roma's. Mr. DeWitt denied taking Ms. Perez out for meals. His testimony and that of his wife cast doubt on whether Mr. DeWitt would have taken Ms. Perez to eat at Pizza Hut or the Sizzler, because the former was frequented by students from Miami Sunset, and the latter was virtually next door to the DeWitts' home. The DeWitts also agreed that David had lunch with Karen virtually every day during the period in question. However, the DeWitts did not definitively rule out the possibility that he could have sneaked away for late lunches with Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez recalled that she had sex with Mr. DeWitt during the school day at various hotels, but she could not recall their names. This could be a genuine failure of memory, but the vagueness of her recollection also had the convenient benefit of depriving Mr. DeWitt of any opportunity to prove he was never at a particular hotel during the relevant period. Ms. Perez testified that she had sex with Mr. DeWitt at his mother's house, but was unable to draw a convincing diagram of the interior of the house. Her view of the general layout of the rooms was credible as the recollection of someone who was in a house once several years ago. However, the particular details she recalled, such as the photo of Mr. DeWitt, the mantel, and the furniture in the bedroom, were all wrong. There were disturbing discrepancies in Ms. Perez' testimony. She attempted to leave the impression that she hardly knew Deborah Fries-Furton, who credibly testified that they were so close that Ms. Perez' mother called her Joy's "second mother." Ms. Perez denied having discussions with Mr. DeWitt about her father's death. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did counsel her in dealing with the tragedy. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Ms. Perez' mother expressed her gratitude for Mr. DeWitt's counseling and helping her daughter through her problems. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy Perez herself stated that she found it helpful to discuss matters with a man. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt "might" be married. Then, under cross-examination, she admitted that Mr. Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt definitely was married. Mr. Chiles recalled telling Ms. Perez that Mr. DeWitt was married, and was puzzled that she would say anything else. Ms. Perez testified that she never saw Karen or Marilyn DeWitt at a basketball game, or even knew that Karen DeWitt was David DeWitt's wife. The weight of the evidence established that Ms. Perez would almost certainly have seen these women at the games, and would have known that Karen DeWitt was David DeWitt's wife. Ms. Perez denied ever seeing Karen or Ryan DeWitt at the pottery class taught by Marilyn DeWitt. It is possible, but very unlikely, that Ms. Perez happened to miss Karen DeWitt's every visit to the class. The key discrepancy involves Ms. Perez' mother. Ms. Perez testified that her mother knew she was dating Mr. DeWitt and approved of it. She testified that Mr. DeWitt had discussions with her mother about the relationship. In contrast, Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Perez' mother told him that Joy was fond of and attracted to him, and that he made sure her mother knew those feelings were not reciprocated. Ms. Fries-Furton was a close friend of Ms. Perez' mother, and testified that she praised Mr. DeWitt's helping her daughter and never gave any hint that there was a romantic relationship. Ms. Perez' mother could have resolved these discrepancies by testifying. She did not testify. No reason was provided for Petitioner's failure to elicit direct testimony from this important corroborating witness. The weight of the evidence, including Ms. Perez' testimony and the odd reticence in her demeanor, failed to establish that the alleged affair occurred. Mr. DeWitt was unable to prove the physical impossibility of Ms. Perez' allegations in the manner he was able to do with Ms. Simpkins' Twin Lakes Park allegations, because Ms. Perez' allegations were too vaporous to admit of precise refutation. No testifying witness had a clue that an affair was going on. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she heard some joking rumors among students that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez had a "thing" for each other. Ms. Fries-Furton took this joking no more seriously than she did the rumors about herself and Mr. DeWitt, or herself and Mr. Chiles. This was part and parcel of the atmosphere in a high school locker room. The allegations of Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins had some support from other witnesses. Ms. Perez stood alone, and thus Petitioner's case rested entirely on the credibility of the accuser, as against the accused and a panoply of supportive witnesses. Ms. Perez' testimony, in essence, was that a sexual relationship occurred, some time, some place. At every point that she offered specifics, those specifics were credibly if not conclusively rebutted. Petitioner failed to carry its burden of proof as to the allegations of Joy Perez. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior and comments with other students or a teacher at Riverview High School. Petitioner presented the testimony of Katy Seib, Melissa McBride, and Lori Gully in an effort to demonstrate a pattern in Mr. DeWitt's behavior toward females at Riverview. Petitioner did so apparently because of the lurid statements attributed to these women in the investigative report of Det. Iorio and Det. Bang. As found above, this report was wholly unreliable. Ms. Seib testified that Mr. DeWitt never behaved unprofessionally toward her. Ms. Gully testified as to vague feelings she had about Mr. DeWitt, but conceded that his behavior with her was always professional. Ms. McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt hugged her in a way that made her uncomfortable, but that there was nothing sexual about it. She, too, had a "feeling" about Mr. DeWitt's intentions, but no concrete allegations. All of Mr. DeWitt's statements and actions could have been nothing more than friendliness and concern. Aside from the three accusers, and a statement attributed to Bethany Donato by the less than credible Det. Iorio, no witness testified that Mr. DeWitt actually propositioned her. Katy Seib and Jennifer Rizi described Mr. DeWitt as a person they could confide in and to whom they went with a variety of personal problems. The weight of the evidence showed that Mr. DeWitt was a good counselor to Ms. Perez during a time of distress. A consistent thread in the testimony, from witnesses testifying for and against Mr. DeWitt, was that he was an atypical administrator, approachable and concerned, willing to sit down with students and counsel them on their problems whether or not he was formally assigned to do so. Even Ms. Gully noted his extraordinary activity with students and his focus on their achievements. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his actions masked any ulterior motive.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and reinstating Respondent as an assistant principal with the Sarasota County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Bowman, George, Scheb, Toale & Robinson 22 South Tuttle Avenue, Suite 3 Sarasota, Florida 34237 James E. Aker, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A. 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 David Bennett, Superintendent School Board of Sarasota County 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On June 12, 1983, Respondent moved to Miami from Jamaica where he was in the ninth grade. He enrolled in a summer school session at North Miami Beach Senior High School in the summer of 1983, where he attended classes regularly and was successful in that program. In September 1983, Respondent enrolled at John F. Kennedy Junior High School, where he was placed in the ninth grade. Although Respondent speaks English, he was placed in a remedial English class, the lowest level English class, comprised of only approximately 20 students. On September 23, 1983, Respondent was involved in a fight with a female student in the hallway at John F. Kennedy Junior High School. After observers terminated the fight, Jimmy Dukes, an assistant principal at John F. Kennedy Junior High School, interviewed the two students involved in the fight and the witnesses to the fight. Based upon that information, Dukes suspended both students for five days. After the suspension, Dukes conferred with Respondent's father regarding the incident. On October 31, 1983, Respondent skipped his science class and left the school grounds without permission. Dukes later had a conference with Respondent about this behavior and assigned him to a three-day indoor suspension. On November 3, 1983, while Respondent was serving his three-day indoor suspension, he was reported to Dukes as having become disruptive in the suspension hall. On November 5, 1983, Dukes held a conference with Respondent and a conference with Respondent's father about Respondent's behavior at that school. A warning was given to Respondent regarding any continued disruptive behavior. On December 7, 1983, Respondent was again referred to Dukes' attention for disruptive behavior; i.e., for refusing to follow a teacher's instructions and then refusing to report to the principal's office. Respondent was again counseled by Dukes and was warned regarding his behavior. Additionally, Dukes held a conference with Respondent's father that same day. On December 13, 1983, Respondent again skipped class. A conference was held by Dukes with Respondent on December 14, and Dukes telephoned Respondent's father and conferred with him. As a result, Respondent was again assigned to the indoor suspension hall. On January 22, 1984, Respondent was truant. On January 23, 1984, Dukes held another conference with Respondent, at which time Respondent presented Dukes a note, allegedly from Respondent's father, excusing Respondent from school. Due to the spelling errors contained within that note, Dukes telephoned Respondent's father, who verified that he had not written the note. Respondent then left the school grounds and could not be found. He was later assigned again to the indoor suspension hall, and another conference with his father was held. On February 8, 1984, Respondent again skipped school. Dukes had previously advised him that skipping school again would be considered insubordination and would result in an outdoor suspension. Accordingly, Respondent was given an outdoor suspension of ten days. On February 15, 1984, Petitioner notified Respondent's father that Respondent was being reassigned to the Miami Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North alternative education program effective immediately. On May 10, 1984, the day before the formal hearing in this cause and during a time when Respondent was assigned to the alternative program at MacArthur, Respondent was found trespassing on the school grounds of John F. Kennedy Junior High School. During the time that Respondent was assigned to John F. Kennedy Junior High School, he failed all of his classes. When Respondent first came to the attention of Dukes, Dukes conferred with Respondent's teachers and was advised that Respondent had no learning disability and was capable of performing academically. Dukes had subsequent conferences with Respondent's teachers as Respondent's behavior pattern continued and received the same information. Additionally, throughout the conferences held by Dukes with Respondent's father, Dukes asked if Respondent had any special problems or needs which required attention. Respondent's father answered in the negative. Since Respondent's attendance record and academic record had not improved at MacArthur by the time of the formal hearing in this cause, his attorney had arranged for testing by a school psychologist. However, none of that testing had been done by the time of the formal hearing in this cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the assignment of Respondent to the opportunity school program at Miami Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1984, 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 22nd day of June, 9184. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Daniella Levine, Esquire Legal Services 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 North West 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Mr. Rexford Foster 1371 North East 157th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 North East Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools 1410 North East Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent Michael Eric Pose, age fifteen, was a student at West Miami Junior High School (West Miami) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent's academic performance during the 1986-1987 school year was very poor. He received the grade of "F" in every class. His grades for conduct were also mostly "Fs." In addition, he received the lowest grade for effort (3). Respondent's poor academic performance, lack of effort, and unacceptable conduct resulted in his rot being promoted to the next grade. During the first three marking periods of the 1986-1987 school year, Respondent was enrolled in Louise Johnson's math class, where he was marked absent about 58 times and late 12 times. When Respondent did attend classes he would come without materials and refused to do work when materials were provided by his teacher. He failed to complete 99 percent of his homework assignments and refused 95 percent of the time to perform any class work. On at least two occasions, Respondent was caught sleeping in class by Ms. Johnson. The grades he received in that class for academic performance, effort and conduct were "F- 3-F" (scholarship-effort-conduct). Ms. Harriet Wade, physical education teacher, also had Respondent as a student during the 1986-87 school year. In that class, he was absent 60 times and late 8 times. He refused to wear his gym clothing to the physical education class, refused to participate in games or perform exercises, and frequently engaged in activities which disrupted the class, such as talking to other students and wandering over to talk to other groups. He earned "F-3-F". Ms. Wade's normal form of discipline is to assign detentions and/or the running of laps. Respondent refused to serve either punishment on each occasion it was assigned. Respondent's mother offered as an excuse for Respondent's failure to meet the physical education requirements that he had dislocated his hip when he was four years old. However, she also stated that the surgery was deemed successful and it is clear that the proper medical excuses or records were never submitted to school personnel. There is no competent medical opinion that Michael is presently disabled from normal sports or participation in other school activities. In the same school year, Respondent was also a student of Ms. Tania Martinez-Cruz, English teacher. He was absent from her class 64 times and late 6 times. He refused to do classwork 98 percent of the time and never turned in any homework assignments. After it became apparent that Respondent would not bring materials to class, Ms. Martinez-Cruz kept materials in her classroom for him so that he would have no excuse to avoid working in her class. This method failed. Moreover, during the times he did attend class, Respondent spent 90 percent of the class period sleeping, even though she placed him in the front of the class and required him to participate in classwork as much as possible. Student Case Management Referral Forms (SCMRFs) generally reserved for serious behavior problems, were issued on Respondent's behavior by Ms. Johnson, Ms. Wade, and Ms. Martinez-Cruz due to his lack of interest in school, poor behavior, absences, and tardies. In addition, Respondent received five other SCMRFs from different teachers and/or administrators, all of whom complained of his disinterest in school and unacceptable behavior. One such complaint involved breaking in to a teacher's automobile. Because Respondent was frequently engaged in conflicts of a disruptive nature, he was suspended five times during the 1986-87 school year. Mr. Sotolongo, Assistant Principal, had numerous conversations with Respondent's mother regarding his excessive absences, poor behavior and lack of progress. However, to date the mother has not been able to improve Respondent's interest in school. After numerous attempts at counseling the mother and Respondent, a child study team report was made and conference thereon was held. This report and conference resulted in the administrative assignment of Respondent to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. The opinions of the Assistant Principal and the other teachers and administrators who had conferences regarding Respondent was that the more structured environment of an opportunity school would be better for him, as opposed to permitting him to remain in the regular school program where he was making no progress.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had good cause to reject the Escambia County School Superintendent's nomination of Petitioner to be principal of Woodham High School, and, if not, what relief should be granted to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Pensacola High School (PHS) is located in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. It is an inner city school of approximately 2000 students with a diverse population. Petitioner was appointed principal at PHS for the 1994- 1995 school year by Dr. Bill Malloy, the former Superintendent of Escambia County Schools. Petitioner served in that capacity until Superintendent Malloy transferred him in March of 1996 to the position of Director of Student Transfers. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy requiring principals to report incidents of suspected child abuse immediately to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)(currently the Department of Children and Families.) Another policy required principals to immediately report bomb threats to the district office and to proceed with the evacuation of the school property as instructed. Before school began in the fall of 1995, Petitioner assigned Kevin Sanders to be the teacher in charge of the In School Suspension (ISS) class. Petitioner made this assignment because Mr. Sanders previously had developed and successfully operated a similar class at PHS. The school district approved the plan at PHS for an ISS unit as designed by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders also served as a weight training coach at PHS. He was not the only teacher/coach to run an ISS program for Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year. At least three other schools had coaches running their respective ISS programs in the fall of 1995. There is no persuasive evidence that the assignment of a coach to be in charge of an ISS class was in direct contravention of the Superintendent's instructions. No one ever told Petitioner that the Superintendent did not want a coach-like person in charge of the ISS class. Mr. Sanders wanted to work in the weight room at the stadium during the last period of the school day. Petitioner told Mr. Sanders that he could work in the weight room, provided he found someone to supervise his ISS class during that period. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Sanders had permission from Petitioner to take his ISS students to the stadium and leave them unattended in the bleachers. On October 16, 1995, a fifteen-year-old female student skipped school. The police returned the female student to PHS. As a consequence of her actions, the female student was temporarily assigned to the ISS class taught by Mr. Sanders. Normally, the female student attended a class for special students in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. She functioned academically on a third or fourth grade level. On October 17, 1995, Ms. Sanders took his ISS class to the stadium and told them to sit in the bleachers. He then went to the weight room leaving the class unsupervised. The female student went into one of the restrooms in the stadium. She performed fellatio on a number of male students, primarily football players, in the presence of many other students. In the fall of 1995, PHS had several deans who served the general student population. Richard Sousa was the dean of students for ESE participants. He also served as the crisis teacher for the total student population at PHS. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa saw a group of students outside the dean's office. When he investigated, Mr. Sousa found the female student sitting in a chair with her hands on her head. After Mr. Sousa closed the door to the deans' office, the female student stated that other students were falsely accusing her of performing oral sex with some boys. Mr. Sousa then took the female student to an ESE self-contained classroom so that she would not be harassed. Next, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother and reported the facts as he understood them. The mother told Mr. Sousa that her daughter was not sexually active. Mr. Sousa asked the mother to pick up her daughter from school because the child was visibly upset. Later that day, Mr. Sousa reported to Petitioner that he had heard a rumor about sexual activity occurring in the stadium, on the fifty-yard line, or on the practice field. Mr. Sousa told Petitioner that other students were teasing the female student who denied being involved in any sexual behavior. After receiving this report, Petitioner directed Assistant Principal Leo Carvalis to contact Coach David Wilson, the head football coach. Petitioner instructed Coach Wilson and Mr. Sousa to investigate the rumor regarding the sexual activity. Coach Wilson talked to the football team that afternoon. The team assured him that they knew nothing of any sexual incident in the stadium, the football field, or the practice field. Coach Wilson and Petitioner discussed the situation again later that day. Petitioner told Coach Wilson to continue to listen to what was going on among the students, to ask questions, and to make his findings known. Petitioner gave other members of his staff and faculty the same instructions. Petitioner wanted to determine whether there was any truth to the rumor about the sexual incident. He wanted to discipline any students involved, including football players. However, Petitioner did not want to accuse any student, including the alleged victim, of inappropriate behavior until he had more facts. At the end of the day on October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa did not believe that the sexual incident had occurred. He knew that special education students are often harassed, ostracized and picked on. Mr. Sousa thought the teasing would blow over and the female student could be returned to her regular classroom. Mr. Sousa expressed this opinion to Petitioner. For the rest of the week, Mr. Sousa took lunch to the female student in the ESE self-contained classroom because other students teased and pointed fingers at her. Mr. Sousa had to walk to the bus with the female student for the same reason. Nevertheless, Mr. Sousa continued to believe the rumor was false. His disbelief was based in part on the female student's persistent denials. Additionally, it was not uncommon for a rumor such as the one at issue here to prove to be unfounded. The next week, the female student requested that she be permitted to return to her regular ESE classes because she believed the teasing was over. Mr. Sousa granted the female student's request; however, after a couple of class periods, Mr. Sousa returned her to the self-contained classroom because even the special education students were saying things about her. Amanda Williams and Naomi Ferguson were guidance counselors at PHS during the fall of 1995. On October 26, 1995, Ms. Ferguson indicated to PHS Assistant Principal Sarah Armstrong that Petitioner knew about the sexual incident involving some of the football players. According to Ms. Ferguson, Petitioner was trying to cover up the situation because the football team was doing well. Later that day, Petitioner held a meeting in his office with Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Williams, Mr. Sousa, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Carvalis. During the meeting, Ms. Armstrong advised Petitioner that Ms. Williams had information from a male student (an informant) confirming the sexual incident but would not reveal her source because of confidentiality concerns. Petitioner asked Ms. Williams to speak with him in private. During their private conversation Ms. Williams revealed that an informant had given her information about a second male student who was involved in the sexual incident at the stadium. Ms. Williams gave Petitioner the names of both students. When he and Ms. Williams returned to the meeting, Petitioner stated, "I believe something must have happened. This is a credible witness." He also stated, "To hell with the football team. If these players can get away with this now, what will they think they can get away with in the future?" For the first time, Petitioner began to suspect that the sexual incident was factual and not an unfounded rumor. Ms. Ferguson revealed additional information about the female student at the meeting on October 26, 1995. Ms. Ferguson stated that the female student's mother intended to send her daughter to live with an uncle in Tampa, Florida. The female student did not want to make this move. The female student told Ms. Ferguson that the uncle had sexually molested her in the past. Ms. Armstrong stated that someone needed to call HRS to report the suspected sexual abuse by a family member. The group decided that HRS should also look into the allegations of sexual activity at the school. Petitioner instructed Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. He asked her to wait just long enough for someone to advise the female student's mother that an investigation was pending. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner ever intended to cover up the sexual incident. Likewise, he did not unreasonably delay his staff from reporting their suspicions to HRS. On October 26, 1995, Petitioner mistakenly understood that cases of suspected child abuse had to be reported to HRS within 24 hours instead of immediately. The last instructions he gave in the meeting on October 26, 1995, was to remind Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. She made that call on October 27, 1995. The female student was isolated from the general student population in the self-contained ESE classroom at PHS. Therefore, Mr. Sousa recommended at the meeting on October 26, 1995, that the school conduct an Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting to review the female student's placement. He believed that the female student should be transferred to another school so that she could attend classes with the general population. After receiving Petitioner's authorization, Mr. Sousa contacted the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) district staff to arrange for an IEP meeting. Mr. Sousa also called the female student's mother on October 27, 1995, to advise her of his recommendation. On October 27, 1995, Petitioner talked to the male student who, according to Ms. Williams' informant, participated in the sexual incident at the stadium. The male student confirmed that the sexual incident occurred in the stadium. However, there is no evidence that the student admitted his personal involvement in the sexual activity to Petitioner at that time. The police investigation later revealed that the male student was one of the students who had participated in the sexual incident. At the IEP meeting on October 31, 1995, the entire IEP team, including ESE teachers from PHS and Woodham High School (WHS), ESE district staff, and the female student and her mother, discussed the reasons for changing the student's placement to WHS. Everyone on the IEP team, except the female student, believed that she should be transferred to a new school environment with peers who did not know her. The female student begged her mother not to permit the transfer. However, the parent agreed that the transfer was in her daughter's best interest and offered to provide transportation. On November 1, 1995 or November 2, 1995, the female student was supposed to enroll at WHS. Instead, she returned to PHS. Mr. Sousa called the mother to pick up her daughter and take her to WHS. On November 3, 1995, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother. She stated that everything was all right with her daughter at WHS. On Monday, November 6, 1995, the female student's mother called Mr. Sousa because her daughter had run away from home. The mother wanted Mr. Sousa to be on the lookout for her daughter. During the conversation, the mother stated for the first time that the rumors about the sexual incident might be true because, despite her daughter's denials, it had been confirmed by one of her daughter's friends. Mr. Sousa informed Petitioner about the suspicions of the female student's mother. Petitioner then directed Coach Wilson to talk with the football team again. No one on the team would admit their involvement in the sexual incident. Petitioner also told the deans and the assistant principals to see if they could determine what had happened and who was involved. The efforts of the faculty and staff to verify the rumors were unsuccessful. On November 9, 1995, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Ferguson suggesting that he was responsible for trying to cover up the sexual incident. He also received a call from Special Assistant to the School Superintendent Jerry Watson, stating that he had heard "bad things" were going on at PHS. Petitioner called a meeting with the appropriate PHS staff to discuss information about the alleged sexual incident. They reviewed information furnished by the male students and the female student's mother. During this meeting, Petitioner expressed his concern that someone in the group was acting unprofessionally by leaking confidential information about students to persons outside of PHS. Petitioner advised the group that he would try to transfer anyone who breached the students' confidentially. Petitioner did not make these comments to threaten or intimidate his staff and faculty or to cover up the sexual episode. After the meeting on November 9, 1995, Petitioner took Ms. Ferguson's letter to the district office where he met with Sherman Robinson, Deputy School Superintendent. Petitioner told Mr. Robinson about the facts leading up to the receipt of the letter. Mr. Robinson told Petitioner to contact Joe Hammons, the Superintendent's attorney, for advice as to the appropriate action. Petitioner then made an appointment with Mr. Hammons for Monday, November 13, 1995, because Friday, November 10, 1995, was a holiday. On November 13, 1995, Mr. Hammons met with Petitioner. At this meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Hammons what he knew concerning the sexual incident. Mr. Hammons then scheduled a meeting for November 14, 1995, with Petitioner, Mr. Robinson, and two members from the school district's risk management department. At the meeting on November 14, 1995, the group determined that information available from the male students and the female student's mother, justified contacting the Pensacola Police Department. Upon leaving that meeting, Petitioner contacted Sergeant Potts at the police department. The deans at PHS generally handled all disciplinary problems until they determined that a crime had been or might have been committed. At that point, the staff involved the school resource officer. In this case Petitioner relied on his staff to investigate the rumors of the sexual incident and did not involve the school resource officer. Until November 1995, Petitioner was not aware that, if the rumors of the sexual incident proved true, a crime had been committed. Shortly thereafter, Dusty Cutler of the Pensacola Police Department was assigned to investigate the sexual incident at PHS. On November 15, 1995, Officer Cutler talked to the female student who continued to deny all allegations. The female student did not admit to being involved in the sexual incident for several weeks after Officer Cutler began her investigation. Pursuant to Petitioner's suggestion, Officer Cutler also talked to the male student identified by Ms. Williams' informant as one of the participants in the sexual incident. The female student's mother told Officer Cutler that she did not want a police investigation. The mother became upset with the way Officer Cutler was talking to her. Petitioner complained to Lieutenant Knowles of the Pensacola Police Department about Officer Cutler's "abusive" behavior to the mother of the female student. From that time forward, Officer Cutler never spoke to Petitioner even though she spent six months investigating the sexual incident on a daily basis. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner interfered with Officer Cutler's investigation or failed to cooperate with her in any way. Officer Cutler reported the sexual incident to HRS. The agency gave her the same response they had given Ms. Ferguson, i.e., HRS would not investigate or follow the case because the sexual activity was not a rape and a family member was not involved. After Officer Cutler was assigned to the case, Petitioner was instructed by the school district to do nothing further until the police investigation was concluded. The Grand Jury released its Amended Report on Pensacola High School on April 15, 1996. The report indicted several male students involved in the sexual incident. Petitioner did not have an opportunity to discipline the students because he was not working at PHS at that time. In the spring of 1996, a number of middle school and high schools in the Pensacola area received bomb threats over the telephone. PHS received bomb threats on at least three occasions. The school evacuated to the adjoining football stadium on one occasion, to the fairgrounds on another occasion, and to Pensacola Junior College on a third occasion. On March 29, 1996, about 7:00 a.m., a school secretary, received a bomb threat call at PHS. Mr. Sousa received a second bomb threat call at PHS around 7:15 or 7:30. On both occasions the caller's voice was a raspy, young man's voice. The school secretary and Mr. Sousa recognized the voice of the caller as a young man in one of the self-contained classrooms. The student had created problems in the past. Each time he behaved improperly, the student would use his raspy voice. Mr. Sousa reported the first bomb threat to Mr. Carvalis. Mr. Carvalis called Petitioner at his home. Petitioner was not at school because he was not feeling well because he had been at the emergency room much of the night before. Petitioner instructed Mr. Carvalis to initiate a search. The search included a sweep of the stadium in case the school had to evacuate to that area. Petitioner advised Mr. Carvalis that he was on his way to the school. When Petitioner arrived at PHS, Mr. Carvalis informed him of the second threatening call. The staff again assured Petitioner that they knew the caller's identity, and that both calls had been made by the same student. The student was not at school. Therefore, Petitioner directed Mr. Sousa and the resource officer, Max Cramer, to go to the student's home and request the student's parent to bring the student to school. In the meantime, a third call was received from the same caller. Next, Petitioner phoned Deputy Superintendent Sherman Robinson. Petitioner explained to Mr. Robinson about the bomb threat and the school's discovery of the identity of the caller. Jones believed from his discussion with Mr. Robinson that his handling of the situation and his decision not to evacuate the school had the tacit approval, if not the explicit permission, of the district office. Petitioner believed Mr. Robinson concurred in his decision not to evacuate. The student with the raspy voice and his parent subsequently arrived at the school. After questioning the student, Petitioner believed the student was the caller. Petitioner decided to continue the search of the school without evacuating it. Petitioner directed Mr. Carvalis and the maintenance men to divide into teams and sweep the campus using the techniques taught by a handler of a bomb sniffing dog after previous threats. On one occasion a bomb sniffing dog and his handler came to PHS from Eglin Air Force Base in Ft. Walton. The PHS campus was so large that the dog got tired and refused to work about half way through the search. On that occasion, the search continued in the same manner employed by Petitioner on March 29, 1996. During the search on March 29, 1996, seven different groups looked for anything that was out of place. All of the deans had assigned areas where they searched trash bins, open lockers, and open classrooms. Later in the school day, Mr. Carvalis reported that the entire campus, including the portables, had been swept and nothing found. Petitioner does not dispute that he did not follow the Superintendent's policy regarding bomb threats on the day in question. Petitioner believed that he knew the identity of the caller. He also was concerned about the disruption that the bomb threats were causing to the academic programs at PHS. The students in the gifted program were preparing to take their advanced placement tests. The students in the International Baccalaureate program were studying for their exams. Additionally, March 29, 1996 was the last chance for some students to take the high school competency test before graduation. Superintendent Malloy was particularly concerned that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school. The previous day he had reiterated his policy of evacuation to all principals. However, Petitioner did not attend the meeting; one of Petitioner's assistant principals attended that meeting in his absence. On March 30, 1996, Superintendent Malloy placed Petitioner on administrative leave with pay, pending an investigation of his failure to evacuate PHS after a bomb threat. Superintendent Malloy subsequently assigned Petitioner to his current position as Director of Student Transfers. On June 3, 1996, Superintendent Malloy issued a letter reprimanding Petitioner for the following reasons: (1) failing to ensure that the ISS class had appropriate supervision; (2) failing to follow up on information regarding sexual activity in the stadium in a timely manner; and (3) failing to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. In November of 1996, Jim May was elected Escambia County School Superintendent. On or about June 10, 1997, the Commissioner of Education, Frank T. Brogan, filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner in Education Practices Commission (EPC) Case Number 956-1609-B. This complaint alleged that Petitioner failed in his responsibilities to ensure that all students under his charge were properly supervised. The complaint also alleged that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. On June 24, 1997, Superintendent May nominated Petitioner to be principal of WHS. At the time of the nomination, Superintendent May was aware of the relevant facts concerning the PHS sex incident and bomb threat incident. Additionally, he had been in contact with counsel for the Florida Department of Education regarding EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. Respondent rejected Petitioner's nomination to be principal of WHS. On a 3 to 2 vote, Respondent found good cause to reject the nomination based on the following: Among the reasons articulated by the three Board Members who voted against the nomination were, in addition to the reasons presented by the other speakers, Mr. Jones' unsatisfactory past performance of his duties when he served as Principal of Pensacola High School (which events were the subject of a grand jury report and are the subject of an administrative complaint by the Commissioner of Education now pending before the Education Practice Commission proceeding, . . . his lack of subsequent training to improve his skills in the areas in which his poor performance resulted in his 1996 removal as Principal of Pensacola High School, and his apparent violation of certain of the principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, in addition to gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty in connection with the Pensacola High School incidents. In sum the three Board Members who voted against the nomination felt that Mr. Jones is presently unqualified to be a Principal. After Respondent rejected his nomination, Petitioner told Superintendent May that it was unfair to the students of WHS to make them wait for a principal. On July 22, 1997, Superintendent May nominated another person to be principal at WHS. On or about November 6, 1997, the Florida Department of Education decided that it would withdraw its probable cause determination against Petitioner and enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with him. The department requested the Education Practices Commission to close EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. On or about March 9, 1998, Superintendent May advised the Florida Department of Education that Petitioner had performed his assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner during the period of January 10, 1997 and March 1, 1997. Petitioner had fully complied with all district and state rules and regulations. On or about March 26, 1998, Education Commissioner Brogan determined that there was no probable cause to suspend or revoke Petitioner's teacher's certificate. Petitioner was released from his Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the department. Petitioner holds the proper state certification for a high school principal. Except for the two incidents in question, Petitioner's performance at PHS was exemplary. Under his leadership, the school population was stable and well under control. Petitioner created an atmosphere at PHS where high quality performance on the part of a number of students was recognized, encouraged, and supported by the faculty and staff. Petitioner had an excellent relationship with students, teachers, and the PHS Advisory Council. Petitioner genuinely cared for the health, safety and welfare of the students at PHS. He was concerned more about the feelings and self-esteem of the students than with winning academic and athletic competitions, and he did not make accusatory judgments about his students until he had the necessary facts and proof to support those accusations.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order finding that there is no good cause to reject Superintendent May's nomination of Petitioner to be principal at WHS, promoting him to that position, and awarding him any back pay to which he may be entitled. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a 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. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of allegations that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate physical touching of a female student.
Findings Of Fact M. A. is a thirteen year old student at West Miami Middle School. At the time of the alleged incident, she was twelve years of age, was approximately five feet, three inches, tall, and weighed about one hundred sixty pounds. She had gained about twenty or thirty pounds more as of the time of the formal hearing in this case. The School Trust Counselor, Diana De Cardenas, had been seeing M. A. and M. A.'s sister for eating disorder problems because both girls were somewhat overweight. The counsellor had seen M. A. on several occasions because of allegations that M. A.'s mother and M. A.'s brother were hitting her at home. Her brother did not want her to eat and when he saw her eating he would beat her. M. A. saw the counsellor because of these facts and was often upset and crying. The Respondent, Millard Lightburn, is forty-two years old and has been a teacher for over fifteen years. The Respondent is Hispanic. He previously taught school in Nicaragua and speaks both English and Spanish. The accusing child, M. A., is also Hispanic. The Respondent taught a computer application course and from time to time he would use students to help file papers and keep records. Shortly before the time of the alleged incident, the Respondent asked two students, M. A. and a male student named L. D., to help him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. The student named L. D. did not come to help the Respondent on the day in question because L. D. was asked by another teacher to help with a problem in the cafeteria. On the day in question, the Respondent was having lunch while working in his classroom. M. A. was in the class alone with him helping him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. This was the second day that M. A. had assisted the Respondent with the paperwork. As the work was finished, the Respondent said to M. A., "Thank you very much; thank you for your help." He put his hand on her shoulder and put his cheek next to hers and gave her a peck on the cheek in a manner that is customary and traditional among Hispanics in Dade County, Florida. The Respondent demonstrated this gesture at the hearing. This same gesture was also demonstrated by two other witnesses, Shirley B. Johnson and Assistant Principal Eldon Padgett. West Miami Middle School is about 93 percent or 94 percent Hispanic. In that school and in the Hispanic community served by the school, it is customary for people to hug and to touch one another on the cheek or to give one another a peck on the cheek. Such conduct is common at all Hispanic schools in Dade County, Florida. The gesture demonstrated by the Respondent and by two other witnesses is a customary Hispanic gesture in Dade County, Florida, and is not considered to be offensive or inappropriate by other members of the Hispanic community. The Respondent, Millard E. Lightburn, did not at any time touch the student, M. A., in an inappropriate or offensive way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 11th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-06174 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, but with the additional findings to the effect that another student had been invited to be present at the same time as the student, M. A. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details, or as irrelevant. Paragraph 9: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 13: First line rejected for reasons stated immediately above. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 32: The first three full lines and the first four words of the fourth line are accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as also irrelevant. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, is authorized to file and prosecute formal complaints against persons holding teaching certificates in the State of Florida. Respondent, Lee Christine Gaul, is certified to teach in Florida. Ms. Gaul holds Florida Educator's Certificate 716132. The certificate authorizes Ms. Gaul to teach in the area of history and is valid through June 30, 1997. Ms. Gaul's Employment as a Teacher. Ms. Gaul is currently employed as a teacher at Belle Vue Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Belle Vue"), in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Laura Hassler, Ph.D., is the principal of Belle Vue. Ms. Gaul has been employed continuously as a teacher at Belle Vue since 1993. Ms. Gaul is responsible for some of the most difficult and troubled students at Belle Vue. Ms. Gaul's students are all students that have been unable to function in other classes. None of the students which Ms. Gaul is responsible for in her position as a teacher at Belle Vue were involved in any way in the incident which is the subject of this proceeding. Leon Crew Boosters, Inc.. Leon Crew Boosters, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Leon Crew"), is a not-for-profit corporation. Leon Crew is exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Leon Crew was created in 1992. As a corporation, Leon Crew operates through its board of directors, officers and committees. The purpose of Leon Crew is to provide an opportunity for high school students to participate in the sport of rowing or "crewing". To date, only students at Leon High School have participated in Leon Crew. The Board of Directors has considered allowing students from other schools to participate in Leon Crew. To date, however, students from other schools have not been allowed to participate so that the crews could participate in state high school championships. Approximately 80 to 100 students participate in Leon Crew activities. Several boats are manned by several crews. Leon Crew provides all equipment needed for crew members. Leon Crew owns all boats, trailers and other equipment utilized by crews. All funding for Leon Crew comes from its supporters and members. Leon Crew receives no public funding from any source, including Leon High School or the Leon County School Board. Leon Crew and the crews are not members of, or directly regulated by, the entity that regulates publicly funded high school sports programs in Florida, the Florida High School Activities Association. Coaches for the crews are interviewed and hired by Leon Crew. Coaches need not be certified to teach. Leon Crew is responsible for the payment of any salary paid to coaches. Leon High School officials do not participate in the process of hiring or firing coaches. Nor does Leon High School contribute to the salary of any coach. Although Leon Crew does not practice on the grounds of Leon High School (there is no water available), they are allowed to utilize Leon High School facilities. Leon Crew members are featured in the Leon High School student yearbook. Leon Crew teams are allowed to use the name "Leon" and to participate as "school" crews at state championships. Although Leon Crew is a separate corporation over which Leon High School has no legal authority, the relationship of Leon Crew and Leon High School requires mutual agreement of Marvin Henderson, the principal of Leon High School, and the Board of Directors of Leon Crew to continue operating in the manner they have been operating. Without mutual agreement and cooperation, Mr. Henderson could limit Leon Crew's association with Leon High School. For example, Mr. Henderson could eliminate Leon Crew from the yearbook, prohibit use of school facilities, not allow the use of the school's name and not authorize students to travel to regattas. On the other hand, without Mr. Henderson's cooperation, Leon Crew could disassociate itself from Leon High School. Ms. Gaul's Association with Leon Crew. In 1992, Ms. Gaul was interviewed and hired by Leon Crew as the coach of the men's and women's crew teams. She initially served without pay as a volunteer coach. Ms. Gaul was the first coach hired by Leon Crew. Ms. Gaul, who was living in Jacksonville, Florida when hired, moved to Tallahassee. She worked at a stock brokerage firm until her employment at Belle Vue. At not time has Ms. Gaul been employed by Leon High School. Nor has she been associated with Leon High School except through Leon Crew. Ms. Gaul is not evaluated as a teacher or coach by Leon High School. Ms. Gaul did not answer directly to Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson's authority over Ms. Gaul was not based upon a teacher-principal relationship. It was based upon the cooperative association of Leon High School and Leon Crew. As coach, Ms. Gaul has established rules of behavior which crew members are required to follow in order to continue to participate in Leon Crew. Ms. Gaul has imposed discipline to members of crews that have violated those rules. The Sunday, May 22, 1994 Incident. At the end of the crew season and the state championships in the Spring of 1994, a few of the better boat crews traveled to Atlanta, Georgia to participate in a crewing event known as the "Southeast Regionals". One of the students who attended the Southeast Regionals, T. C., planned to have a party at her home upon the return to Tallahassee of the students that had travelled to Atlanta. The party was to be held upon the students' return on Saturday evening, May 21, 1994 and Sunday morning, May 22, 1994. T. C. had obtained permission from her parents for the party. T. C.'s parents were not to be home during the party. An adult house sitter was to be at the home, however. T. C. had invited some of the crew members who participated in the Southeast Regionals to attend the party. At some time on Saturday, May 21, 1994, before leaving Atlanta, T. C. and some of the other crew members invited Ms. Gaul to attend the party. Ms. Gaul agreed. The crew members returned from Atlanta on Saturday evening, May 22, 1994, in several vans. Those crew members that attended the party drove directly to T. C.'s house. Ms. Gaul was in the last van to arrive at the party. Ms. Gaul arrived at approximately 2:00 a.m., Sunday, May 22, 1994. Most of the individuals attending the party were already at T. C.'s house. There were approximately 20 to 25 people in attendance at the party, some of whom were crew members and students at Leon High School. T. C.'s older brother, D. C., and some of his friends were also in attendance. D. C. and his friends were not associated with Leon Crew. The evidence failed to prove the ages of most of the participants. D.C. and his friends and the members of the crew in attendance were, however, high school students. Most of the crew members in attendance were juniors and seniors in high school. T. C., however, was 14 years of age at the time of the party. The party was not a school or Leon Crew official function. Ms. Gaul did not have supervisory authority over all of the students in attendance at the party. Some of the Leon Crew members in attendance had completed their participation in Leon Crew. Ms. Gaul could, however, have attempted to control the activities of the Leon Crew members who were not graduating. She had established strict rules for all crew members concerning the behavior of crew members and the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. On one trip, two students were caught shoplifting. They were immediately sent home by Ms. Gaul. The adult house sitter was also present and Robbie Drew, the mother of a crew member, was also present in the house. Beer and liquor was available at the party before and after the crew members arrived. It had been planned from the beginning by at least some of the participants of the party that beer and liquor would be available. Some, but not all, students in attendance at the party, including some crew members, consumed beer and liquor both before and after Ms. Gaul arrived. The evidence failed to prove how much beer and liquor was consumed or the number of students or crew members that consumed beer and/or liquor. Upon arriving at T. C.'s home, Ms. Gaul confirmed with the adult house sitter that T. C.'s parents had authorized the party. At some point after her arrival, Ms. Gaul noticed that some students, including crew members, were consuming beer and liquor. Ms. Gaul did not make any effort to prevent the students from drinking. Nor did she leave the party. It had been arranged by some of the students for additional beer to be brought to the party. Those plans fell through, however, sometime after Ms. Gaul arrived. Some of the students began taking up a collection of money to go purchase more beer. Some of the students believed that they would have been able to obtain additional beer that evening. Ms. Gaul overheard two of the students discussing their plan to go purchase more beer. Ms. Gaul was concerned about the students leaving the house to purchase beer because the house at which the party was held was a considerable distance from the nearest store, the road to the nearest store was dark and winding and she knew some of the students had been drinking. Ms. Gaul had doubts as to whether she could stop the students from going to purchase more beer. Therefore, rather than attempt to stop them, Ms. Gaul decided that she would drive to the store and purchase the beer herself. This decision was made at least in part because she believed that the students had the means to purchase the beer regardless of what she did. Because of her concern over students leaving the house who had been drinking, Ms. Gaul got the students to agree that no one would leave the party that evening if she went and purchased the beer for them. Ms. Gaul drove to a store to purchase the beer. J.E.G., a female crew member, and L.A.G., another female crew member, accompanied Ms. Gaul. Ms. Gaul purchased one and one-half to two cases of beer, which she brought back to the party. Some, but not all, of the participants at the party consumed the beer. For the first time that evening, Ms. Gaul also consumed at least one can of beer after returning from the store. Ms. Gaul spent most of the time in a room away from where the students were located. Students did, however, walk through the room where Ms. Gaul was located and where she consumed beer. Ms. Gaul felt a need to "keep a lid on the party" and to ensure that none of the participants left T. C.'s house until morning because she did not want anyone who had been drinking to drive. Throughout the evening, the participants at the party were well- behaved. At no time did the party get too loud or otherwise get out of hand. Ms. Gaul's presence at the party contributed to this fact. No one, including Ms. Gaul, left T. C.'s house until after daybreak, Sunday morning. Ms. Gaul's Actions Immediately After the Incident. After daybreak, Ms. Gaul began to reflect on her actions during the party. She realized that she had made an error in judgement by purchasing beer for the participants of the party, especially the crew members, for letting crew members drink alcohol and for drinking in their presence. On Monday morning, May 23, 1994, Ms. Gaul arranged to meet with the members of the crew teams that had attended the party at T. C.'s. She met with them at Leon High School immediately before classes began that morning. Ms. Gaul told the students that what she had done, purchasing the beer, allowing them to drink beer, and drinking in their presence had been wrong. Ms. Gaul told them that she did not want them to get the wrong message: [w]hile they were young, they might not see that what I had done was wrong. They might have gone so far to think that it was cool, but it was not. That I had done them a huge disservice. And whether they figured it out then or later, that I had hurt them, and that I was sorry. Transcript, Page 166, Lines 12-17. Approximately one and one-half weeks later, on June 3, 1994, Ms. Gaul reported the incident of May 22, 1994, to her supervisor at Belle Vue, Dr. Hassler. Ms. Gaul submitted her resignation as a teacher at Belle Vue to Dr. Hassler. Dr. Hassler, who had a child on a Leon Crew team at the time, decided to not accept the resignation at that time so that the incident could be investigated further. The incident was reported to Marvin Henderson, the principal of Leon High School, by Dr. Hassler. Ms. Gaul met with Mr. Henderson and admitted her errors in judgement. Ms. Gaul also reported the incident to the Board of Directors of Leon Crew at a regularly scheduled meeting on June 6, 1994. Ms. Gaul offered her resignation as crew coach at that meeting. Ms. Gaul admitted that she had made a mistake, took responsibility for her actions and apologized for her conduct. Sanctions Imposed on Ms. Gaul. Dr. Hassler ultimately declined to accept the resignation offered by Ms. Gaul. On or about September 14, 1994, Dr. Hassler did, however, issue a letter of reprimand to Ms. Gaul. Dr. Hassler cited the attendance by Ms. Gaul at the party where alcohol was consumed by Ms. Gaul and minor-students and Ms. Gaul's purchase of beer for consumption by minors as the reason for the reprimand. Initially, after being informed of the incident on June 6, 1994, the Leon Crew Board of Directors accepted Ms. Gaul's resignation. They did so without further investigation. In August of 1994, after further investigation and consideration of all of the events and circumstance surrounding the incident, the Board of Directors of Leon Crew reinstated Ms. Gaul as coach. On or about September 29, 1994, Mr. Henderson issued a letter of reprimand to Ms. Gaul. Mr. Henderson discussed the discipline outlined in the letter with the Board of Directors of Leon Crew. The Board of Directors concurred with Mr. Henderson's decision. The letter of reprimand from Mr. Henderson restricted Ms. Gaul's activities as coach of Leon Crew during the 1994-1995 school year, including the following: Because of the severe nature of this incident, the following consequences are imposed: (1) Probation for a period of seven months; it is understood that during this period, you are to have no contact with members of the team for socialization purposes. (2) A sixty day suspension; (during the first thirty days, you are permitted to work with team members as long as you are accompanied by at least one other Crew coach. During the second thirty days, no contact with Crew Team members shall be permitted.) This arrangement is allowed because of your value to the Crew Team's workout schedule and in the interest of safety. (3) At the end of the school year, an assessment of your position with Crew will be made to determine your continued involvement with Leon High School and the Leon Crew Team. The discipline imposed on Ms. Gaul through Mr. Henderson's letter of September 29, 1994, was modified on or about October 31, 1994. In particular, Ms. Gaul was allowed to associate with crew members through November 21, 1994 and then the thirty day period of disassociation was to begin. This modification was suggested by Leon Boosters in the interest of crew members. Ms. Gaul did not contest any of the actions taken by Dr. Hassler, Mr. Henderson or the Board of Directors of Leon Crew. She accepted the discipline proposed by all of them. Ms. Gaul completed the suspension and the probation period imposed on her. The Impact of the Incident on Ms. Gaul's Ability to Teach. Two of Ms. Gaul's fellow teachers and her principal, Dr. Hassler, uniformly testified that Ms. Gaul has evidenced exemplary ability as a teacher. According to Dr. Hassler, Ms. Gaul is an extremely important and valuable member of the teaching staff of Belle Vue and contributes greatly to the welfare of her students. Dr. Hassler described Ms. Gaul as "one of the most outstanding teachers I have ever had the opportunity to work with." Transcript, Page 53, Lines 8 and 9. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the incident of May 22, 1994, has impaired in anyway Ms. Gaul's ability to carry out her responsibilities as a teacher. In fact, the incident has matured Ms. Gaul and improved her ability as a teacher. Since the incident, she has continued to carry out her duties at Belle Vue in an exemplary fashion. She has been evaluated once since the incident and received a very high evaluation from Dr. Hassler. The evidence also failed to prove that the incident has had any negative impact on participants of Leon Crew. Again, the incident matured Ms. Gaul and improved her ability to act as one of the coaches of Leon Crew. Ms. Gaul has continued to function as a coach of Leon Crew in an effective manner and without any impairment. All the students who participated in crew after the incident and the parents of students who are participating in crew who testified in the hearing of this case spoke highly of Ms. Gaul and her ability to effectively act as a coach. The incident of May 22, 1994 was an isolated incident of failing to exercise good judgement on Ms. Gaul's part. The parents of students involved in Leon Crew who testified at the hearing of this matter and all other witnesses who testified indicated their belief that Ms. Gaul is of high moral character, an outstanding role model and an excellent teacher. The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Gaul's conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring her or the educational profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Only those immediately involved in the incident, her immediate supervisors (her principal, Leon High School's principal and Leon Crew's Board of Directors) and two teachers at Belle Vue were aware of the incident. The incident was not, however, known among the parents and the general teacher population at Belle Vue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing the portion of the Administrative Complaint charging Lee Christine Gaul with a violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission find Lee Christine Gaul to have violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Lee Christine Gaul be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that she be issued a letter of reprimand. As a condition of her probation, Ms. Gaul should be required to attend appropriate courses dealing with the harm of alcohol on minors. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 26th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX Case Number 95-4047 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 2. 2 Accepted in 8, 10, 15 and 17. 3 Accepted in 12. 4 Accepted in 22. 5 Accepted in 5. 6 Accepted in 36 and hereby accepted. 7 See 27. 8 Accepted in 31-32. 9 Accepted in 33. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 34-35. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 38 and 41. The evidence failed to prove what a "Jello shooter" is. Accepted in 42-44. 15 See 36 and 44-46. Accepted in 47-48. Accepted in 45 and 49. Accepted in 52 and hereby accepted. The testimony concerning whether the competency applies to students in teh classroom and out involves and conclusion of law and is rejected as such. Accepted in 53. Accepted in 4 and 55. Accepted in 54. Accepted in 55. Accepted in 57. Accepted in 60. Accepted in 58. The last sentence is irrelevant and ignores Dr. Hassler's explanation of why she made the statement. 26-27 See 21. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 28 Accepted in 61. 29 Accepted in 62. 30 Accepted in 63. 31 Accepted in 39, 41, 45 and 47-48. 32 Accepted in 41. 33 See 26, 36 and 45. 34-35 Argument. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 41. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 65-71. While Ms. Gaul has admitted a lapse in judgement, the evidence failed to prove that she lacks an "indispensable necessity for her to be entrusted with the education of young people." Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Gaul's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 8-10. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 22 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 14. See 18. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 11-12. Accepted in 22-23. Accepted in 4-5 and 24. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Accepted in See 21. 13 See 27-51. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 28. Accepted in 29. Accepted in 31 and 37. Accepted in 34 and 37. Accepted in 33. Accepted in 40. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 41. Accepted in 39. Accepted in 28 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 42-43. 27-28 Accepted in 44-45. 29-30 Accepted in 45. 31 Accepted in 48. 32-33 Accepted in 47. 34-35 Accepted in 50. 36-37 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 43. Accepted in 52. See 53. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 57. Accepted in 57 and 59. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 54. Accepted in 55. Accepted in 60. Accepted in 61-63. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 71. Accepted in 26 and 36. Accepted in 65-71. Accepted in 5-6. Accepted in 65-71. See 72. 56-59 Accepted in 65-71. 60-61 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Davisson F. Dunlap, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Room 224-C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent’s employment for thirty days without pay based on the allegations in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1984 as the band director at Nautilus. The band curriculum taught by Respondent consists of beginning band, concert band, jazz band, beginning guitar, guitar ensemble, and classical guitar ensemble. Respondent runs a very good band program at Nautilus. Ms. Bernstein, the current principal at Nautilus, opined that Respondent has done a remarkable job with his band students. Throughout his 24 years at Nautilus, Respondent has taken hundreds of field trips both in-state and out-of-state with band students. As a result of these trips, Respondent is fully aware of the paperwork required by the School Board to authorize band students to go on field trips. With the exceptions to be discussed below, Respondent has correctly filled out the required paperwork and has otherwise complied with School Board policies pertaining to field trips. The School Board has developed specific field trip procedures that have been adopted as School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A- 1.22 (Field Trips). The rule provides, in relevant part, as follows: Trips for students are permitted which have value in meeting educational objectives, are directly related to the curriculum . . . In the planning of field trips, absences from school should be restricted to the least number of school days possible. The educational purpose and length of the filed trip must be approved by the principal. Provisions for students to make up assignments for classes missed due to participation in field trips must be in accordance with procedures outlined in Board Rule 6Gx-5A-1.04 - - Student Attendance. A signed parental permission form must be on file at the school prior to student’s participation. . . . A roster is to be submitted along with the field trip application request that includes the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all students who are eligible to participate in the field trip regardless of the student’s decision to participate in said trip. . . . The School Board has also adopted a Field Trip Handbook, which sets forth the responsibilities of the field trip sponsor under the heading “Sponsor’s Responsibilities” (Petitioner’s Exhibit 25, at Bates stamp page 168). Among the delineated Sponsor’s Responsibilities, the sponsor is to secure completed and signed parent permission form from each student who will participate in the field. The sponsor is to place emphasis on complete medical information. The sponsor is to ensure that all chaperones have available and accessible to them during the trip a copy of all parental permission forms with emergency contact information. 2005 Field Trip Matthew Welker served as principal of Nautilus during the 2004-2005 school year. During the Spring term of the 2004- 2005 school year, Respondent sponsored a field trip for the Nautilus band to attend a music festival in Tennessee. Prior to the field trip, Mr. Welker was informed by parents of band students that Respondent intended to take one or more high school students on the field trip. Mr. Welker met with Respondent prior to the field trip to remind him of the field trip procedures and further advised him that he should arrange to ensure that only Nautilus students attend the festival. While the field trip was in progress, Mr. Welker learned that Respondent had permitted a former Nautilus band student to participate in the festival with the Nautilus band. The former Nautilus student was in high school when he was permitted to participate in the festival with the Nautilus band. Prior to seeing him at the festival, Respondent did not know that the former Nautilus student, who had traveled to the festival independently of the Nautilus band, would be at the festival. Respondent did not violate the festival rules by permitting the former student to participate in the festival. On or about May 31, 2005, following Respondent’s return to Nautilus, Mr. Welker conducted a “Conference for the Record” with Respondent, which was memorialized by a Memorandum (Petitioner’s exhibit 1).3 The Memorandum provides, in relevant part, as follows: . . . On Friday, August 13, 2004, you received documentation and in-service training regarding District and school site Field Trip procedures. On Friday, April 15, 2005, I conducted a personal conversation in my office with you regarding information that I received regarding the possibility that two former Nautilus Middle School students who are currently enrolled at Miami Beach High School would be participating with our students at the Smokey Mountain Music Festival in Tennessee. You indicated that you needed their presence to fill out the band. I stated to you that these students were not authorized to participate in the field trip nor were they eligible to participate in the festival as representatives of Nautilus Middle School. I further stated to you that no student or person who is not enrolled or directly affiliated with Nautilus Middle School may attend or participate in the festival. You stated that you understood. On April 29, 2005, I received information regarding the presence of a Miami Beach Senior High School student who was allowed by you to participate in the festival competition representing Nautilus Middle School. The student was also allowed to represent the school in both the ensemble and solo musical performances. On Wednesday, May 11, 2005, I questioned you regarding the participation of the students and you confirmed the fact the student was present at the festival and participated in performances representing Nautilus Middle School. I asked why you permitted the student to attend and perform after I gave you specific directions to the contrary. You responded that you needed the student to fill out the band. * * * Action Taken You were advised that this incident represents a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx-4A-1.21 Responsibilities and Duties. You were directed to follow all School Board and school-site rules and policies regarding field trips. You were directed that no student who is not enrolled as a seventh or eighth grade student at Nautilus Middle School may participate in any extra-curricular activity, co-curricular activity, performance, or field trip. These directives remain in effect as of the date of the conference and are restated to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit and the services provided to students. Any non-compliance by you with respect to these directives will necessitate further review and the possible imposition of disciplinary measures. . . . Copies of the following documents were given to you and discussed at the conference: Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx- 4A-1.21 Responsibilities and Duties The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida Field Trip Procedures Common sense suggestion for instructional personnel . . . The Memorandum also contained the following statement: You were advised that the information presented in the conference is confidential and you were directed not to disclose or discuss the information presented with students and staff. The Memorandum contains no statement that the Respondent had been reprimanded or otherwise disciplined because of the 2005 field trip. 2008 Field Trip Respondent sponsored the subject Field Trip for certain members of the Nautilus band to the Fiesta Val National Festival in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, in April 2008. The subject Field Trip left on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, and returned on Sunday, April 27, 2008. The Nautilus band participants consisted of members of the following: the concert band, jazz band, guitar ensemble, and classical guitar ensemble. The participants included Respondent, the band students, and volunteer, adult chaperones. Respondent, his students, and parents of band members began planning for the trip in October 2007. Fund raisers were held to help defray the costs of the trip. Respondent and the band members worked hard to prepare for the trip. As the sponsor of the subject Field Trip, Respondent was required to complete several forms, including a Field Trip Request Form, a Field Trip Chaperone List, Field Trip Permission Request Form, Travel Expense Report, and a Field Trip Roster. The Field Trip Permission Request Form (School Board’s Exhibit 7) includes the following statement: PARENT PERMISSION SLIPS for participating students must be on file in the Office of the Principal prior to the field trip. [Emphasis is in the original.] Both the School Board Rule on field trips and the Field Trip Handbook clearly require a signed parental permission form for each participating student prior to the field trip. The parental permission forms for the subject Field Trip required the parent or guardian to give permission for the student to participate in the subject Field Trip, provide emergency contact information, and authorize medical treatment for the student in the event of accident or illness.4 The Field Trip Roster, which identifies all student participants, is used to excuse the days the students are absent from school because of the field trip. As of the afternoon of April 22, 2008, Respondent had completed or otherwise secured all appropriate paperwork. The subject Field Trip had been approved by Dr. Bernstein as the principal of Nautilus and by the appropriate Regional Director. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on April 22, 2008, Respondent heard that a drummer who had been scheduled to go on the subject Field Trip may have gotten into trouble. Because he was packing musical instruments and equipment for the trip, Respondent did not further investigate. Between 4:30 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. on April 22,5 Dr. Bernstein reached Respondent on his cell phone and informed him that a band member who played drum for the jazz band and the guitar ensemble had been suspended from school (the suspended drummer) and would not be permitted to go on the subject Field Trip, which was scheduled to leave early the next day. Dr. Bernstein stated that Respondent would have to find one of his other students to fill in. The jazz band and the guitar ensemble could not have performed without a replacement for the suspended drummer. The concert band and the classical guitar ensemble could have performed without the suspended drummer. Shortly after his conversation with Dr. Bernstein on the afternoon of April 22, 2008, Respondent began receiving calls from parents of band students who were worried that the subject Field Trip would be cancelled. Rueben Coto, a band parent and volunteer chaperon for the subject Field Trip, called Respondent between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. on April 22. Respondent was uncertain as to what would happen and stated to Mr. Coto: “Look, I don’t think we’re going to be able to pull this off because we don’t have a drummer. We can’t perform without a drummer.” (Transcript, page 157, beginning at line 14). Mr. Coto located a replacement drummer for the suspended drummer. The replacement drummer (a male) was an ex- Nautilus band member who in April 2008 was a senior at Miami Beach Senior High School. Respondent told Mr. Coto to get something in writing from the replacement drummer’s parents giving permission for the replacement drummer to go on the subject Field Trip. The replacement drummer’s mother never gave written permission for her son to go on the subject Field Trip. Mr. Coto did not follow up on Respondent’s request to obtain written permission from the replacement drummer’s mother. On the morning of April 23, 2008, Respondent knew that the replacement drummer’s mother had not signed a written parental permission form.6 Respondent did not attempt to contact Dr. Bernstein or any other administrator after learning that the replacement drummer did not have written permission to participate in the subject Field Trip. Respondent permitted the replacement drummer to travel with the other students on the bus to and from Tennessee and to participate in certain of the activities of the Fiesta Val. While the subject Field Trip was in progress, Dr. Sidener, principal of Miami Beach Senior High, received a complaint from the band director at her school that the replacement drummer was absent from school and did not attend band rehearsal because he was on the subject Field Trip. Dr. Sidener immediately called Dr. Bernstein to determine whether she knew that the replacement drummer was participating in the subject Field Trip. Dr. Sidener did not excuse the replacement drummer’s absences from Miami Beach Senior High for the school days on which the replacement drummer participated in the subject Field Trip. The subject Field Trip was unrelated to the replacement drummer’s curriculum at Miami Beach Senior High. The subject Field Trip participants returned to Miami as scheduled on April 27, 2008. Prior to Dr. Sidener’s call, Dr. Bernstein was unaware that the replacement drummer was on the subject Field Trip. Respondent did not inform Dr. Bernstein before or during the subject Field Trip that the replacement drummer would be participating in the subject Field Trip. Immediately after Dr. Sidener’s call, Dr. Bernstein requested that the School Board’s Civilian Investigation Unit (CIU) conduct an investigation as to the replacement drummer’s participation in the subject Field Trip.7 The CIU investigation report was forwarded to the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) for a CFR with Respondent. After the CFR, OPS sought input as to the appropriate discipline from Dr. Bernstein and Mr. Greenfield (the Administrative Director for the North Regional Center). OPS convened a disciplinary review team, which reviewed all available information. The disciplinary review team recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent’s employment by suspended without pay for 30 days. Following his review, the Superintendent adopted the recommendation from the disciplinary review team and forwarded the recommendation to the School Board. At its meeting of October 15, 2008, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent’s employment for a period of 30 days without pay. The School Board followed all relevant procedures leading up to its vote to discipline Respondent by suspending his employment for 30 days. Although Respondent has served his 30-day suspension without pay, Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 June, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School- North, an alternative school, on December 16, 1982, because of his unacceptable conduct in Grade 9 at North Miami Junior High School. Petitioner presented evidence of 16 incidents of conduct by Respondent which required disciplinary action in the year preceding his reassignment to the alternative education program. Additionally, his grades in all courses were unsatisfactory at the time of reassignment. Respondent did not accept the alternative school assignment and instead obtained employment at a restaurant. He is now living with his grandmother, Mrs. Helen Wood, who seeks his return to a regular junior high school program. She has discussed this proposal with the principal of Thomas Jefferson Junior High School and he apparently agrees with her. Respondent's evidence established that his family life was difficult and disruptive during the period of his misconduct. His situation has now stabilized and he is responsive to his grandmother's supervision. He should, therefore, be given an opportunity to return to the regular academic program (Grade 9) at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order classifying Respondent as a disruptive student, but permitting him to attend the Thomas Jefferson Junior High School in a probationary status. ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Helen Ward 1000 Northwest 153rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
