The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Debra Turnbull’s (“Ms. Turnbull” or “Respondent”), employment with Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (“School Board” or “Petitioner”), as an elementary teacher, should be terminated, based upon the statements of the nature of the controversy set forth in the Joint Second Amended Pre-hearing Stipulation filed by the parties.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained in the proper method of interacting with co-workers and students, exercising best professional judgment, and following rules, policies, and directives. At all times relevant, Respondent was employed with Petitioner as a teacher at Forest Hill and had been assigned there for approximately two years, initially serving as a second-grade, dual language teacher. At all times relevant, Respondent’s employment was governed by the CBA between the District and the Classroom Teachers Association, School Board policies, and Florida law. Respondent was notified, by a Notice of Recommendation for Termination of Employment, dated and acknowledged by her on October 29, 2019, that she was being recommended for a 15-day suspension and subsequent termination due to: (1) Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment; (2) Gross Insubordination; and (3) Continued Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive, when she screamed and yelled at her students. An Administrative Complaint, detailing the charges, was served on Respondent, through her attorney, on December 9, 2019. A few months after being assigned to the dual language class, Respondent was moved to a position in the Forest Hill computer lab, which was part of the fine arts rotation for students. As a media specialist, Ms. Turnbull was responsible for checking library books in and out; helping children find books; reading aloud with children; helping students with independent reading; developing lessons to encourage the students to interact with media other than books; and working in a partnership with the home room teachers to support them in special projects and research. The students’ homeroom teacher is not present during the media center visit by that teacher’s students, and routinely drops the students off at the beginning of the 30-minute time block, returning to pick them up at the conclusion of the visit. On or about April 12, 2019, Ms. Turnbull was working on a project with third and fourth-grade classes. She had been given broad discretion in developing a project for the third and fourth graders to celebrate the Everglades. The project was designed to have the children investigate and do research on various aspects of the Everglades, then produce a project to demonstrate what was learned. Ms. Turnbull decided to have each child do some individual research on a topic related to the Everglades, followed by their presenting their findings in a form with which they were comfortable. She gathered numerous books about the Everglades, a video or a DVD to play about the Everglades, and expected that the project would ultimately end up in an Everglades museum that would be displayed in the media center for the rest of the school’s students to visit and learn about the Everglades. She imposed a deadline on the students to have the project completed within three class sessions. In administering the Everglades project, Ms. Turnbull’s intent was that all of the children would research a topic in which they had a true interest. She gave an initial class in how to research and suggested some ideas for project topics. She and the students of each class brainstormed a list of approximately 15 topics that interested the children, which were placed on the board for all the children to see. Ms. Turnbull explained to the students that she would go around the room, so that each student could select the topic on which he or she would like to work, but that no more than four students in each class could work on a single topic, in order to enhance the learning experience for all by having more topics covered. Ms. Turnbull tallied the number of students who selected each topic, and, once a topic was chosen by four students, subsequent choosing students were redirected and limited to the other topics, which were ample for the class sizes. Once the topics were selected and assigned, the classes brainstormed different types of project presentations which could be used. Students were able to produce a diorama, an advertising poster, a research report, or other methods of presenting their projects. Ms. Turnbull used the same rule, that once four students selected a particular method of presentation, that mode would be closed. Similar to the selection of topics, Ms. Turnbull tallied the number of students who selected each presentation method, and, once a mode was chosen by four students, subsequent choosing students were redirected to other choices. On April 12, 2019, Ms. Turnbull met with the students from Ms. Goodson’s third-grade homeroom class, who were dropped off at the media center for their second project session. As they arrived, Ms. Turnbull directed the students to sit at the media center tables, where she had a whiteboard set up, and she and the students began to interact and list the various Everglades topics which interested them. On that day, the students had recently returned from spring break. Ms. Turnbull explained that all teachers know that, after spring break, students are looking towards the end of the school year and are not always focused. She felt that, as sometimes happens, “they were just not with me that day.” They were somewhat uncooperative and talking to each other, rather than listening to what she was saying. Ms. Turnbull had never had a particular problem with that class. It was one of the classes that she looked forward to seeing because they “had a good time together and got things accomplished.” However, on that day, the students were not following the directions she was giving them with respect to choosing the topic for their projects and then choosing their mode of presentation for the topic. Ms. Turnbull gave Ms. Goodson’s students specific directions that no more than four people could choose the same project and that, once there were four students who had selected a particular topic or project, that topic or project was no longer in play, and the next students who chose had to select something else. The students were not paying attention, and, when somebody tried to be the fifth or sixth person to choose the same topic, Ms. Turnbull would again tell the selecting student that there could be no more than four in a grouping and pointed to the board where the students could see four tally marks next to that topic. She would explain that the topic had closed and that something else had to be chosen. Soon thereafter, it would happen again with another student. When she had gone through the entire class, and when the tally marks were totaled, the numbers did not match, meaning that some students had not even made their selections. Gregory York, the IT person assigned to Forest Hill since 2004 or 2005, is responsible for fixing all technical problems at the school. Mr. York testified that he was in the media center on April 12, 2019, to discuss a repair issue with Respondent when he heard her yelling and screaming at a student who had raised her hand. Mr. York further testified that he and Ms. Turnbull “got into a little shouting match as well [when he explained why he could not fix her VCR], so [he] just left.” He described Respondent’s tone of voice as a “very high-pitched tone. Aggravated. … Loud and upset.” He specifically recalled a particular incident with one student as follows: But the one that I kind of recall was with that one particular student when direction was given to raise their hand and when she raised the hand, I guess the answer wasn’t good enough and it just got … it wasn’t just -- I don’t know, I don’t know what word to use, but it was just … I just felt like the student was just following directions and it seemed like she just got in trouble for following directions, from me, that’s all I’m saying. Mr. York admitted, on cross-examination, that “at the beginning, I don’t recall the whole conversation because I was too focusing [sic] with the IT person and then as I -- as we -- as I settled down, that’s when I can pretty much hear -- not hear, but I can see the environment and the tone has changed and that’s what I remember.” He did not remember what was being said when he claimed that the tone changed. Mr. York also remembered, on April 12, 2019, that a student raised her hand to ask a question. He did not recall the entire conversation, but said “it was like an upset conversation and everything and the student just wanted to ask the question and couldn’t answer it or whatever... it was just... just the whole ordeal was just loud.” Mr. York said that, after getting yelled at, “to me for following directions, she did not see -- she seemed a little hurt about it or whatever.” He claimed to “just remember the incident with the one student in particular, with the student raising their hand and, you know, she was just... It was an incident of her yelling at the kid and, you know, the kid got sad and everything like that.” Although he did not recall in any detail what was said or being done, Mr. York claimed “I just felt like the student was just following directions and it seemed like she just got in trouble for following directions from me, that’s all I’m saying.” He did not know why the student raised her hand or what she said. On cross-examination, Mr. York admitted that the hand raising “had something to do with voting, and, like I said, I heard that part and I remember the student just following direction, raising their hand and -- ... raising their hand to speak or maybe vote. I remember that part, the students raised their hand and she asked the student go ahead. And when she said what she had to say, it just went bad after that.” He repeated that he was within ten feet of Ms. Turnbull when this exchange took place, but did not recall whether Ms. Turnbull was explaining that there were already too many students who had made the particular selection. Also on cross-examination, after having his memory refreshed with his prior written statement and deposition testimony, Mr. York admitted that while he did not recall what Ms. Turnbull was “yelling” at the kids, he recalled her yelling or screaming at Assistant Principal Higgins about books. Ms. Turnbull testified that she was not yelling at the children. She admitted that the situation was getting a bit annoying and that, as time went by, and the same situation kept occurring over and over, she became what she termed, “a little bit more stern.” On cross-examination, Ms. Turnbull conceded that she has a loud voice and that sometimes people misinterpret a loud voice or enthusiasm as raising her voice. She explained that she was “a New Yorker,” having a style and expressing herself in a way that some consider “loud, animated, excited and boisterous.” Because the media center door is kept locked, teachers returning for their students typically knock on the door. Ms. Goodson did not knock on the door, but was somehow let into the media center, although she did not immediately ask for her students to leave the media center while Ms. Turnbull continued to work with them. Ms. Turnbull could not recall how long Ms. Goodson observed her students in the media center. Ms. Goodson recalled and estimated being in the media center for about 30 minutes. Ms. Goodson waited in the media center as Ms. Turnbull continued beyond the allotted class time with her students. Eventually, Ms. Goodson indicated that she had to return to her classroom with her students. There was a brief discussion between Ms. Turnbull and Ms. Goodson as the class was leaving. Ms. Turnbull asked Ms. Goodson if she would spend time in her classroom having the students choose topics and methods of presentation, as she had observed that those matters were not completed in the media center that day. Ms. Goodson, she testified, responded that “they are a low class.” Ms. Turnbull assumed Ms. Goodson was referring to academic ability, and responded that, even if they are low, this was not an academic exercise, but was rather a situation of making a choice and following directions. Neither teacher was yelling; instead, they were speaking quietly, because the children were in close proximity to them. Ms. Goodson had never discussed her students’ academic level with Ms. Turnbull until that day. Ms. Turnbull never thought of the class as a “low class.” She would have approached the lesson differently had Ms. Goodson advised that she believed her class was incapable of following two-step or three-step directions. Ms. Turnbull felt that Ms. Goodson spoke about her students as a “low class” in an effort to explain or excuse their behavior that day. When asked about the allegation that she yelled at Mr. Higgins when he was in the media center while Ms. Goodson and her class were present that same day, Ms. Turnbull testified that, since he was an assistant principal, she considered Mr. Higgins to be her boss. She would never yell at him, she testified. Ms. Turnbull felt that Mr. Higgins was someone to whom she could talk, and had she thought that he did something wrong with a book, she would have spoken with him. She did not recall any interaction with Mr. Higgins that day, or even that Mr. Higgins was in the room. In her deposition testimony, Ms. Goodson recalled that, at some point, Mr. Higgins was in the media center. She recalled Ms. Turnbull “went off for a couple minutes on him, saying next time do this, this and this. That’s not how we do it here, something like that.” Mr. Higgins testified during Ms. Turnbull’s case. He knows Ms. Turnbull and was familiar with this case. Mr. Higgins was aware that he had been identified as having been present in the media center during the alleged incident of April 12, 2019. He testified that he did not recall any incident that took place with Ms. Turnbull. He provided a statement during the investigation at a time shortly after the alleged incident wherein he stated that he did not hear anything from Ms. Turnbull on that date. He recalled being asked by Mr. York to assist with repairing the VCR. Mr. Higgins testified that Ms. Turnbull did not yell at him. Mr. Higgins said that he was not the type of person who would accept being yelled at without taking some action since he is the assistant principal and Ms. Turnbull is a media specialist. Mr. Higgins testified that he “returned the book, kind of finished the tech issue with work and walked out.” Mr. Higgins did not witness any yelling, screaming, or anything like that. Similarly, Ms. Turnbull did not recall any interaction with Mr. York on that day, although she recalled that some time before that day she had asked Mr. York to remove a cassette that had gotten stuck in her VCR. She conceded that, although she did not recall him being there, he could have been in the media center on that date. Ms. Turnbull recalled the student Mr. York mentioned in his testimony, although she did not recall her name. The student had a physical exceptionality and used an assistive device to walk. Ms. Turnbull was not aware of the student having any intellectual exceptionality. Like Mr. York, she did not observe the student crying at any point, and testified that she did not observe her upset or with a quivering lip. Ms. Turnbull did not intend to disparage or embarrass the student. Scott McNichols is the principal at Forest Hill. He testified that homeroom teacher Ms. Goodson reported an incident with Ms. Turnbull. Mr. McNichols had Ms. Goodson complete a witness statement. When Ms. Goodson provided the statement, Mr. McNichols contacted the school district labor relations department. Mr. McNichols spoke to no other witnesses about the matter. In general, classes at Forest Hill were heterogeneous with all different kinds of students mixed together. Ms. Goodson’s class was not an exceptional student education (“ESE”) class. She had some students with Individual Education Plans “(IEPs”), and some without. The level of the students in Ms. Goodson’s class was not advertised to the public. A teacher on the art wheel would only know whether Ms. Goodson’s class had ESE students if the ESE contact informed her. Mr. McNichols had no way to know whether the ESE contact informed a teacher as to the existence and nature of a student’s IEP. Ms. Turnbull specifically testified that the ESE contact never informed her of such matters concerning Ms. Goodson’s class. Ms. Vicki Evans-Paré is the director of Employment and Labor Relations for the District. She has held that position for a little over two years and is responsible for handling the CBA and employee discipline, along with other duties. With regard to employee discipline, it is her office that investigates and maintains discipline files. After consultation with the Superintendent regarding his decision as to employee discipline, her office is responsible for drafting the notice of recommendation to the employee that the Superintendent signs. With regard to Respondent’s case, Ms. Evans-Paré testified that she is familiar with Ms. Turnbull’s discipline file. As a records custodian for Petitioner, she provided clear and uncontroverted testimony with regard to the CBA’s provisions for progressive discipline and skipping steps when there is either an immediate danger to the health, safety, and welfare of students or district and/or a flagrant and purposeful violation of the rules. As the director, she makes recommendations regarding discipline to the Superintendent, and she found that Ms. Turnbull had a history of making inappropriate comments to students and acting inappropriately and had previously been given warnings and reprimands; such that, skipping steps, to suspension, was warranted given that prior discipline was not having an effect at all on Respondent’s behavior. Ms. Evans-Paré further testified as to the past practice under the CBA relating to the use of a verbal reprimand with written notation relative to notice of previously given directives. The CBA refers to the personnel file in Article II, Section B, under Rights and Responsibilities. In that provision, it states that “no item can be used to the detriment of an employee unless it is a part of his/her personnel file.” The two verbal reprimands that were offered into evidence were not being offered for progressive discipline purposes, but as allowed under Article II, Section M - Discipline of Employees, as follows: 5. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee’s personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited. * * * Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District, a District employee, and/or a child/children or the actions/inactions of the employee clearly constitute flagrant or purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand with a Written Notation - Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee’s personnel file maintained at the District headquarters, but will be placed in a file at the school/department and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve (12) months of the action/inaction of the employee which led to the notation. The written notification shall be maintained at the school site/department pursuant to the District’s Records Retention Schedule. Under the discipline section, the verbal reprimands are certainly a matter of record that is permitted to be cited to, and the phrase “to the detriment of the employee” that is in the section regarding the personnel file, was not included. The terms in the CBA regarding the verbal reprimand and personnel file are not ambiguous. Therefore, they must be given their ordinary meaning. Rivercrest Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Homes 4 Rent Props. One, LLC, 298 So. 3d 106, 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Respondent acknowledged that she was trained in the Code of Ethics and that she had received previous directives regarding appropriate interaction with students, failure to exercise best professional judgment, and insubordination. She further acknowledged that she had received the allegations against her in the pre-determination notice and packet. Respondent has a prior disciplinary history. Respondent received a Written Reprimand on or about February 24, 2004, while working at Addison Mizner Elementary School, for “actions that violated the Code of Ethics, Sections 2(a) and (e).” At the time, Respondent inappropriately addressed five students (three ESE students, one “504” student, and a “regular” education student) when she “withheld the Valentine’s Day classroom party” for “talking,” for “forgetting materials,” and for “being off task.” Respondent received a Written Reprimand on or about June 5, 2014, from the Office of Professional Standards at the District for violations of School Board policies: 5.002, Prohibition of Bullying and Harassment; 3.02, Code of Ethics; 3.01, Commitment to the Student, Principle I; and 1.013, Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; as well as Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in Florida, and 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. At the time, Respondent “allowed the students to publicly assess their peers, deciding which students were creating a distraction, and which students were ‘hard-working.’” Respondent also “segregated’’ the students by sitting the “distracting” students in the back and also disparaging a student in front of the class ‘‘by suggesting that he should have learned certain skills when he was in kindergarten.” Respondent received a Written Reprimand on or about May 21, 2018, from the Office of Professional Standards at the District for “[failing] to exercise [her] best professional judgment, ethical misconduct, inappropriate interaction with students, and for failure to follow policy, rule, or directive.” At the time, Ms. Turnbull said “shut up” and “stupid” during work hours, and the students said they perceived it as being directed at them. Later on, during the Pre-Determination Meeting (PDM), Ms. Turnbull stated, “The District can go to hell,” while school administration recalled her saying “You go to hell.” Respondent received a Verbal Reprimand (Written Notation) on or about April 17, 2019, while working at Forest Hill, for her unprofessional conduct towards employees during duty hours and for failing to exercise her best professional judgment. At the time, an employee borrowed a Sharpie from Ms. Turnbull’s desk. Respondent reacted by addressing the employee “in a rude and confrontational manner” in the presence of “students and volunteers.” Later, Respondent “went after [the employee] again, continued berating her (disrespecting the personal space between both of [them]), and even mocked her.” The District’s process for determining the discipline to be imposed on Ms. Turnbull in this matter went through Ms. Evans-Paré, the director of Employee and Labor Relations for the District. She testified about the practices of her department and that Ms. Turnbull had received letters and notices of hearing, reassignments within the District, and a copy of the investigative report, which was prepared by another individual, who did not testify in the case. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that progressive discipline begins with a Verbal Reprimand with Written Notation for teachers. It then goes to Written Reprimand, suspension of any number of days, and then to termination. She believes that the employer can “jump steps” and that the CBA permitted that practice when there was “a real and immediate danger to the District, to students, to faculty, to adults, and then also if it’s a flagrant and purposeful violation of the rules.” She explained that steps were skipped in this case because of the nature of the allegation. Additionally, that it was a flagrant and purposeful violation. This is something that has been going on for years with making inappropriate comments to students, acting inappropriately. So[,] at a certain point you just move forward and progressive discipline, you can jump steps because the warnings, the other reprimands, they weren’t having any effect at all. And it was continually doing harm to students. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that the purpose of progressive discipline, and all the notices referenced in her testimony, is to ensure that the employee be told that an action is wrong and that the employee is not to repeat it, and to provide the opportunity to adjust his or her behavior accordingly. She admitted that its purpose was to give a person the opportunity to be advised that particular conduct was wrong and, therefore, be able to avoid it in the future. In her testimony, Ms. Evans-Paré stated that the recommendation of District administrators that went to the School Board in this case was for termination. She recommended termination, based on the fact that statements made by Respondent were to disabled ESE students, and what she termed the number of statements calling them “stupid” and “slow.” Ms. Evans-Paré claimed that Ms. Turnbull “did them over and over. Enough is enough.” Notwithstanding that testimony, Ms. Evans-Paré testified that only the School Board can suspend a teacher without pay. On cross-examination, she made it clear that pursuant to Florida Statutes, the ultimate decision maker concerning employee discipline, even beyond herself, is the Superintendent, and then, beyond him, the School Board. She did not testify as to any formal action taken by the School Board in this case and did not reference or provide any document which set forth any action by the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order finding that “just cause” exists to discipline Ms. Turnbull, by upholding her prior suspension, without pay, for 15-days, and restoring all benefits and back pay that have been lost/withheld since November 21, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2021. Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire V. Danielle Williams, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D., Superintendent School District of Palm Beach County 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact In 1987, Steven E. Belford, hereinafter Mr. Belford, began his employment with the Palm Beach County School Board, hereinafter School Board, as a School Police Officer. From 1991 through April 1995, Mr. Belford considered the conduct of the School Board’s employees, including supervisory and management personnel, towards him to be racially hostile. During this same time period, from 1992 through April 1995, the School Board considered the conduct of Mr. Belford towards co-workers, supervisors, superiors, and students to be inappropriate. On April 10, 1995, a meeting, which could affect Mr. Belford’s employment, was held regarding his job performance. At this meeting, Mr. Belford was represented by counsel from the Police Benevolent Association, hereinafter PBA. Also among those present at the meeting was James Kelly, Chief of the School Police for the School Board. Chief Kelly was concerned with Mr. Belford’s conduct in the performance of his duties. During this meeting, Mr. Belford described the problems that he was experiencing in the work place. After listening to Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly’s concerns extended to the safety of students, staff, and visitors at the school to which Mr. Belford was assigned. As a result of this meeting, Chief Kelly determined that Mr. Belford should and would be required to undergo a fitness for duty examination. Mr. Belford’s PBA counsel advised him to undergo the fitness for duty examination. Even though Mr. Belford’s position was that there was no basis for the examination and that it was, therefore, inappropriate, he agreed to the examination. Mr. Belford was willing to comply with whatever was required of him, even though he may not agree, to keep his job. It is undisputed that the referral of Mr. Belford for a psychological evaluation was reasonable. On April 25 and 26, 1995, Dr. Harley V. Stock performed what he referred to as the “mandatory fitness for duty examination.” In Dr. Stock’s evaluation, dated May 3, 1995,2 he stated, among other things, the following: [Mr. Belford] shows no impairment in relationship to reality. . . . there was no indication of any underlying mood disorder. . . . There is no indication of any underlying thought disorder. . . . In summary this examiner has had the opportunity to review a significant amount of collateral information regarding Mr. Belford’s employment with the Palm Beach School Police Department. It appears that he has had fluctuating reviews, particularly in areas as it relates [sic] to interpersonal interactions. When confronted with documentation, Mr. Belford always has an “excuse”. He essentially feels that most of the problems that he is currently facing are a result of racial discrimination. He takes absolutely no responsibility for his own behavior. He is overly suspicious about other people’s motives towards him. He denies any type of provocative physical action towards the students or others. He believes that he is “misunderstood”. Psychological testing reveals him to be a skeptical, suspicious, over-controlled individual who may have the propensity to lose his “temper” at times when provoked. He, however, will have no insight into this. Instead, he would rather shift the blame, and responsibility to others for any problems that he finds himself in. I find some of Mr. Belford’s explanations for his behavior, as contained in the allegations, incredible. Based on psychological testing, Dr. Stock made the following recommendations in his evaluation: Because of his current psychologic [sic] functioning, his behavior at this time cannot be predicted in terms of his interactions with students and faculty members. He obviously harbors a great deal of hostility towards others, but does not either acknowledge, or recognize it. This can lead to episodes where he may become physically assaultive at the most, or at the very least, verbally aggressive in a way that is inappropriate in a school environment. I would therefore recommend that he is temporarily Unfit For Duty and that he needs mandatory psychologic [sic] counseling. Mandatory psychologic [sic] counseling means that the School Board should be appraised [sic] of his keeping scheduled counseling appointments, and that within a reasonable time, he be re-evaluated to ascertain whether he is making any progress in psychotherapy and gaining any insight into how to both understand his behavior and to modulate his impulses. During the time of treatment, I would recommend that he not engage in any functions that would place him in the role of having any type of “police authority”. This would include coming into contact with students and administrators. However, his psychologic [sic] condition does not render him totally incapable of employment. A “light duty” position would be appropriate in which he can carry on selected roles as described by the School Board while receiving treatment. After treatment is completed, within a reasonable time, Mr. Belford should then be re-evaluated to see if indeed treatment has had any effect on him. At that juncture, a further determination can be made about his work placement. In a meeting held on May 17, 1995, the results of Dr. Stock’s evaluation were discussed with Mr. Belford who was accompanied by his PBA counsel. Mr. Belford was advised that Dr. Stock considered him to be temporarily unfit for duty. In May 1995, in accordance with Dr. Stock’s recommendations, Mr. Belford was removed from duty. He was assigned light duty in the risk management department while he underwent counseling. Mr. Belford’s psychological counseling sessions were conducted by MCC Behavioral Care. His counseling sessions began on May 18, 1995. The School Board coordinated Mr. Belford’s appointments with MCC Behavioral Care and Dr. Stock. Melinda Wong was the coordinator for the School Board. During his last counseling session with MCC Behavioral Care held on August 4, 1995, Mr. Belford and his counselor agreed that he need not return to MCC Behavioral Care for any more counseling sessions. However, the counselor did not indicate to Mr. Belford whether he should or was required to return to Dr. Stock for a final evaluation. In August 1995, a representative from Ms. Wong’s office informed Mr. Belford that his final evaluation with Dr. Stock would be conducted on August 29, 1995. Mr. Belford attended the session with Dr. Stock on August 29, 1995. Mr. Belford departed the session with the understanding that the session was for his final evaluation and that Dr. Stock would submit his final report to the School Board within the next week. However, no final determination was made by Dr. Stock regarding Mr. Belford’s fitness for duty. Dr. Stock had concerns regarding the appropriateness of the counseling provided to Mr. Belford by MCC Behavioral Care. During the month of September 1995 and subsequent months, Mr. Belford periodically inquired of Ms. Wong about the status of Dr. Stock's final determination. Each time, she informed him that no determination had been made by Dr. Stock. Mr. Belford was clearly frustrated. On October 5, 1995, Mr. Belford filed a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, hereinafter EEOC, against the School Board. Finally, Dr. Stock's office contacted Ms. Wong and informed her that Dr. Stock needed to have one more session with Mr. Belford in order to make a final evaluation. Ms. Wong arranged for the session to be conducted on January 3, 1996, after Mr. Belford's Christmas vacation. On Friday, December 15, 1995, at approximately 2:40 p.m., Ms. Wong went to Mr. Belford’s workplace which was in the immediate vicinity of her workplace. She advised Mr. Belford that he needed to attend a final session with Dr. Stock on January 3, 1996, in order for Dr. Stock to prepare the final evaluation. Believing that he had attended his final session with Dr. Stock on August 29, 1995, and that Ms. Wong was not aware of the final session, Mr. Belford informed Ms. Wong that he had already completed his final session and requested that she check her records. Mr. Belford was visibly tense and upset. Ms. Wong was surprised by Mr. Belford's reaction. She interpreted Mr. Belford's conduct as refusing to attend his last session with Dr. Stock for a final evaluation. Ms. Wong departed Mr. Belford’s workplace and immediately contacted Chief Kelly. Seeking advice, Chief Kelly telephoned Louis Haddad, the School Board’s Coordinator of Employee Relations. Mr. Haddad advised Chief Kelly to immediately contact Mr. Belford and to arrange a meeting with Mr. Belford that afternoon in Mr. Haddad's office, which was in the same building. Attending the meeting would be Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly, Ms. Wong, and Mr. Haddad. Chief Kelly telephoned Mr. Belford and informed Mr. Belford that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Haddad's office. Mr. Belford informed Chief Kelly that he was getting-off work in approximately 10 minutes at 3:00 p.m.. At that time, Chief Kelly made it clear that he was giving Mr. Belford a direct order to attend the meeting. Mr. Belford advised Chief Kelly that he wanted his counsel present at the meeting. Chief Kelly did not respond to Mr. Belford's request, but asked him if he was refusing to attend the meeting, thereby disobeying a direct order. Immediately, Mr. Belford became nervous and afraid and felt queasy in the stomach. He inquired as to the location of the meeting. Chief Kelly informed him where the meeting was being held, and they both terminated the telephone conversation. Mr. Belford was on duty when Chief Kelly gave him the direct order to attend the meeting. Mr. Belford did not refuse to attend the meeting. He intended to attend the meeting. When the telephone conversation ended, Chief Kelly had a reasonable expectation that Mr. Belford would obey the direct order and attend the meeting being held that afternoon. Shortly after the telephone conversation with Chief Kelly, Mr. Belford began recalling the events leading up to the telephone conversation, and his nervousness and queasy feeling intensified. Mr. Belford became ill and was unable to attend the meeting. He departed from his workplace without notifying anyone of his sudden illness3 and without attending the meeting. While waiting for Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly, not being aware that Mr. Belford had departed his workplace, telephoned Mr. Belford's PBA counsel and informed him of the meeting and briefly of the underlying circumstances. The PBA counsel considered the meeting appropriate and advised Chief Kelly that he would be available by telephone when Mr. Belford arrived. Immediately after leaving his office, Mr. Belford contacted his new counsel. At approximately 3:25 p.m., a representative from the office of Mr. Belford's new counsel telephoned Chief Kelly. The representative of Mr. Belford's new counsel indicated to Chief Kelly that Mr. Belford would not be attending the meeting due to his sudden illness. Chief Kelly informed the representative that Mr. Belford had disobeyed a direct order and that, among other things, Mr. Belford was relieved of duty and would be recommended for termination due to insubordination. Prior to this telephone call, Chief Kelly had no knowledge that anyone other than the PBA counsel was representing Mr. Belford. Unbeknownst to the PBA counsel and Chief Kelly, Mr. Belford had decided prior to December 15, 1995, that he no longer wanted the PBA counsel's representation and that he wanted new counsel. On Monday, December 18, 1995, the next business day, Chief Kelly received written notification from Mr. Belford's new counsel regarding the reason for Mr. Belford's failure to attend the meeting. It is undisputed that there is no right to consult an attorney before obeying a direct order of a superior officer. Furthermore, it is undisputed that obeying a direct order from a superior officer is a critical and important aspect of the responsibilities of a police officer. On December 20, 1995, Chief Kelly recommended that Mr. Belford be terminated from employment with the School Board for insubordination. Mr. Belford never had a session with Dr. Stock subsequent to August 29, 1995. It was reasonable for Mr. Belford to presume that, since he was being recommended for termination, he was not expected to attend any future session with Dr. Stock. Dr. Stock never made a final determination as to whether Mr. Belford was fit to return to duty. On January 9, 1996, a pre-termination meeting was held with Mr. Belford at which he was represented by counsel. At the meeting, Mr. Belford was notified that he was being terminated for gross insubordination. By letter dated January 26, 1996, the School Board notified Mr. Belford that he was being suspended without pay and that he was being recommended for termination due to gross insubordination. On February 23, 1996, the School Board responded to Mr. Belford's charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. The School Police for the School Board has a written policy regarding separation from employment. The policy defines gross insubordination in section "IV. C. Suspension/Termination" as "a willful disregard or constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority." Furthermore, section "IV. D." provides that "Employees included in a bargaining unit are subject to suspension/dismissal provisions of the collective bargaining agreement." The School Board and the Palm Beach County PBA have a collective bargaining agreement, hereinafter CBA. Article 7 of the CBA, entitled "Police Officers Bill of Rights," provides in pertinent part as follows: 7.1 All law enforcement officers employed by the School Board shall have the following rights and privileges: Whenever a law enforcement officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his agency for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal, such interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions: * * * I. At the request of any law enforcement officer under investigation, he/she shall have the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his/her choice who shall be present at all times during such interrogation when the interrogation relates to the officer's continued fitness for law enforcement service. * * * 5. No law enforcement officer shall be discharged, disciplined, demoted, or denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment, or otherwise be discriminated against in regard to his/her employment, or be threatened with any such treatment, by reason of his/her exercise of the rights granted by this part. Article 29 of the CBA, entitled "Progressive Discipline," provides in pertinent part as follows: This Section covers actions involving oral or written warnings, written reprimands, suspensions, demotions, dismissals, or reductions in grade or pay with prejudice. Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. * * * 8. The discipline, dismissal, demotion, and suspension of any employee shall be for just cause. Where just cause warrants such action(s), any employee may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation of the Chief of Police to the Superintendent of Schools. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the District or other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal warning (written notation). Written warning. Written reprimand filed in Personnel. Suspension with or without pay. Dismissal. It is inferred and a finding is made that Mr. Belford is a member of the Palm Beach County PBA and is, therefore, subject to the collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order revoking the suspension and dismissal and reinstating Steven E. Belford under terms and conditions as are appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 380391, Post Graduate, Rank II, valid through June 30, 1986, covering the areas of math and junior college. Respondent was employed in the public schools of Palm Beach County as a math teacher at Lake Shore Middle School for the 1979-1980 school year. During the first few weeks of school, Respondent summoned her students into the classroom by shouting an obscenity at them and staged a funeral ceremony for a dead rat in her math class. Students reported these incidents to the principal and to the assistant principal for administration at Lake Shore Middle School. Respondent told another teacher in her carpool that she had found herself in the emergency room of a hospital and did not know how she had gotten there or why she was there. She further admitted being under the care of a psychiatrist. On October 12, 1979, Respondent was seen outside chasing students in an attempt to get them into her classroom, including students that did not belong there. Later, Assistant Principal Davis took Respondent out of her classroom and sent her to the teachers' lounge since she was unable to maintain control over her students in the classroom. Respondent later became subject to alternating outbursts of laughing and crying, without apparent reason. Respondent was driven home by the members of her carpool. Respondent did not return to Lake Shore Middle School. She was absent without leave from October 13, 1979, until her written resignation was accepted by the Palm Beach County School Board on December 3, 1979. On June 18, 1979, Respondent was arrested for possession of marijuana. She elected to participate in the Palm Beach County Pre-Trial Intervention Program. On November 8, 1979, Respondent was again arrested for possession of marijuana. Respondent was not prosecuted pursuant to the first arrest because of her participation and completion of the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. The record in this cause contains no evidence as to the disposition of Respondent's second arrest. The Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate dated July 29, 1980, was mailed by certified mail to Respondent at her last-known address. This and all subsequent mailings to her at her last-known address were returned marked "Unclaimed." Notice of Action was published in The Post, a Palm Beach County newspaper. Respondent's present whereabouts is unknown to each of the Petitioner's witnesses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered revoking the teaching certificate of Henrietta Forbes, certificate number 380391. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Woods, Johnston, Carlson & Sanford 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Henrietta Forbes 1812 "B" Road Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held Florida Educator Certificate 477777, covering Physical Education and Social Sciences. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School Board and assigned to a classroom at BRHS, where he taught psychology and history. In recent years, Respondent has taught advanced placement classes. The evidence established that Respondent is well-liked by students, parents, and faculty. The present principal of BRHS, who was not at the school during the 1985-86 or 2001-2002 school years, considers Respondent to be an asset to the school. FACTS PERTAINING TO K.P. AND B.K. Prior to the end of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent invited several female senior students to join him for dinner in celebration of their upcoming graduation. Respondent was 33 years old at that time. Each of these females was either 17 or 18-years-of-age. K.P. (now known as K.F.) was 17 and B.K. (now known as B.M.) was 18. K.P. and B.K. were invited to and attended the dinner and subsequent celebration. The dinner invitations were extended by Respondent, who was their teacher, during the school year. There was a conflict in the evidence as to when this dinner engagement occurred.2 That conflict is resolved by finding that the dinner engagement occurred at the Cork and Cleaver restaurant in Boca Raton prior to the graduation ceremonies for the class of 1986. At least four female seniors were invited to Respondent’s celebration. K.P., B.K., and two other female students attended the dinner. All four of the students consumed alcohol at the restaurant that was purchased by Respondent. Respondent knew that the drinking age was 21 and he knew that each of the girls was under that age. Respondent also consumed alcohol at the restaurant. Following the meal, K.P. and B.K. sat on a bench outside the restaurant and continued to drink alcoholic beverages with Respondent. After approximately five bottles of champagne and/or wine had been consumed, Respondent K.P. and B.K. went from the bench outside the restaurant to Respondent’s house. The three of them were alone in Respondent’s house for several hours. At Respondent’s house they drank four to five additional bottles of wine. The quantity of alcohol consumed by Respondent, B.K., and K.P. that evening impaired their judgment. By all accounts, K.P. was inebriated and incapable of consenting to the acts that followed. Both B.K. and K.P. were excellent students who had little or no experience with alcohol. During the 1985-86 school year, K.P. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity teams in basketball, volleyball, and softball. During that school year, B.K. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity tennis team. After K.P. became inebriated, Respondent and K.P. went to Respondent’s bedroom where Respondent had inappropriate sexual relations with her. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent had sexual intercourse with K.P. K.P. testified, credibly, that Respondent had sexual intercourse with her and that she suffered bleeding and discomfort the following day. K.P. also testified, credibly, that she had been a virgin up until that evening. Respondent admitted that K.P. was with him in his darkened bedroom with little or no clothes on, but he denied having sexual intercourse with her. Respondent admitted that he fondled K.P.’s breasts and engaged in what he described as “heavy petting.” The undersigned finds Respondent’s denial that he had sexual intercourse with K.P. also to be credible. In view of conflicting, credible testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence to substantiate the fact of sexual intercourse as opposed to the fact that there was the opportunity for sexual intercourse, the undersigned is constrained to conclude that Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with K.P. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that K.P. did not consent to Respondent’s inappropriate sexual behavior because she was too intoxicated and too young to do so. Respondent knew or should have known that K.P. was incapable of consenting to his behavior. After Respondent and K.P. entered Respondent’s bedroom, B.K. left Respondent’s house and drove around the block in her car for approximately 20 minutes. Because she was concerned about K.P., B.K. returned to Respondent’s house. When she returned to Respondent’s house, B.K. looked for K.P. She stepped into the doorway of Respondent’s bedroom and saw Respondent and K.P. in bed together. K.P. was not fully clothed, and the clothes she had on were in disarray. K.P. told B.K. to come in and get in the bed with them. K.P. grabbed B.K.’s arm and pulled her toward the bed. B.K. entered the bedroom and briefly lay on the bed with Respondent and K.P. Shortly thereafter, B.K. got up and left Respondent’s bedroom. Because she was feeling dizzy, B.K. lay down on a mattress in another bedroom. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. It is clear that K.P. either intentionally cut herself or accidentally opened a cut on her hand. Respondent testified that K.P. accidentally opened up a cut on her finger while in his bedroom and then went to the kitchen. K.P. testified that she went from Respondent’s bedroom to the kitchen and intentionally cut herself in reaction to what had happened with Respondent. How the cut occurred is not relevant. It is relevant that Respondent went in the kitchen and helped K.P. stop the bleeding. After leaving the kitchen area, Respondent observed B.K. lying on the mattress in the second bedroom. He lay down on the mattress with B.K. with his body touching hers. He tried to kiss B.K., but she resisted his efforts. Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with B.K. by lying next to her with his body in contact with hers and trying to kiss her. Respondent was obviously attempting to sexually arouse B.K. When K.P. saw Respondent and B.K. together in the second bedroom, she yelled at B.K. that they needed to get out of Respondent’s house. B.K. and K.P. then exited Respondent’s house and they returned to their respective homes in B.K.’s car without further incident. The next day, Respondent contacted B.K. and K.P. separately and apologized to them for his conduct. Respondent also apologized to B.K. for his conduct with K.P. Respondent stated that he had been unable to resist their athletic bodies. Respondent gave each of these girls a pair of diamond earrings as a gift. K.P. and B.K. did not report these events to any authority figure until 1993.3 As a result of difficulties K.P. (then known as K.F.) was having with sex in her marriage, she and her husband underwent counseling. It was during a session she and her husband had with their therapist that she revealed the events of the evening in 1986. Her husband, a teacher, felt obliged to report the incident to the Palm Beach County School District, which he did without naming K.P. and B.K. as being the students involved. His wife became upset when she learned of the report. After further reflection, K.P. revealed to the Palm Beach County School District that she and B.K. were the students involved with Respondent on the evening in question. The Palm Beach School District investigated the allegations, but it did not report these allegations to Petitioner. Petitioner learned of these events during its investigation of the facts pertaining to K.S. FACTS PERTAINING TO L.E. L.E., a female, graduated from BRHS in 1986. Respondent met L.E. when she was a freshman at BRHS and he subsequently became attracted to her. During her senior year, Respondent offered tickets to a Miami Dolphins football game to L.E. and other students as a reward for helping him grade papers in the class they took from him. Before she graduated, Respondent told L.E. that after she graduated he wanted to take her to dinner. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with L.E. before she graduated. After she graduated, Respondent treated L.E. to dinner,4 gave her a pair of diamond earrings, and told her he wanted to be more than friends. Later during the summer of 1986, Respondent and L.E. went to Marathon, Florida, together and also traveled to San Francisco, California, at Respondent’s expense. DISCIPLINE PERTAINING TO K.S. K.S., a female, attended BRHS for her freshman through her senior years. She graduated in 2003. Respondent was K.S.’s history teacher in her junior year and her psychology teacher her senior year. During the 2001-2002 school year, K.S. confided certain personal family matters to Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct toward K.S. On at least five occasions toward the end of the 2001-02 school year Respondent came to her place of employment (a Kmart) looking for her. On one occasion he left her a gift of a cheesecake and on another he left a bag of M & M candy as a gift. These visits upset and frightened K.S. At the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, Respondent physically hugged K.S. when he first saw her in his psychology class. On several occasions Respondent put his hands on K.S.’s shoulders and massaged them. On one occasion he rubbed her hair. This type physical contact continued even after K.S. told Respondent not to touch her. On one occasion Respondent referred to K.S. in front of her classmates as being his “baby.” Respondent’s conduct upset and embarrassed K.S. K.S. complained to Robert O’Leath, a dean of students at BRHS, about Respondent’s behavior. Following an investigation of these allegations, the School Board of Palm Beach County suspended Respondent’s employment without pay for a period of ten days and required him to attend diversity and sensitivity training. Respondent did not contest this discipline.
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 set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the final order permanently revoke Respondent’s educator certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 25th day of February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Jeffrey L. Leon was employed on annual contract by the Broward County School Board at Deerfield Beach High School during the school year 1977-78 in the capacity of administrative assistant (or dean) . Although the dean's functions were not fully explained deans act as counsellors to students and every student is assigned to a dean. At Deerfield Beach High School there are 4 deans and 2400-2600 students giving each dean some 600 students. Since problem students have more occasion to have contact with the dean than do students without problems, it is also evident that deans spend most of their time with the students having problems in, e.g., attendance, discipline, parental and drugs. In July 1977 Respondent took one of the students who was assigned to him during the school year, Deborah Kuhn, to Bimini on two occasions where they remained overnight or longer. This was the month of Debbie's 17th birthday. On the first trip another couple was also on the boat and at Bimini all stayed at the home of a friend of Respondent's. On the second Bimini trip three other men accompanied Debbie and Respondent. On one of these trips Respondent accompanied Debbie to a bar where they consumed about 3 drinks. It is legal for a minor to drink in Bimini. The time was spent in Bimini diving and fishing and that appeared to be the prime purpose of the trip. This incident came to the attention of the principal of Deerfield Beach High School when he received a letter from the parents of Debbie in January 1978. The allegations were subsequently investigated and, when interrogated by the investigator, Debbie emphatically stated on each of the 3 occasions that no sexual relations with Respondent occurred on these trips. She did acknowledge smoking pot on one occasion on the boat and taking a quaalude. This was not in the presence of Respondent, although he was on the boat and became aware of the use of pot while it was going on. The evidence wad unrebutted that Debbie Kuhn had been a problem to her parents since she was about 12 when she became involved with drugs and alcohol. She admitted to the use of marijuana, quaaludes and cocaine. At one time while attending Deerfield Beach High School she was also involved with selling marijuana which was apparently supplied by her boyfriend. During the period Debbie acknowledged dealing in pot she was living with a girlfriend in an apartment on the beach. The situation at home had reached the point Debbie's parents exercised no effective control and were ready to give up on her. Accordingly when she suggested she move to the apartment her parents consented. The school was advised by the Kuhns not to call them if Debbie was late, came to school stoned, et cetera. At this time Debbie was described by Respondent as "hard core" and difficult to convince to alter the pattern of her life. According to Respondent he made the offer to Debbie to go to Bimini for the purpose of showing her another side of life unassociated with drugs in the hope that she could be induced to change her life style. Respondent acknowledged that Debbie smoked pot on one occasion on the first trip to Bimini. However, the smoking had started while he was diving for lobsters and he became aware of it when he came aboard. As one actively opposed to the use of any drugs Respondent stayed outside the cabin in the rain until the smoking had ceased. Respondent emphatically denied any sexual involvement with Debbie at Bimini while in her testimony Debbie stated she had sexual intercourse with Respondent on each of the two trips to Bimini. This testimony was objected to by Respondent on grounds that no such conduct was alleged and evidence of unalleged misconduct was not admissible. The objection was overruled by the Hearing Officer. Witnesses testifying on behalf of Respondent included police, teachers, other deans, and parents. Three parents whose children Respondent had helped averred that without the efforts of Respondent these children would not have remained in school. One witness's children had dropped out of Deerfield Beach High School after Respondent was transferred. One of the parents was a former dean and current principal of a middle grade school. He and his wife both consider Respondent to have had a highly beneficial effect on their boys while under his supervision, without which at least one of these boys would not have graduated. This parent would be delighted to have Respondent as a dean at his school. The third parent also credited Respondent's interest in her son and the diversion of his energies into athletics with saving him from dropping out of school aid leading him into a currently successful life. Other deans at Deerfield Beach High School described Respondent as effective, competent, and a hard worker who was vitally interested in the welfare of the students. These deans have worked with Respondent for several years and not only expressed high regard for Respondent but also had heard no rumors regarding the Bimini trip which adversely reflected on Respondent at the school. Respondent has cooperated with the police by turning in names of students suspected of dealing in drugs. Some dealers had girlfriends in Deerfield Beach High School who they were using to distribute pot. Respondent supported all school programs by his presence and encouragement to students to attend. He established excellent relations with both the latin community and the black community. In each of these communities he was accepted and respected. He had the reputation of being fair to all and unalterably opposed to drugs. The Petition mentioned two prior incidents in which Respondent's judgment in his involvement with children had been questioned. The first involved a female student assigned to another dean who had a serious psychological problem induced by molestation by her stepfather. She was also involved with drugs. Whether the molestation precipitated the drug use was not clear but it did aggravate the problem and, on one occasion, caused the child to take 17 or 18 valium one day enroute to school. When called and told their daughter was sick, her parents would not come for her. Subsequently the student ended up in a psychiatric hospital where her only visitors were Respondent and the other dean (a woman). Upon her release from the hospital she stayed with Respondent and his wife for two to three weeks, then for a while with the other dean before returning to her home. This student credits these two deans with her salvation. Respondent's action in allowing this student to stay at his home was the previous conduct questioned by the principal but the principal was happy with the results. The other incident referred to in the Petition involved an allegation that Respondent had called a female student assigned to him and offered to take her to dinner without advising the child's parents. When the parents so advised the school Respondent insisted on a meeting with the parents at which all questions were resolved. It was undisputed that Respondent, in order to improve a student's dress or cleanliness would offer a prize or bet if they could improve within a specified time. In the incident referred to Respondent had advised the girl he would bet her a dinner that she couldn't let her fingernails grow and be kept clean for 30 days. She won the wager and something she said to her parents led them to write to the principal. When one of these wagers was lost by Respondent the winner was treated to a hamburger at McDonald's. From all the evidence presented it is clear that when resolving the conflicting testimony given by Debbie and the Respondent the latter is much more worthy of belief. Debbie's reputation for truth and veracity was poor. While Respondent could be considered to have a self-preservation motive in not telling the truth with respect to his involvement with Debbie, the latter also had a motive for prevarication with respect to Respondent. The first statement by Debbie regarding sexual involvement with Respondent was made to her parents while Debbie was trying to move back to her parents' home. It was also after she had been suspended from school for 3 days by Respondent and after learning that Respondent had turned her name into the police as a drug suspect. Unfortunately no detailed testimony surrounding the alleged intercourse, such as time, place and other detailed circumstances, was elicited from which the more probable testimony could have been ascertained. Respondent is an activist in looking out for his students (as well as perhaps all of this age group) . This included non-school time looking for runaways, attending school sports events and social events as an encouragement to students to also attend, coaching a wrestling team after his regular school hours and generally being available for consultation at all hours. From all the testimony and evidence presented no credible testimony was submitted to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had sexual relations with one of his students or that taking this student on an overnight trip to Bimini seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. In fact little evidence was introduced to show that this incident even slightly reduced Respondent's effectiveness. The Deerfield Beach High School principal's source of information that some of the students were aware of disciplinary action against Respondent was that two of these students had presented to him a petition protesting Respondent's transfer from Deerfield Beach High School as a result of the charges considered at this hearing.
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on grounds that he violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1979), as alleged, by making sexual advances toward his female students on four separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, including consideration of the validity and demeanor of witnesses, the following facts are determined: Respondent, Lawrence Longenecker ("LONGENECKER"), at all times material hereto held a Florida teacher's certificate: Certificate No. 283801, Post Graduate, Rank II, valid through June 30, 1986, covering the areas of secondary biology, junior high science, guidance, and junior college. (Joint Exhibit 1.) LONGENECKER was employed as a science teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School, a public school in Pinellas County, Florida, during the 1976-1977 and 1977-1978 school years, until his resignation in January, 1978. (Joint Exhibit 1.) I. Longenecker's Sexual Advances Toward Three Female Students The COUNCIL alleged, and has established that LONGENECKER made sexual advances toward three (3) female students on four separate occasions. The first incident occurred during the early morning of January 1, 1977. Robin Hamilton, an eighth grade student of LONGENECKER's at Madeira Beach Middle School, had just finished babysitting for LONGENECKER on the evening of December 31, 1976. While driving her home, LONGENECKER stopped behind a Publix Supermarket across from Madeira Beach Middle School, and asked her if he could "take her up on her offer", referring to his missing a chance to kiss her during a friendly mistletoe Christmas celebration at school earlier in the day. Thinking little of it, she said "okay"; he then kissed her. Five minutes later, he said, "What about one for the good luck of next year--in ninth grade?", and kissed her again. She let him. He then continued driving her home, but took a longer route than required. She told him, "This isn't the right way" home, and he answered, "Don't worry about it, I'll take you home." He then kissed her on the lips, again, putting his arms around her and pulling her closer. She became scared, and insisted he take her home, which he then did. She reported the incident to her parents the next day, and they insisted she tell the school principal; she then reported the incident to John Larson, the assistant principal. LONGENECKER denies having made these advances toward Miss Hamilton. However, her demeanor was direct and detached; she evinced no bias, interest, or motive to falsify, and her testimony is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Hamilton.) The second incident involved LONGENECKER and Elizabeth Karen James, another eighth grade student at Madeira Beach Middle School. He taught science, and she was his student assistant who helped prepare the laboratory, grade papers, and take roll. During January or February, 1977, she was working alone in the back room of the science laboratory; she had her face toward the wall and was leaning against a table. LONGENECKER, while attempting to show her something, leaned heavily against her--the lower part of his body pressing against her lower back side--and placed his hands on her shoulders. The continued pressure of his body against hers--for 2 to 3 minutes--made her scared. While this was going on, he continued to instruct her on preparing the lab for the next day. She waited until he was through and then quickly left the room. Later, she reported the incident to her parents. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks later, the third incident occurred when she was, again, working in the laboratory, and standing two feet from the door. She was leaning against the counter; he came up behind her and leaned heavily against her, in the same manner as he had done previously. She became scared, turned around, and tried to leave. He took her hand, and asked her to remain because he wanted to show her something else. LONGENECKER denies having made sexual advances toward Miss James. However, her testimony was not tainted by bias, intent, or motive to falsify; she evidenced no ill-will or hostility toward LONGENECKER, and her testimony is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of James.) In February or March, 1977, Miss Hamilton and Miss James separately reported the above incidents, involving LONGENECKER, to John Larson, the school's assistant principal. Larson spoke with Dr. Robert Moore, the principal, and they both met with LONGENECKER to discuss the complaints. Dr. Moore expressed his concern over the alleged behavior and explicitly warned LONGENECKER that such conduct was unethical and jeopardized his teaching position. LONGENECKER neither admitted or denied the accusations, but listened, quietly. (Testimony of Moore, Larson, Longenecker.) The fourth incident occurred approximately nine (9) months later, on or about December 3, 1977, and involved Sharon O'Connell, a ninth grade student at Madeira Beach Middle School. LONGENECKER was her science teacher; she was a good student and liked him as a teacher. On the evening of December 3, 1977, Miss O'Connell was babysitting for LONGENECKER. LONGENECKER and his wife returned home at approximately 12:30 a.m., and he drove her home. Instead of taking her directly home, he took her to Madeira Beach Middle School, ostensibly to "pick up something." (Tr. 87.) When they arrived, he took her on a tour of new buildings that were being constructed at the school. It was a cold evening, and he put his arm around her, as if to keep her warm. He moved closer to her, as she was leaning against a wall, and pressed his lower body against her buttocks area. At the same time, he put his hands underneath her arms and rubbed her breasts. She tried to tighten her arms, and became scared; he acted like nothing out of the ordinary was occurring, and continued to talk of the construction work. They then walked to another area of the school, where he leaned her against a door, and repeated his earlier conduct--pressing his lower front against her buttocks and fondling her breasts. He was breathing heavily, and Miss O'Connell was embarrassed and scared. She then pulled away, and asked him to take her home. After several requests, he complied. She reported this incident to her parents, who immediately contacted the Superintendent of Schools. LONGENECKER denies having engaged in this conduct toward Miss O'Connell. Her testimony is, however, accepted as persuasive; she was visibly embarrassed by having to describe this incident, but expressed no hostility toward LONGENECKER; indeed, she indicated sympathy for his plight. (Testimony of O'Connell.) II. Effect of Incidents Upon Longenecker's Effectiveness as a School Board Employee After the incident involving Miss O'Connell was reported, LONGENECKER was called to Dr. Moore's office and confronted with the accusation. LONGENECKER neither admitted, nor clearly denied, the accusation. He was asked to resign immediately, which he did. Since that time, he has held several jobs in commercial establishments, and his efforts to find work as a teacher have been unsuccessful. (Testimony of Moore, Larson, Longenecker.) LONGENECKER's complained-of actions toward the three female students seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School and the immediate area. His misconduct has become generally known to faculty members, students, and their families, and his reemployment as a teacher at Madeira Beach would be opposed by parents and students. (Testimony of Moore.)
Conclusions Respondent is guilty, as alleged, of violating Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes (1979). Due to the repetitive nature of his misconduct and the prior practice of the Board of Education in cases such as this, Respondent's teaching certificate should be permanently revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Lawrence LONGENECKER's teaching certificate No. 283801 be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked pursuant to Section 231.28, F.S. A petition for the revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate was filed by the Vice-Chairman of the Petitioner on October 14, 1975. On October 28, 1975, Henry L. Kaye, Esquire, Hollywood, Florida, attorney for Respondent, filed an answer and other motions in behalf of Respondent. On December 16, 1975, the cause was noticed for hearing at North Palm Beach, Florida on January 14, 1976. The parties stipulated for an indefinite continuance on January 26, 1976. The matter was reset for hearing on November 19, 1976 and notice thereof was amended on September 27, 1976 for hearing to be held on November 18, 1976. On October 1, 1976, the Professional Practices Council relinquished jurisdiction over the cause and requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings take cognizance of the matter. Accordingly, notice of hearing was furnished to counsel for both parties by the undersigned hearing officer on November 2, 1976, for a hearing to be held January 10, 1977 at West Palm Beach, Florida. On December 31, 1976, counsel for Respondent filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record on the grounds that Respondent had not contacted him, had not complied with fee arrangements as agreed, and that he had been unable to contact the Respondent as shown on attached copies of letters addressed to the Respondent at various addresses. However, the aforesaid motion was not received by the hearing officer until a copy was presented to him by counsel for Petitioner on the date of hearing, January 10, 1977, at which time the motion was granted and the Petitioner was permitted to try the case as an uncontested proceeding, as authorized under Rule 28-5.25(5), Florida Administrative Code. (Composite Exhibit 1).
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School System as a mathematics instructor at the Boca Raton Middle School in August, 1974. He presently holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 296746, Graduate, Rank III. (Petition, Testimony of Brake). The City of Boca Raton Police Department used plainclothes officers for a number of months in 1974-1975 to investigate the activities of suspected homosexuals who congregated in a wooded area near the beach in Boca Raton. During a period of about eight months, approximately 150 arrests had been made in the aforesaid area for various sexual and other crimes. Respondent had been observed on several occasions at the location in question and had been warned by police officers to leave the area because of the high incidence of crime there. During such encounters, Respondent had been variously observed perched in a tree wearing a "bikini" bathing suit and hiding in bushes. On May 19, 1975, a plainclothes police officer noticed the Respondent walking up a path in the area. The officer followed him and when they met, Respondent started conversing with the officer. He then moved his leg against that of the officer and stated "we have to be careful, there are lots of cops around. If you were a cop, you would arrest me for this" or words to that effect. The Respondent then grabbed the officer in the genital area at which time the latter produced his identification and arrested the Respondent for assault and battery. He was taken to the police station, warned of his rights, and in a voluntary statement admitted that he was a homosexual. He further stated that he had never molested any of the children at the school where he was employed as a teacher. (Testimony of Collins, Palmisino). On May 27, 1975, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of assault and battery in violation of F.S. 784.O3 in case number 75-4876 in the municipal court, City of Boca Raton, Florida. He was found guilty of the offense and sentenced to pay a fine of $150.00 and ten days in jail. The period of confinement was suspended. (Exhibit 2). Respondent resigned from his employment with the Palm Beach County School System, effective June 29, 1976. During his period of employment he had been a good teacher and there had been no prior reports of misconduct. He had previously been employed at Florida Atlantic University during the period 1972- 72 and Nova University from 1972 to 1974. (Testimony of Brake).
Recommendation That the teaching certificate of Respondent Bruce Joseph Feichtner be revoked permanently under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. Thomas C. Oldham Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Benton, Esquire Room 3, 319 W. Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Michael E. Jackson, Esquire 3323 Belvedere Road, Room 109 West Palm Beach, Florida Mr. Bruce J. Feichtner 482 S. W. 9th Street Boca Raton, Florida Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: BRUCE JOSEPH FEICHTNER DOAH CASE NO. 76-1788 /
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend and terminate the employment of Respondent, a teacher, for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began his employment with the District in November 2014. Respondent was employed as a math teacher for grades 9 through 12 at PBLHS until December 12, 2018, which was his last day in a classroom. Respondent is an experienced teacher who was trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent completed the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. Respondent signed the District’s Code of Ethics each of the three times he received it and was aware it governed his behavior as an employee of the District. Circumstances Giving Rise to Respondent’s Discipline Respondent met former student, S.E., in Haiti in 2015 when she was approximately 15 years old. S.E. and Respondent worked on a political campaign together. While in Haiti, Respondent became friendly with S.E. and her family. Respondent was aware that S.E. was planning to come to the United States to attend high school. In 2018, while S.E. was an 11th grade student at PBLHS, Respondent was a teacher at the same school. Respondent exchanged phone numbers with S.E. so they could communicate outside of school hours. Respondent and S.E. frequently communicated outside of school hours between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. by telephone and text messages in Haitian-Creole because S.E. did not speak English. According to Respondent, these conversations were primarily personal, as they had “all kind of conversation from family matter[s], from life, from a sexual content, from – you know, everything. Everything like two normal people. Any conversation that two normal people would take. It was about everything.” On or about December 3, 2018, a student reported to school staff at PBLHS that Respondent sent S.E. an inappropriate text stating, “send me a picture in your underwear.” Respondent allegedly also asked S.E. to go to a hotel with him. Detective Eulises Munoz was called to PBLHS to conduct an investigation regarding Respondent. As a part of Detective Munoz’s investigation, he conducted an audio recorded interview with S.E., with the assistance of an interpreter. As part of the investigation, Detective Munoz had the text messages between S.E. and Respondent extracted from S.E.’s phone and transcribed from Haitian-Creole to English. S.E.’s cell phone call log report revealed 48 calls and 94 messages between S.E. and Respondent between October 26, 2018, and December 4, 2018. Respondent admitted to asking S.E. on November 27, 2018, at 8:04 p.m., for “your picture while you are wearing only your underwear.” S.E. refused but instead sent a picture of herself clothed. Respondent told S.E. that she was “mistreating” him because she would not send a naked picture of herself to him. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted that he was aware that it was against Board policy to have asked S.E. for a photograph of her in her underwear while she was a student at PBLHS and he was a teacher at the same school. The investigation also revealed that on December 4, 2018, Respondent told S.E. that she was having headaches because she was not having sex and then sent her an article regarding stress headaches being relieved by sex. Respondent denied asking S.E. to meet him at a hotel. Disciplinary Action After Detective Munoz completed his investigation into the text conversations between Respondent and S.E., he drafted a criminal Probable Cause Affidavit, which was ultimately forwarded to Human Resource Manager Brenda Johnson for further investigation. Ms. Johnson provided Respondent with a letter acknowledging opening an investigative file based on inappropriate interactions with a student. As of December 18, 2018, Respondent was removed from the classroom and directed to have no further contact with students. He was instead assigned to a District warehouse. Respondent was provided with a Pre-Determination Meeting (“PDM”) Notice dated March 9, 2020, signed by Vicki Evans-Pare, Director of Employee & Labor Relations, explaining to him that the investigation was concerning the allegations levied against him and that a meeting was needed to discuss the findings. Prior to the PDM, Respondent was provided with the PDM Notice, as well as a copy of the investigative file. Respondent’s PDM was held on March 13, 2020, at which time he was given the opportunity to provide a response to the allegations against him. After the PDM was completed, Ms. Johnson typed up the notes and summary from the PDM, which were provided to Respondent who was given three business days to review the documents and make any edits or revisions he felt were warranted and add any additional information relative to the investigation. Respondent did not make any changes to the PDM Summary or Notes. After Respondent’s PDM, Ms. Evans-Pare decided to have the investigative file reviewed by the Employee Investigative Committee (EIC), which found the following allegations were substantiated: Soliciting an Inappropriate Relationship with a Student; Ethical Misconduct; Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment; and Failure to Follow Policy, Rule, or Directive. The EIC recommendation was that Respondent’s employment be terminated despite Respondent not having any prior discipline history. The EIC proposed skipping the Progressive Discipline steps (verbal reprimand with written notation, written reprimand, and suspension) because Respondent’s inappropriate interactions with the student, his admission that he had the text conversations with the student, and his request to the student for a picture of her in her underwear posed a direct threat to the District and the student. On May 21, 2020, Respondent was notified that Dr. Donald Fennoy, II, the District Superintendent, would recommend Respondent’s termination to the Board at its June 17, 2020, meeting. Termination was the same disciplinary action that was taken against other employees who engaged in the same or similar conduct. Respondent acknowledged that “[a]lmost everybody” at PBLHS found out about the text conversations between Respondent and S.E. Respondent knew that his co-workers knew about the text conversations because people were calling him and asking him about it. Respondent’s co-workers lost confidence in him as a teacher after they learned about the text conversations between him and S.E. Respondent was also aware that S.E.’s guardians lost confidence in him as a teacher as a result of the sexual text conversations he had with S.E. Respondent acknowledged during the final hearing that his conduct was inappropriate and in violation of the Board’s policies. Respondent only contests the level of discipline (termination) as too harsh. He argued that the Board skipped intervening steps of the progressive discipline policy and claimed that his level of discipline was a result of his complaining that he was not physically capable of the work to which he was assigned in the warehouse.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the suspension and termination of Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Jhonny Felix 5938 Ithaca Circle West Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In September of 1979, John Williamson, an undercover police agent with the Department of Law Enforcement, was involved in narcotic investigations in the Pensacola area. Mike Abbott, who is the brother of respondent Thomas Abbott, and Williamson negotiated for the purchase of one kilo of cocaine in October of 1979. The transaction was to occur in West Palm Beach. On or about October 15 or 16, 1979, Mike Abbott and Robert Covington came from Pensacola to West Palm Beach and stayed at the home of respondent Thomas Abbott. Mike Abbott came to West Palm Beach for the purpose of introducing "one person to another person for the sale" of the cocaine. Apparently, the two people who were to be introduced were Robert Covington and Duane Hutchins. For this degree of involvement in the transaction, Mike Abbott was to receive $7,000.00. On October 16, 1979, Duane Hutchins came to the respondent's West Palm Beach residence for the purpose of meeting Mike Abbott and Robert Covington. The meeting lasted approximately thirty to forty minutes, during most of which time respondent Thomas Abbott was sleeping on the living room floor. Respondent did awaken several minutes before Hutchins left and was introduced to him. At some point after this meeting at respondent's home, Mike Abbott returned to Pensacola with the understanding that his $7,000.00 fee would be delivered to him after the sale of cocaine was consummated. Covington remained at respondent's home, and he and respondent went out for drinks that evening. According to Hutchins, Mike Abbott told him that he had to return to Pensacola and that respondent Thomas Abbott, Mike's brother, would be the person to contact in absence. It was arranged that Hutchins would call respondent's house the following day and speak to either respondent or Mr. Covington to determine the details of the meeting with the purchasers. Undercover agent John Williamson arrived in West Palm Beach on October 17, 1979, and met with Jack Maxwell, a vice officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department. Williamson placed a telephone call to the respondent's residence, but he did not know to whom he spoke. Arrangements were made to meet at Victoria Station, a local restaurant and lounge in West Palm Beach, at approximately 4:30 that afternoon. When respondent returned to his residence after school at about 3:00 p.m. on October 17, 1979, Covington and Hutchins were there. They invited respondent to go to Victoria Station with them. Respondent drove back to school to ask a student to fill in for him on a part-time job that evening, and Covington and Hutchins followed respondent in another car. Respondent then left his car at school and rode to Victoria Station with Covington and Hutchins. Covington, Hutchins and respondent arrived at Victoria Station at about 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. on October 17, 1979. Shortly thereafter, agents John Williamson and Jack Maxwell arrived. The five men sat at one table, conversed and ordered several rounds of alcoholic beverages which were made of double strength. It was Hutchins plan to view the money to be used for the cocaine purchase and then place a telephone call to a Mr. Cunningham who was to join them for the purpose of finalizing the location of the transaction. After spending approximately forty-five minutes at the table, agents Maxwell and Williamson took Hutchins across the street to their Sheraton Motel room in order to show him the cash money. Hutchins was shown a briefcase containing some $100,000.00 in cash. He then returned to Victoria Station and placed a phone call to Cunningham. Hutchins left to pick up Cunningham in his car and then returned to Victoria Station with Cunningham. The six men then had discussions as to the location of the transaction. During these conversations, respondent Thomas Abbott offered the use of his house as the location for the exchange of the money for the cocaine. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Hutchins left Victoria Station for another engagement. Agents Maxwell and Williamson returned to their motel room for the purpose of waiting for information as to the location of the final transaction. Respondent Abbott and Covington left Victoria Station with Cunningham and went to Cunningham's apartment. While there, Cunningham made several phone calls. Thereafter, Cunningham drove Covington and respondent to respondent's house and dropped them off. Cunningham then went over to the Sheraton Motel room where final plans were made with agents Maxwell and Williamson for the purchase to occur in Miami. Thereafter several persons, not including the respondent, drove to Miami and completed the purchase and sale of cocaine. Those participants were arrested, and nearly one kilo of 43 percent to 52 percent pure cocaine was confiscated. Agent Williamson returned to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department during the early morning hours of October 18, 1979. At approximately 4:30 a.m. he placed a telephone call to Mike Abbott in Pensacola for the purpose of obtaining instructions as to how he was to be paid for his part of the transaction. The telephone conversation was recorded on tape. After determining that Mike Abbott expected $7,000.00 for his part of the transaction, Williamson asked Mike Abbott "Do you want me to bring the $7,000.00 to you or do you want me to give it to your brother." "Give it to my brother," was Mike Abbott's response. Later in the same conversation, Williamson told Mike that what he was going to do was "see your brother now, and then I'll lay the seven on him." Mike responded, "Okay, that'll be excellent." After that taped telephone conversation between Williamson and Mike Abbott, law enforcement officers went to the respondent's residence and arrested respondent Thomas Abbott and Robert Covington. Mike Abbott testified that his brother knew nothing about the purchase and sale of cocaine until he was arrested on October 18, 1979. Respondent testified that he knew nothing about the drug deal and that he was too intoxicated to realize what the conversation concerned while in Victoria Station. Agent Maxwell testified that while they all were drinking alcoholic beverages at Victoria Station, respondent appeared to be cognizant of occurring events and conversation. Some three to four weeks after respondent was arrested, he went to the residence of Deputy Sheriff Robert C. Anderson whom he had known since 1969. When Anderson asked him why he had gotten involved in drugs, respondent replied that he thought it was exciting, very professional and that he wanted to be in big money. Respondent went on to describe the excitement of talking of $50,000.00, throwing money around and everybody buying drinks for each other. Anderson and respondent discussed the morality of dealing with drugs and respondent stated that he did not feel it was morally wrong since drugs had been accepted by society. During the same conversation, respondent later told Anderson that the reason be became involved was for his brother. Two administrative officials of the Palm Beach County School Board testified that, in their opinion, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be diminished if the charges of conspiracy to sell or traffic cocaine were sustained.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: That portion of the "Petition for the Revocation of the Teacher's Certificate" charging that respondent conspired to traffic cocaine in his home on or about October 16, 1979, be DISMISSED; Respondent be found guilty of conspiracy to sell cocaine while drinking in the Victoria Station in West Palm Beach on or about October 17, 1979; The conduct described in paragraph (2) above constitutes gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude and seriously reduces respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board; and Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of three (3) years. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 Hearing this 6th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson Ruffolo and Wilson 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas Abbott, Jr. and Thomas Abbott, Sr. Route 9, Box 514D Jasper, Alabama 33501 Robert C. Apgar Peeples, Earl, Smith, Moore and Blank 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Educational Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION RALPH D. TURLINGTON COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-002-RT DOAH CASE NO. 80-1515 THOMAS H. ABBOTT, Respondent. /
