Findings Of Fact Ozzie Thompson is a licensed vending facility operator and holds License Number 493 issued by the Division of Blind Services on May 10, 1982. In June of 1983, Mr. Thompson became the vending manager and operator of the snack bar located in the Alachua County Judicial Building. This facility is leased by the Board of County Commissioners to the Division of Blind Services. Paragraph 4 of the Lease agreement provides, in part, that "....The Grantee (Division of Blind Services) may appoint a blind agent and sighted assistants to conduct the business and shall have the right to supervise the business and to replace the agent or employees at will. The Grantor (Board of County Commissioners) agrees to notify the Grantee immediately of any mismanagement by the agent which may come to the Grantor's attention. The Grantee will immediately remove the agent or employee who is unsuitable or unsatisfactory to carry on the business." Almost immediately after Mr. Thompson assumed the position of manager of the Alachua County Judicial Building vending facility, the vending facility specialist in charge of supervising that facility began receiving complaints. The nature of these complaints were the quality of service, sanitation and the presence of derelicts within the facility for long periods of time. The supervisor also received complaints from female employees at the Judicial Building that Mr. Thompson had a tendency to "bump into" them and make "suggestive" remarks to them. The Office of the Clerk, the security officer and the building superintendent at the Judicial Building likewise received complaints regarding the lingering presence of derelicts or "street people" within the vending facility and comments of a sexual nature from either Mr. Thompson, the derelicts or Mr. Thompson's assistants. The female employees complained that they did not feel comfortable going into the vending facility. While no one actually saw Mr. Thompson drink alcoholic beverages while he was working, he was observed on several occasions to be groggy and appeared to be in an intoxicated condition. Mr. Thompson does take pills for asthma, and the medication makes him drowsy. A vending facility operator at the Federal Building in Gainesville has observed Mr. Thompson to be in an intoxicated condition on two occasions. These occurred in the morning hours, at approximately 9:30 a.m., when Mr. Thompson visited his facility on his way to his own facility located about two blocks away. On these occasions, the odor of alcohol was present and Mr. Thompson's speech was impaired. As a result of the complaints received by employees at the Judicial Building, the observations of the Clerk, the security officer and the building superintendent and the continued, lingering presence of derelicts within the facility, the County Administrator requested the Division of Blind Services to immediately relieve Mr. Thompson from employment at the snack bar. At approximately 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. on June 15, 1984, the day that Mr. Thompson was to be removed and a final inventory taken, Mr. Thompson was not in the snack bar. When he later came into the facility, the odor of alcohol was detected and his speech was impaired. Mr. Thompson explained that he had been at home awaiting a telephone call regarding a recent death of a relative, and admitted that he had had "a little" beer before arriving at the facility.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of Ozzie Thompson to operate a vending facility be suspended for a period of two years and that, at the expiration of two years, he be required to complete the vending facility training program as set forth in Rule 6A-18.05, Florida Administrative Code, or its successor, prior to issuance of a license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert Sikes, Esquire Office of General Counsel Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ozzie Thompson D706-100 Memorial Parkway Palatka, Florida 32077 Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the School Board of Suwannee County pursuant to Section 231.36(6), F.S., for willful neglect of duty, as set forth in Petition for Dismissal, dated February 2, 1983. Petitioner presented the testimony of Charles F. Blalock, Jr., Principal of the Suwannee Elementary School East, Live Oak, Florida, and submitted five exhibits in evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of Mary Miller, an instructor and President, United Teachers of Suwannee, and Dr. Gail Lesesne. Posthearing submissions of the parties in the form of proposed recommended orders have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unwarranted in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sandra Spicer is employed by Petitioner School Board of Suwannee County, Florida, as a classroom teacher/speech therapist at Suwannee Elementary East School, Live Oak, Florida. She has been so employed on a continuing contract since 1981. (Testimony of Petitioner, Blalock, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) During the past school year, Respondent's schedule provides for lunch during the period 11:30 A.M. to 12:15 P.M., and instruction of four second grade students in speech therapy during the period 12:15 P.M. to 12:45 P.M. (Testimony of Respondent, Blalock, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) On January 6, 1983, while eating lunch in the school lounge, Respondent became ill with a headache and her "heart was just racing," and she feared that she was going to have a heart attack. Respondent has the medical problem of high blood pressure and hypertension and has used the diuretic medication Diazide intermittently since 1981 when it was first prescribed by a physician. The symptoms that Respondent experienced on January 6 were a result of elevated blood pressure. In such instances, it is urgent for the individual to see a physician or take appropriate medicine as soon as possible. (Testimony of Respondent, Lesesne) At the time Respondent experienced the symptoms related above, she determined that it was necessary to take medication which was at her home. She testified at the hearing that she believed it was unnecessary to obtain permission to leave the school grounds during her lunch period, as long as she signed out at the school office. She had been orally counseled by her Principal, Charles F. Blalock, Jr., in April, 1982, concerning unauthorized absence from her classroom. However, the circumstances that prompted the conference were not disclosed at the hearing. Respondent conceded that she had gone to another school on duty at one time in the past without signing out and that an assistant principal advised her to always obtain permission before she left when she was supposed to be on duty. In October, 1982, her Principal, Charles F. Blalock, Jr., had a conference with her concerning a number of matters, including a reminder of "the incident" that had occurred in the previous school year, and summarized the conference in a letter, dated October 15, 1982, in which he noted that there had been a problem with Respondent's "negligence in signing the Sign In and Out Roster," and "being more accurate in signing in and out and securing permission to leave." (Testimony of Respondent, Blalock, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent went to her classroom from the lounge to obtain her purse, signed out at the school office at 12:10 P.M. and drove to her home to obtain her medicine. Since it only ordinarily took about 3 1/2 minutes to drive to her home, she believed that the round-trip would only take about 8 minutes, and that she would be back at school in time to meet her class. She was not "thinking clearly" at the time. She further testified that ordinarily the students were tardy in arriving at the 12:15 P.M. class, and usually were not there until about 12:20 or 12:25 P.M. She did not return to the school premises until 12:35 P.M. and proceeded directly to her classroom where she found another teacher standing at the door and the students in the room. (Testimony of Respondent) About 12:20 or 12:25 P.M., Principal Blalock heard excessive noise in the hall and observed children running in and out of Respondent's classroom. He asked the students where their teacher was and they did not know. He supervised them for 10 or 15 minutes and then sought to discover Respondent's whereabouts without success. At about 12:40 P.M., he saw Respondent walk up to her classroom and asked her where she had been. She informed him that she was "coming from home." He asked who gave her permission and she said she didn't know that she needed permission and proceeded to enter the classroom. There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Respondent told Principal Blalock at that time whether she had gone home to obtain medicine for her high blood pressure condition. Respondent testified that she had given him that information at the time she saw him at the classroom. It is found that Respondent did inform him concerning her reason for leaving at that time. After talking to Principal Blalock, Respondent went to the office at 12:40 P.M. and signed in as of that time. (Testimony of Respondent, Blalock, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Later that day, Principal Blalock informed Respondent that he was going to call a meeting the next day concerning her absence. On January 7, 1983, in the presence of other school officials and a union representative, the principal informed Respondent that she had been negligent in leaving the school premises. At this time, she again informed him that she had left to obtain her medicine. (Testimony of Blalock, Respondent, Miller)
Recommendation That Respondent Sandra Spicer be reinstated as a member of the instructional staff of Suwannee Elementary East School and that her back salary be paid from the date of suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 24 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 24 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Slaughter, II, Esquire Suwannee County School Board Post Office Box 906 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Steven A. Been, Esquire Assistant General Counsel FEA United-208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 School Board of Suwannee County Superintendent Frank R. Stankunas 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060
The Issue In this case, the Petitioners challenge the determination by the Respondent that Anastasia Rush, Ph.D. is an employee of the Baker County School Board based upon the Division of Retirement's determination that Dr. Rush is not an independent contractor. The issue is whether Dr. Rush should be a member of the Florida retirement system. This determination which turns upon whether she is an employee of the school district. Which turns upon whether or not she is, and was, an independent contractor providing professional services to the school board pursuant to contract.
Findings Of Fact The Board, in compliance with the statutory mandate requiring special education programs for emotionally-handicapped students, contracted with the Child Guidance Center, Inc., (CGC) to provide assessment and counseling of qualified students. See, Ex. A-B and Tr. 215-217. The Board obtained additional funding from grants to provide its students with these mandated special educational programs relating to mental health. See, Ex. E, F, G, H, and M. The Board contracts with neighboring school boards which are unable to afford their own programs and pay the Baker County Board to provide services to severely emotionally disturbed children in their counties as required by the statute. The Board's contracts with mental health specialists are dependent upon funding for special students from state monies allocated based upon the total number of students and upon grant money. See, Tr. 38 and 215-216. The Board has not established a permanent position for a health care professional to render clinical mental health services. See, Tr. 72 and 217. The Board has contracted for these professional services to severely emotionally handicapped students, as well as for the professional services of occupational therapists and physical therapists. See, Tr. 79. CGC, the first provider of services to emotionally-handicapped students, is a corporation whose business is providing mental health care. See, Tr. 29. The Board contracted annually with CGC beginning in 1982 to provide a specified number of hours of counseling for its qualifying students. See, Tr. 31-33. The number of hours stated in the contract with CGC varied according to the availability of funding and established a financial liability limit on the contract. Each contract between the Board and CGC was for the term of the school year and could be terminated by either party upon 30 days notice. See, Ex. B. The contracts between the Board and CGC provided that the services would be rendered in the Baker County public schools. See, Ex. B. CGC billed the Board for each hour of counseling provided by its employees. See, Ex. B. CGC did its billing and accounting on a quarterly basis and arranged with the Board to be paid on a quarterly basis for its convenience. See, Ex. B; Tr. 145-146. Dr. Rush was an employee of CGC and first began providing mental health services to the students of Baker County in the early 1980's. See, Tr. 142. Dr. Rush is a licensed psychologist specializing in child psychology. Dr. Rush received a graduate degree in psychiatric social work from the University of Athens, Greece, and received a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Florida. See, Tr. 140-141. Dr. Rush has worked in the field of mental health for approximately 20 years. Dr. Rush began her own practice while still working for CGC through Dr. Freeman under the name of Salisbury Counseling Clinic. See, Tr. 168-169 and 183. In 1990, Dr. Rush no longer wanted to be an employee of CGC and became an independent contractor with CGC. See, Tr. 146-147. Dr. Rush's private practice grew gradually and prior to 1991, she had resigned her employment with CGC, concentrating on her private practice. See, Tr. 146. In 1991, the Board cancelled its contract with CGC. See, Tr. 37-38. Wanda Walker, administrator of the special education programs, approached Dr. Rush and asked her if she would provide the mental health care as an independent contractor, as previously provided by CGC. See, Tr. 37-38. On August 16, 1991, the Board entered into two contracts with Dr. Rush to provide different types of mental health counseling to its students. See, Ex. A One contract between Dr. Rush and the Board provided that Dr. Rush would provide mental health services to the Board for at least nine hours per week, from which two hours would be committed to the special needs of the students in the Opportunity Program at Baker County High School. The contract services were for 37 weeks of the 1991-1992 school year. The cost of the service was $40.00 per hour, and Baker County agreed to pay Dr. Rush an amount not to exceed $14,460.00 for the service. The agreement required Dr. Rush to perform the services at Baker County public school sites, and provided that the mental health services should include psychological evaluations, classroom observations, participation as a member of the crisis intervention team, and consultations with teachers, guidance counselors and other appropriate school personnel. Dr. Rush submitted a statement of hours worked every two weeks, and was paid the contractual rate for each hour of professional services rendered. The contract provided that either party could terminate upon 30 days written notice. The other contract between the Board and Dr. Rush provided that Dr. Rush would provide mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students in the Day Treatment Program at Southside Educational Center. This contract provided that Dr. Rush would provide case management, assessments and evaluations, consultation to school personnel, mental health services appropriate to the program, and direct the counseling services provided to Day Treatment Program students. The contract provided that Dr. Rush would provide for 10 hours of professional services per week for 37 weeks at a cost of $40.00 per hour not to exceed $14,550.00. The contract provided that Dr. Rush would submit a statement of hours worked every two weeks, and that the agreement could be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice. On June 4, 1992, Dr. Rush entered into an agreement to provide professional services to the Board for the 1992-1993 school year. This contract duplicated the previous contract for nine hours per week of mental health services for 37 weeks in the 1992-1993 school year at a cost of $40.00 per hour not to exceed $14,460.00. The only significant change in this contract was that the contract covered the provision of services by Dr. Rush or her associate, Nancy Davie. On June 4, 1992, Dr. Rush entered into a contract with the Board to provide mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students similar to the previous contract for the 1991-1992 school year. The contract for mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students did not provide for the provision of these services by Nancy Davie. When the June 1992 contracts were executed, Dr. Rush had incorporated her professional practice; however, she entered into the contracts with the Board in her individual name. The Board was unaware of Dr. Rush's incorporation. Dr. Rush did not believe that there was a difference between contracting in her name or the name of her corporation; however, this contract was subsequently amended to indicate that her corporation was the contracting entity. See, Tr. 152-153, 189 and 190. Dr. Rush contracted with the Board in the name of her corporation, Protepon Counseling Center, in 1993. Dr. Rush maintained two offices, one in Jacksonville and one in Macclenny, where she held herself out to the public as a individual providing psychological counseling and where she conducted her professional business. Generally, Dr. Rush and her associates provided their services at the schools within the district; however, Dr. Rush maintained a professional office in Macclenny, Florida, and met with students and their parents at her professional office as necessary. See, Tr. 71. Both Dr. Rush and CGC provided services at the various schools within the district to alleviate the need to transport children and disrupt their schedules. Dr. Rush and her associates used the offices of guidance counsellors when at the various schools. See, Tr. 14 and 85. During the time that Dr. Rush has provided mental health services to the Board, Dr. Rush has provided her own tools for counseling and assessing students. She provides all of her own supplies. See, Tr. 88 and 297-298. Dr. Rush is not reimbursed for the use of her supplies or standardized tests. See, Tr. 211 Dr. Rush provides mental health counseling to private individuals and agencies, to include St. Johns River Hospital, the Center for Life Enrichment, Capp Care, Flamedco, Inc., and the Florida Medical Association Alternative Insurance Program. See, Tr. 160-165. Dr. Rush provides a profit sharing plan to her associates and maintains workers compensation insurance for her employees. See, Tr. 174 and 208. The contracts with the Board make up only a fraction of Dr. Rush's gross income from her professional practice. See, Ex. J(2); Tr. 169-170. Dr. Rush maintains her own retirement fund and has done so since she left CGC in 1991. See, Ex. J(3); Tr. 172-173. Neither the Board or Dr. Rush consider their relationship to be an employment relationship. See, Tr. 149 and 217. It was never the intent of Dr. Rush to be an employee of the Board or the Board's intent for Dr. Rush to be its employee. See, Tr. 149 and 181. Both Dr. Rush and the Board anticipated the continuation of the independent contractor relationship. The Board paid Dr. Rush for the services rendered by her and her associates from the special fund and not from a salary or payroll account. See, Ex. I. Every two weeks, Dr. Rush submitted statements of professional services rendered by her or her associates and charged the Board per hour for these services. See, Tr. 180-182. Dr. Rush was paid for each hour of service which she or her associates provided, and was not paid a salary or reimbursed or compensated for travel costs or supplies. See, Ex. I; Tr. 297 The statements do not indicate whether Dr. Rush or one of her associates provided the service to the Board. The Board never paid any of Dr. Rush's associates. See, Tr. 43-44, 106 and 107. Dr. Rush's associates have always been paid by Dr. Rush. See, Tr. 151-152. The Board never deducted withholding taxes from its payments to Dr. Rush. See, Ex. I. Dr. Rush paid her own social security tax. See, Tr. 207. Dr. Rush was paid by the Board as she is paid by all of her clients at the agreed-upon hourly rate for her professional counseling services. See, Ex. I; Tr. 182. In making its determination, the Division of Retirement relied upon the answers provided by Dr. Rush and Wanda Walker to a questionnaire sent out by the Division of Retirement. See, Ex. O. Both Dr. Rush and Ms. Walker answered the questionnaire without help from legal counsel and without understanding its purpose or legal implications. See, Tr. 77-79, 82, and 176. Dr. Rush provided an annual orientation to new personnel and students; however, she did not take any training program required by the Board during the period of these contracts. The answers provided by Dr. Rush and Ms. Walker were ambiguous regarding the fact that the annual orientation in which Dr. Rush participated was provided by Dr. Rush to Board employees. See, Ex. O; Tr. 70, 88-89, and 178-179. Using the school calendar, Dr. Rush prepared a schedule calendar indicating the dates, times, and school locations at which she or her associates would provide professional services under the contract with the Board. See, Tr. 178. See, Tr. 45-48, and Ex. D. Pursuant to their contract, Dr. Rush provided professional services for the Board at the times and dates when students were attending school. See, Ex. C. Dr. Rush set her own schedule within the confines of the school day and the school year. The purpose of the calendar schedule was to alert teachers as to Dr. Rush's availability at particular schools. See, Tr. 85. Dr. Rush and her associates did not check in with a supervisor at the various schools. Dr. Rush called Ms. Walker, who notified the appropriate school when a new counsellor would be going to that school. See, Tr. 121-122. This practice was designed for security reasons to let the school know for security reasons that a new individual would be providing services. Dr. Rush was available if there was an emergency. When paged, Dr. Rush called the school and determined from the facts if it was necessary for her or one of her associates to respond. See, Tr. 131 and 297. Dr. Rush was not subject to being summoned by Board employees, but exercised her professional judgment about the by of response which was necessary. See, Tr. 131 and 297. Dr. Rush and her associates evaluated students and recorded the results of their testing and observations. They participated as part of the multidisciplinary team required by law to assess special education students and prepare their educational programs. In this regard, the reports of Dr. Rush and her associates were expressions of their professional expert opinion. See, Tr. 66. It was the experience and expertise of Dr. Rush and her associates which the Board sought in contracting with Dr. Rush. The Board did not direct Dr. Rush's counseling of students. See, Tr. 81-87. Dr. Rush and her associates conducted their counseling without any control from the Board. See, Tr. 83-84 and 227.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Rush be treated as an independent contractor and denied participation in the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-3378 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. Contrary to the Division's rules, Baker County did not number its findings and did not limit them to short statements of fact. Therefore, although most of its findings were adopted in the order originally presented, it is virtually impossible to identify which of the findings were adopted. In order to assist those attempting to determine which facts were adopted, and which were rejected and why, the numbers listed under the Recommended Order column below reference the paragraphs in the Recommended Order which contain the findings suggested by the Division, or the alternative findings suggested by Baker County which the Hearing Officer determined were based upon the more credible evidence. It is readily apparent when the reason is stated for rejecting the proposed findings. Retirement's Findings Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-3 1,2,3,6,7,13 Paragraph 4 14 Paragraph 5,6 19 Paragraph 7 Rejected as contrary to more detailed descriptions of the contracts at issue. Paragraph 8,9 20,21,22 Paragraph 10 Irrelevant. Paragraph 11 As indicated in the Conclusions, there is no issue concerning the fact that employees of school boards are qualified for membership in the retirement system. The issue is whether Dr. Rush was an employee. Paragraph 12,13,14 23,24,25,49,50 Paragraph 15 26,32,34 Paragraph 16 The differences in the terms of the board's contracts with CGC and Dr. Rush are not relevant. Paragraph 17 1,53,54 Paragraph 18 48,49 Paragraph 19 37-44 Paragraph 20-23 2-4,37-44. The manner in which some non-instructional staff are paid is irrelevant. Paragraph 24 26,28-31 Paragraph 25 45-47 Paragraph 26 51,52 Paragraph 27-28 53 paragraph 29 26,28 Paragraph 30,31 25 Paragraph 32,33 Irrelevant argument. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Sylvan Strickland, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 John W. Caven, Jr., Esquire Claire M. Merrigan, Esquire CAVEN, CLARK, RAY & TUCKER, P.A. 3306 Independent Square Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jodi B. Jennings, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ or Department) acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly or fraudulently in the rejection of all proposals for the Better Outlook Center request for proposals.
Findings Of Fact The Department has responsibility for the custody and treatment of delinquent youth in the State of Florida. As part of that responsibility, the Department sought proposals for a halfway house program to be located in Dade County, Florida (District 11). This program, also known as the Better Outlook Center (BOC), will provide residential beds for twenty-eight male juveniles who are considered a moderate risk to public safety and require a structured residential community. The Department advertised a request for proposal (RFP) for the BOC project, RFP #K6P07, on January 24, 1997. Subsequent to the general mailing of the RFP packet, the Department received twelve proposals for the BOC project. Among those proposals, the Petitioner, Haynes Services Corporation, was awarded the highest score. In a telephone conference call conducted in February, 1997, the Petitioner’s CEO was advised of his apparent highest ranking but was asked to lower the per diem rate. Petitioner agreed to the amendment. Subsequently, upon further review of the matter, the Department determined it had not included criteria which would consider quality assurance performance on similar programs, third party reviews, or past performance. The Department determined that these criteria should be included in all RFP evaluations and set about to draft language incorporating these provisions into new RFP instructions. These new criteria would be applicable throughout the state and would be applied to review all applicants for programs awarded through the DJJ. Concern over the new criteria arose because the Department was advised that Petitioner had failed quality assurance requirements at another project. Thus, while the Department had considered Petitioner’s proposal for the subject project well articulated, it became concerned regarding Petitioner’s ability to perform as represented. In order to place all applicants on an even playing field for consideration of this project as well as others where this issue might arise, the Department determined that all applicants should submit records of past performance. The results of past performance and quality assurance ratings would then be a factor to consider before awarding future projects. Accordingly, all proposals which had been submitted for the BOC RFP at issue were rejected. On or about March 7, 1997, all applicants who had submitted proposals for the BOC project were notified that the Department intended to re-advertise the RFP with new criteria. The Petitioner was not awarded a contract for the subject RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order dismissing the challenge to the rejection of all bids for RFP #K6P07. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 8th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin Ross Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Kaydell Wright-Douglas, Esquire The Wright Building 110 North Armenia Avenue, Suite A Tampa, Florida 33609 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Respondent left Cuba with her parents in 1981. She resumed school in Spain and thereafter immigrated to the United States. She has had difficulty in adjusting here, especially to the language change. She is currently a 7th grade student at West Miami Junior High School. She is failing most of her subjects and has an absentee rate (unexcused) of nearly 50 percent. She has been involved in fights at school on two occasions during the current academic year. School officials have met with her parents, and have counseled Respondent in an effort to assist her. These efforts have been unsuccessful. Recently, her parents have taken her to the "Family and Adolescent Development Center" where she is apparently receiving therapeutic services. A late-filed exhibit on her current, diagnosis (Respondent's Exhibit 1) was to be furnished by Respondent's therapist. However, this document was not filed. Therefore, the results of the therapeutic referral were not established.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning Respondent to its Educational Alternative Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. Reinaldo Sanchez 6797 South West 21st Street Miami, Florida 33155 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of having been convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" and thereby subject to having her employment terminated for just cause by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of having been absent without authorized leave in violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, and thereby subject to having her employment terminated for just cause by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Charles F. Blalock, Jr., was the duly elected Superintendent of Schools of Suwannee County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Janette Walls was a member of the instructional staff of the Suwannee County School District, employed by the District School Board of Suwannee County, Florida (Board) under an annual contract. While a written annual contract had not been executed between the Board and the Respondent for the 1989-1990 school year due to Respondent's being on maternity leave the first 9 weeks of the 1989-1990 school year, the contractural relationship was the same as set forth in the 1988-1989 annual contract (except for salary which is not in dispute) executed by the Board and the Respondent which provided for dismissal for just cause during the term of the contract as required by Section 231.26(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of passing worthless checks to Pic N Save in the amount of $50.10, Jiffy Food Store in the amount of $35.00, Suwannee Pack in the amount of $25.00, Suwannee Pack in the amount of $40.53 and Jiffy Food Store in the amount of $21.47 in Case Numbers 89- 1103 MN, 89-1127 MN, 89-1128 MN, 89-1135 MN and 89-1203 MN in the County Court, Suwannee County, Florida. The court in each case adjudicated the Respondent guilty and ordered restitution and assessments in the total amount of $712.10 and placed the Respondent on supervised probation for a period of 12 months in each case. There was no evidence presented as to whether the Respondent paid any of the restitution and assessments ordered in these cases. 4. In Case Numbers 89-1170 MN, 89-1171 MN, 89-1172 MN, 89-1173 MN (orders dated June 5, 1989), 89-1179 (order dated June 6, 1989), 89-1211 MM, 89-1212 MN (orders dated June 14, 1989), 89-1798 MN (order dated August 21, 1989) and 89- 1799 MN (order dated August 23, 1989) in the County Court of Columbia County, Florida the Respondent plead guilty to the charges of passing worthless checks in the amount of $37.42 to Suwannee Swifty on May 5, 1989, $47.63 to Suwannee Swifty on May 6, 1989, $49.86 to Suwannee Swifty on May 5, 1989, $13.00 to Suwannee Swifty on May 9, 1989, $35.00 to Suwannee Swifty on Nay 8, 1989, $6.86 to S & S Store #5 on May 16, 1989, $8.70 to S & S Store #5 on May 9, 1989, $25.00 to Suwannee Swifty on May 9, 1989 and $37.52 to Suwannee Swifty on May 16, 1989. As a result of her plea in the above-cited cases the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty, ordered her to pay restitution and court costs and placed her on probation. There was no evidence presented to show whether the Respondent paid the restitution and assessments ordered in these cases. 5. In Case Numbers 89-478 MN, 89-479 MN, 89-480 MN, 89-647 MN, 89-648 MN, 89-649 MN, 89-650 MN, 89-651 MN. 89-652 MN, 89-653 MN and 89-702 MN in the County Court of Hamilton County, Florida the Respondent plead guilty to the charge of passing worthless checks in the amount of $30.34, $60.00, $60.00, $57.00, $68.91, $62.00, $55.29, $72.45, $65.00, $52.48 and $46.32. On August 4, 1989 the court adjudicated Respondent guilty in Case Numbers 89-478 MN, 89-479 MN and 89-480 MN and ordered the Respondent to pay restitution plus $300.00 in court costs. The Court also placed Respondent on 6 months probation in each case. On December 1, 1989 the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty in Case Numbers 89-647 MN through 89-653 MN and 89-702 MN and sentenced her to 4 months in the Hamilton County Jail with a condition for her release upon her serving 30 days and paying costs and restitution in the amount of $1,279.45. Respondent was incarcerated from on or about December 1, 1989 until on or about December 18, 1989. Respondent was granted personal leave for December 1, 1989. During the school week of December 4 - 8, 1989 Respondent's mother called in to advise the school that the Respondent was sick and that her father was either ill or had died and Respondent would not be in to teach and requesting sick leave for the Respondent. Sometime during the following week of December 11 - 15, 1989 Respondent's mother called again and requested further sick leave for Respondent. On all occasions when sick leave was requested, it was made clear that Respondent would have to fill out a request for sick leave. On December 19, 1989 when Respondent returned to school she completed and signed three Claim For Leave Compensation forms requesting sick leave for the periods of December 4-8, 1989, December 11 & 12, 1989 and December 13 - 15 & 18-19, 1989. It is apparent that Charles M. Sweat, Principal of Suwannee Elementary West signed the Respondent's leave requests recommending approval without paying any attention to who was requesting the sick leave because upon learning that he had signed Respondent's leave request knowing of her incarceration in the Hamilton County Jail prior to his signing the leave requests, he attempted to "white-out" his signature. The request for leave was never approved by the Petitioner, which is required, although such approval may be in some cases after the fact. Respondent may have been paid for this leave time by the Board and, if so, could be considered as approval of the requested leave after the fact; however, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Board did in fact pay the Respondent for this leave time. The Respondent was absent from her work at Suwannee Elementary West without authorized leave for the period of time of December 4 - 8, 11- 15 and 18-19, 1989.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Suwannee County District School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent, Janette Walls' employment with the Suwannee County School District effective January 9, 1990, the date Respondent was suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles F. Blalock, Jr. District School Superintendent, Suwannee County, Florida 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Victor Africano Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Ms. Janette Walls 843 Alderman Road # 531 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Emil Perez attended Kinloch Park Junior High School during the 1983-84 school year. He was then assigned to opportunity school at Lee and enrolled there at the beginning of the 1984-85 school year. Because petitioner failed to file the deposition of its witness, there was no competent evidence presented concerning the reason or reasons why Emilo was assigned to the opportunity school. Emilo began to have serious attendance problems after being assigned to J.R.E. Lee. Both the school social workers and the school psychologist who testified at the hearing agreed that Emilo did not go to school at J.R.E. Lee because he was afraid to go to school there. The fear manifested itself through physical symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting. Mr. Hayes, the school psychologist, defined Emilo's emotional problem as "school phobia", which is similar to separation anxiety disorder. However, although Emilo's fear of school was exaggerated, it was not totally baseless. The students at Lee are more aggressive than the students enrolled in the regular school program, and Emilo was threatened and harassed by the other students when he went to school. Emilo did not have attendance problems while enrolled at Kinloch. Because of Emilo's emotional problems, he would benefit from mental health counseling and assignment to a regular school program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered disapproving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at J.R.E. Lee and assigning the respondent to the regular school program. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Diane A. Grubbs, 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 17th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniella S. Levine, Esq. Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northeide Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, FL 33147-4796 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 401 Miami, FL 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A. Suite 800, 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33137 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administration Building Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132
The Issue Does Petitioner, Nicholas A. Mancini, PhD (Dr. Mancini), satisfy the requirements for licensure as a mental health counselor as established in section 491.005(4), Florida Statutes (2010)?1
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On December 30, 2010, the Board issued its Notice of Intent to Deny Dr. Mancini's application for licensure as a Mental Health Counselor. Dr. Mancini requested a hearing to challenge the decision. This proceeding followed. Dr. Mancini has been licensed to practice psychology in California and Pennsylvania. His Pennsylvania license expired November 30, 2003. His California license was canceled on May 31, 2006. Dr. Mancini earned a master's degree in psychology from Fairleigh Dickinson University. He completed 34 semester hours of coursework there. The Fairleigh Dickinson University master's in psychology program that Dr. Mancini completed was not a mental health counseling program accredited by the Council of Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. The program is, however, related to the practice of mental health counseling. At the time Dr. Mancini attended Farleigh Dickinson, it was accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. It was also accredited by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson course 20PY624, Counseling and Interviewing, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of counseling theories and practice. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson course 30PY633, Abnormal Psychology, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of diagnosis and treatment of psychopathology. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson Course 30PY600, Tests and Measurements I, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of individual evaluation and assessment. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson courses 20PY603 and 20PY604, Statistics and Experimental Psychology, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of research and program evaluation. By completing Fairleigh Dickinson course 30PY710, Social Problems, Dr. Mancini obtained three semester hours of graduate coursework in the content area of substance abuse. Dr. Mancini attended, but did not receive a degree from, Hahneman University Medical College of Philadelphia (now Drexel University). He completed four semester hours of graduate coursework there. At the time, it was regionally accredited by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation. Dr. Mancini attended, but did not receive a degree from, Glassboro State College (now Rowan University). He completed six semester hours of graduate coursework there. At the time, it was regionally accredited by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation. Dr. Mancini earned a doctoral degree in counseling psychology from the Professional School of Psychological Studies. At the time, the school was not regionally accredited. Dr. Mancini has not obtained three semester hours of graduate-level coursework from a regionally accredited institution in each of the following content areas: human growth and development; human sexuality, group theories and practice; career and lifestyle assessment; social and cultural foundations; counseling in community settings; and legal, ethical, and professional standards issues in the practice of mental health counseling.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage, and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling issue a final order denying Dr. Mancini's licensure application. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 7th day of June, 2011.
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission (EPC) discipline Respondent, who holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 802764, for the violations alleged in EPC Case No. 990-1726-C?2/
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: The Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 802764, covering the area of varying exceptionalities, which was valid through June 30, 2000. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an ESE Specialist at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL) in the Bay County School District. Additional Facts: MKL is a special education school with self-contained classrooms. It serves special needs children. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent was a special education teacher at MKL. Her class had approximately 14 teenage students with varying exceptionalities. The majority of those students were trainably mentally handicapped (TMH). One or two of the students were educably mentally handicapped (EMH). One child was deaf and a second child had a different form of health impairment. Respondent, in her formal education to prepare her for her teaching assignment at MKL, earned a Bachelor of Science in Education from State University of West Georgia, specializing in mental retardation. In December 2000, beyond the dates described in the administrative complaint, Respondent earned a master's degree from Florida State University in emotional disturbances and learning disabilities pertaining to teaching. The curriculum in Respondent's class in 1999-2000 was designed to provide the students with functional daily living skills. The grade level, generally described, included grades 9A through 10B. The teachers at MKL had been provided with a handbook which described the appropriate discipline and behavioral management of the students. Respondent had that handbook. The faculty had undergone training above and beyond what would normally be anticipated for teachers in other schools designed to help the teachers develop and monitor specific behavior programs needed for the individual students. Most importantly, the methods of discipline described in the handbook did not include resorting to corporal punishment of the students. This would include the prohibition against bending back the fingers of students, pulling the hair of students, placing soap in the mouth of students or causing it to be placed. Respondent concedes that these forms of physical interaction with the student would constitute grounds to discipline a teacher. As Respondent acknowledges, the only forms of appropriate control of students in her class were verbal reminders, denial of privileges, or removal from group activities consistent with behavior plans for the students. At times relevant, Respondent had received training from the Bay County School District on the subject of Downs Syndrome children to allow her to address their needs. The school district also had provided the Respondent training in crisis prevention intervention (CPI). Notwithstanding her awareness that she should not engage in physical intervention with her students such as hair pulling, bending fingers, and placing soap in the mouth, Respondent engaged in these activities with the student J.L., as alleged in the administrative complaint. Respondent also yelled at and directed profanity at J.L. as the subject of her tirades. These events occurred while J.L. was a student in Respondent's class at MKL during the 1999-2000 school year, in particular on May 25, 2000. J.L. has been classified as TMH. He has Downs Syndrome. He had heart surgery when he was six months old. He has endocardia cushion effect, a heart problem. He has cholesterol problems. He has thyroid problems. At times relevant, J.L. was approximately five feet four inches tall and weighed 185 to 190 pounds and was in his mid-teens. The facts in this case reveal that J.L. was a student prone to agitation. He could be profane. He gestured with his index finger in his version of an obscene sign. He tried to scratch other students or to physically interfere with other students in a different way, for example, grabbing at the hair of a female student. He was observed to play with his "sexual parts." In addressing J.L.'s unruly or disruptive conduct, Respondent instructed Ryan Mints, a paraprofessional whom she supervised in the classroom, to employ a physical control technique by pressing and bending J.L.'s finger back. By this method the pointer finger would be subjected to pressure until sufficient pressure was exerted to make J.L. stop the misconduct. Respondent showed Mr. Mints how this would be done. Consistent with his instructions, Mr. Mints employed the bending the finger technique to exert control over J.L. When this was done, J.L. would verbalize his discomfort. Mr. Mints also observed Respondent put soap on J.L.'s pointer finger when J.L. had an outburst and used the pointer finger similar to when "people flip people off with the middle finger." Instead J.L. would use his pointer finger for the same purpose. When the soap was applied to the pointer finger as a means to address the obscene gesture, J.L. would put that finger in his mouth with the soap. J.L. would then try to spit the soap out. Mr. Mints had also observed Respondent place J.L. in the bathroom as a form of "timeout." Nancy Norton was a paraprofessional in a separate class at MKL in the school year 1999-2000. She was supervised by teacher Barbara Beck. Respondent told Ms. Norton that Respondent would put a little soap in J.L.'s mouth when J.L. would use "ugly words," which was quite a frequent event. On the morning of May 25, 2000, while in the classroom, J.L. tried to scratch another student. Jacquelynn Bruce, a paraprofessional in the class, walked over to try and remove J.L. from that student, at which point J.L. tried to scratch Ms. Bruce. Respondent intervened by physically escorting J.L. to the bathroom in the class space. When Respondent became involved in the incident, she told J.L. to get up from where he was seated. He would not. Respondent then took J.L.'s thumb and bent it back. Then he got up. Respondent picked up some soap and commented "that's one of my favorite things to do" while taking J.L. to the bathroom. When entering the bathroom Respondent commented that she was going to wash his mouth out with soap, taken to mean to wash J.L.'s mouth out with soap. Before entering the bathroom Respondent put soap on J.L.'s index finger and he placed that finger in his mouth as a reflex. Once in the bathroom, the door was closed, leaving Respondent and J.L. out of the sight of other persons in the classroom. Respondent was "hollering and cussing." Respondent was overheard to say "shithead," taken to be directed to J.L. J.L. was heard to use the word "bitch," taken to refer to Respondent. When Respondent and J.L. came out of the bathroom, J.L. was upset. Respondent appeared angry by virtue of the expression on her face. There was another incident between J.L. and Respondent during the afternoon of May 25, 2000, in the classroom. After lunch, J.L. reached over and scratched one of the other students who was sitting next to him. Angie Suber, a paraprofessional in the classroom, went over to J.L. and told him that his act was not an appropriate thing to do. When Ms. Suber got J.L. up from his seat, J.L. made a gesture as if to pull the hair of a female student, J.B. Given the level of his agitation, the paraprofessionals, Ms. Suber and Ms. Bruce, decided to move J.L. to another part of the room where they placed him on a picnic bench and put a divider screen between J.L. and the other students to calm things down between the students. After being placed behind the screen on the picnic bench, J.L. became more calm. While these events transpired, Respondent was not in the room. Respondent then re-entered the classroom and, seeing J.L. isolated from the other students, asked "what happened now?" The paraprofessionals told Respondent what had transpired between J.L. and the other students leading to his placement behind the screen on the picnic bench. Respondent approached J.L. behind the screen. J.L. was heard to exclaim "Oh, oh that hurts." J.L. called Respondent "bitch." The screen then fell away to the floor revealing Respondent grasping J.L. by the hair with her two hands, one in the front on the top, and one on the back on the bottom. Respondent then escorted J.L. to the bathroom again by exerting physical control over J.L.. On this occasion while escorting J.L. to the bathroom, she referred to him as "a little shithead." While Respondent had J.L. by the hair front and back, he continued to say "stop Sheets, stop Sheets, no soap Sheets, stop Sheets, stop Sheets." In addition to referring to J.L. as a "shithead," Respondent stated, "I'm going to teach you, I'm going to get to do what I like to do best to you." Respondent and J.L. entered the bathroom. When they came out of the bathroom, J.L. was upset, red in the face, and very emotional and had bubbles coming out of his mouth that had the appearance of soap bubbles. Respondent was red in the face and angry in her appearance. Once out of the bathroom Respondent commented that "we're going to the office." Respondent kept pushing J.L. forward through the classroom while encountering other students. She had one hand on J.L.'s collar and was using the other hand to make way by pushing through the other students. During this time, J.L. was clawing and fighting back and another student, L., was scratched as the Respondent and J.L. exited the door. Once outside the door in an area that included an access ramp with a rail, a student identified by the initial J. lost his balance in the fray while standing against the rail, but he caught himself before falling completely. When leaving the room, Respondent was screaming "get out of my way, get out of my way.” The student identified as L. had a preference for wearing shirts with a wrestling motif. Respondent did not accept that attire. Respondent told L. that she would take his shirt and turn it inside out because she did not want him wearing it and commented that "she didn't care what his bitchy mama said." Respondent took the shirt off L. and put it back on inside out. L., a TMH student, did not resist Respondent when this was done. William Harrison is the director of personnel for the Bay County School District. He is certified as an educator in Florida. He has spent his entire professional career in Bay County, some 36 years. Eighteen and one-half years were spent as a teacher in the classroom. Several years were served as an assistant principal, and the balance of his service has been as director of personnel. Mr. Harrison was accepted as an expert allowed to offer opinions concerning professional ethics for educators. He established that grabbing a student by the hair, putting soap in the mouth of a student, bending a student's finger back, or using derogatory or profane references such as "shithead" directed to a student do not constitute legitimate means to control or discipline a student in the Bay County school system. Mr. Harrison correctly perceives that the use of these methods, all attributable to Respondent's conduct with J.L., evidence a failure to make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and physical safety, Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Although the record reveals that Mr. Harrison's involvement in the investigation of the alleged incident of May 25, 2000, for the Bay County School District was one in which he did not recommend termination of her employment with the school district, he nonetheless expressed the opinion that the conduct in relation to J.L. would seriously reduce her effectiveness as an employee with the school board. This opinion is accepted. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was not employed with the school district or any other school district.
Recommendation Having this in mind, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Counts I through V, revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of four years. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building Hearings 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 this 11th day of April, 2003.
