The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges dated August 13, 1999, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Miami-Dade County School Board is a duly- constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Mr. Paulk was employed by the School Board as a school security monitor. School security monitors are classified as educational support personnel in Section 231.3605(1), Florida Statutes. Mr. Paulk is a member of the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD") and is bound by the provisions of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000. Mr. Paulk was initially employed by the School Board in June 1993 as a part-time school security monitor and was assigned to the Krusé Center. The Krusé Center is a middle school serving only severely emotionally disturbed and emotionally handicapped students. In January 1994, Mr. Paulk was hired as a full-time school security monitor, and he was assigned to work at the Krusé Center. Except for a brief hiatus in early 1998, Mr. Paulk worked at the Krusé Center until November 1998, when he was assigned to the Florida Diagnostic Learning Resource System as an alternate assignment. Mr. Paulk was suspended as an employee of the School Board on May 13, 1999. The responsibilities of a school security monitor include helping the school staff maintain a safe learning environment for the students, reporting serious disturbances to the school administration, and resolving minor altercations. Because of the nature of their exceptionalities, the students attending the Krusé Center can sometimes be difficult to handle, and their behavior is sometimes disruptive and/or out-of-control. Many of the exceptional education students at the Krusé Center have included in their Individual Educational Plans a provision allowing the use of certain techniques to physically restrain the student if his or her behavior is out- of-control. All personnel at the Krusé Center, including security monitors, are required to use non-physical intervention techniques to control a student whose behavior is disruptive and/or out-of-control. If a student's disruptive or out-of- control behavior cannot be controlled by non-physical intervention techniques, physical intervention techniques known as Safe Physical Management ("SPM") techniques may be used to restrain the student until he or she is calm. Only SPM techniques, which are approved by the School Board, may be used to physically restrain students when the use of physical restraint is necessary. There are three primary SPM techniques: the extended arm assist; upper torso control; and supine/prone restraint. It is never appropriate to use SPM techniques in response to a student’s general misbehavior or defiance. Procedures regarding the use of physical force against exceptional education students are set forth in Article VIII, Section 3 of the UTD Contract, which provides in pertinent part: H. Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized the implementation of specific physical restraint procedures to be used in Exceptional Student Education programs when a student's IEP documents the potential need for their use. These procedures include, but are [sic] limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. According to School Board procedures and the UTD Contract, a school security monitor who has physically restrained a student must complete three student case management forms: the Parent Notification, Physical Restraint Procedures Form; the Student Case Management Student Services Form; and the Student Case Management Referral Form. All staff at the Krusé Center, including Mr. Paulk, received formal training in the use of SPM techniques at the school-district level. In addition, in September 1996, Daniel Jones, the principal of the Krusé Center at the time, distributed a memorandum to the staff at the Krusé Center, including Mr. Paulk, which contained a brief review of the purpose of physical restraint, the circumstances in which it could be used, and the authorization to use only the School Board-approved SPM techniques. In addition, Mr. Jones reviewed the paperwork that must be completed when SPM techniques were used to restrain a student. Will Gordillo, who became the principal of the Krusé Center at the beginning of the 1997-98 school year, prepared a handbook for security monitors working at the Krusé Center, which included the school's internal policies and procedures for safely dealing with the exceptional education students who attended the Krusé Center. The handbook was given to all security monitors at the school, and the contents of the handbook were reviewed with the security monitors. Mr. Paulk received a copy of the handbook, and its contents were reviewed with him. The first preliminary personnel investigation into Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against a student was conducted in 1996, when Mr. Paulk was accused on grabbing a student by the shirt and breaking the student's necklace. The charges against Mr. Paulk were found to be unsubstantiated, and Mr. Jones, then the principal of the Krusé Center, reviewed the investigative report with Mr. Paulk during a meeting held on June 5, 1996. According to the Site Disposition of Investigative Report prepared by Mr. Jones, he and Mr. Paulk reviewed and discussed the School Board's guidelines for the use of safe physical management. April 17, 1997, incident On April 17, 1997, an incident occurred at the Krusé Center involving Mr. Paulk and a student named A.G., who was 13 years old at the time. A.G.'s school bus was late, and he was waiting outside the school building. A security monitor named T. Grier was supervising students in the area where A.G. was waiting for the school bus. Although there was some disagreement in the testimony of Mr. Grier and A.G. relating to the events leading up to the incident1, it is uncontroverted that Mr. Grier told A.G. not to do something, that A.G. ignored his instruction, and that Mr. Paulk approached A.G. and asked him if he had heard Mr. Grier's instructions. When A.G. did not respond, Mr. Paulk then either "tackled" A.G. or hit A.G. in the head and neck with his forearm and elbow. Because A.G. was standing near the school building wall, the blow caused his head to hit the wall with enough force as to raise a lump on the left side of his head. A.G. was not exhibiting any aggressive behavior at the time of the incident. A.G. was very upset, and he went to the principal's office. A.G. wanted to call his mother, but Mr. Jones, the principal, tried to calm him and find out what had happened before allowing A.G. to call his mother. A.G. did not calm down, and he left the school grounds by himself without having called his mother. Later that afternoon, A.G. and his mother returned to the Krusé Center and reported the incident to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones referred the matter to the Division of School Police for a preliminary personnel investigation. The investigator who conducted the preliminary personnel investigation concluded that the charge of battery against A.G. was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was conducted by Mr. Jones on June 12, 1997, in which the incident involving A.G. was discussed with Mr. Paulk. Stella Menendez, the assistant principal at the Krusé Center, also attended the conference; Mr. Paulk waived the right to have a union representative present. Mr. Jones prepared a Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record dated June 12, 1997. According to the summary, Mr. Paulk was provided a copy of the investigative report, which was discussed during the conference. Mr. Jones reviewed with Mr. Paulk the appropriate use of physical force with students at the Krusé Center, both as set forth in the UTD Contract and as approved by the School Board. Mr. Paulk was directed to refrain from the use of inappropriate physical force, which is considered corporal punishment under the School Board's rules; to use only SPM techniques; and to use SPM techniques only when the use of physical restraint was necessary to prevent a student from harming himself or others or from damaging property. Mr. Paulk indicated that he did not "really" need any additional training in SPM techniques. Finally, Mr. Paulk was advised by Mr. Jones that a second substantiated report involving the inappropriate use of physical force on a student would result in further disciplinary action, including possible termination of his employment. Mr. Jones provided Mr. Paulk with copies of the documents discussed during the conference concerning the use of SPM techniques and of the School Board's rule prohibiting corporal punishment. December 18, 1997, incident On December 18, 1997, an incident occurred at the Krusé Center involving Mr. Paulk and a student named O.A., who was 12 years old at the time. The incident occurred in the school cafeteria, during the lunch hour. Mr. Paulk was supervising the students waiting in the lunch line, and he was standing at the door to the cafeteria with his arm across the door to keep the students congregating outside the cafeteria from entering until the lunch line was clear. O.A. was the first student standing in line waiting to be admitted into the cafeteria, and he pushed past Mr. Paulk without waiting for permission. Mr. Paulk confronted O.A., who made a defiant remark to Mr. Paulk and continued walking into the cafeteria. Mr. Paulk followed O.A. into the cafeteria, and he and O.A. exchanged words; O.A.'s behavior continued to be defiant. Mr. Paulk then grabbed O.A. from behind and pushed him facedown over a refrigerated case containing cartons of milk. O.A. put out his arms to brace himself and prevent his face from hitting the top of the refrigerated case. When O.A. pushed himself upright, Mr. Paulk grabbed O.A.'s shirt collar from the front, pushed O.A. against the wall of the cafeteria, and held O.A. there by placing his arm across O.A.'s chest. When Mr. Paulk pushed him against the wall, O.A. began yelling and cursing Mr. Paulk. Antonio Herrera, a paraprofessional at the Krusé Center who was in another part of the cafeteria when the incident began, heard the commotion and went to see what was happening. Mr. Herrera saw Mr. Paulk holding O.A. against the wall with his arm across O.A.'s chest, and Mr. Herrera intervened and escorted O.A. to a table in the cafeteria. During the incident, O.A.'s gold neck chain was broken. Mr. Paulk did not report this incident to the school administration, and he did not complete the paperwork required when physical intervention is used. The incident was reported by O.A.'s mother, who was very upset when she learned about the incident from her son. O.A.'s mother refused to allow her son to attend school after the incident as long as Mr. Paulk remained in his position as a security monitor. Mr. Gordillo, the principal of the Krusé Center at the time, referred the matter to the Division of School Police for a preliminary personnel investigation, and, on January 13, 1998, Mr. Gordillo held a Conference-for-the-Record to discuss the incident. The conference was attended by Mr. Gordillo, Mr. Paulk, and Benny Pollack, a UTD representative. Mr. Gordillo prepared a Summary of Conference-for-the-Record dated January 16, 1998. According to the summary, Mr. Paulk was advised that he would remain in his assignment as a security monitor at the Krusé Center but that he would be assigned to work at the Florida Diagnostic Learning Resource System pending the outcome of the preliminary personnel investigation. Mr. Gordillo directed Mr. Paulk to refrain from the use of all physical restraint with the students, including SPM techniques, and he reviewed with Mr. Paulk the cautions about the use of inappropriate physical force conveyed to him during the Conference-for-the-Record held on June 12, 1997, with respect to the substantiated charges of battery against A.G. Mr. Gordillo also notified Mr. Paulk that he would be subject to additional disciplinary action, and possibly termination from his employment with the School Board, if the charges against him were substantiated as a result of the preliminary personnel investigation. The investigator who conducted the preliminary personnel investigation concluded that the charge of battery against O.A. was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on June 19, 1998, to review the results of the investigation. The conference was attended by Mr. Gordillo; Stella Menendez, the assistant principal of the Krusé Center; Mr. Paulk; and Lourdes Blanco-Lopez, the UTD lead steward. Mr. Gordillo prepared a Summary of the Conference-of-the-Record dated July 9, 1998. According to the summary, Mr. Gordillo reviewed the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record held on June 12, 1997. Mr. Gordillo went over the report of the preliminary personnel investigation in which the charges of battery against O.A. were found to be substantiated, and Mr. Gordillo discussed with Mr. Paulk the difference between the appropriate and the inappropriate use of physical force. Mr. Gordillo discussed with Mr. Paulk the provision of the UTD Contract dealing with the use of physical restraint to prevent students from inflicting injury on themselves or others or from causing serious damage to property, the provision of the UTD Contract requiring the documentation of the use of physical restraint, the School Board rule prohibiting corporal punishment, and the contents of a brochure on the use of reasonable force. The July 9, 1998, Summary of the Conference-of-the- Record further reflects that Mr. Gordillo directed Mr. Paulk to refrain from using physical force with students except in those cases which require the use of safe physical management techniques . . . [,] to make sure you record all incidents in which you use any physical force and/or physical restraint techniques in a SCM [Student Case Management] form and turn it in to an administrator immediately after the said incident . . . [,] [and] to attend the next scheduled Safe Physical Management Workshop during the 1998-98 [sic] school year as a refresher. Failure to comply with the aforementioned directives will be considered gross insubordination. Any further acts of non-compliance with school board policies and procedures will also lead to disciplinary actions which may include dismissal. Mr. Paulk was advised that a letter of reprimand would be issued following the conference. A memorandum dated July 10, 1998, and entitled "Reprimand" was directed to Mr. Paulk in which Mr. Gordillo officially reprimanded Mr. Paulk for his actions with respect to the incident involving O.A. Mr. Paulk was further advised in the Reprimand: [Y]ou are directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures and actions during the course of your employment day. Any recurrence of the above infraction [the December 18, 1997, incident] will be considered gross insubordination and may lead to further disciplinary action. October 23, 1998, incident On October 23, 1998, an incident occurred at the Krusé Center involving Mr. Paulk and a student named M.L., who was 12 years old at the time. The incident occurred in the morning, before school started. Mr. Paulk was in the school cafeteria, supervising students who had arrived at the school early. M.L. and another student were in the cafeteria, "play" wrestling and generally engaging in horseplay. Mr. Paulk told them to stop, and, when they did not do so, he grabbed M.L. by the back waistband of his pants, pulled him off the other student, and threw him between two cafeteria tables. M.L. got up from the floor and left the cafeteria. He returned to the cafeteria after a short time, and attended his classes. Later in the day, M.L. showed a fellow student abrasions on the right side of his body, near his waist, which he attributed to Mr. Paulk's use of physical force in the cafeteria that morning. Mr. Gordillo learned of the incident later on the day of October 23, 1998. He began gathering information regarding the incident, and, on Monday, October 26, 1998, the student and his parent came to Mr. Gordillo's office. M.L. showed Mr. Gordillo the abrasions near his waist on the right side of his body, and Mr. Gordillo took photos of the injuries. Mr. Gordillo then referred the matter to the Division of School Police for a preliminary personnel investigation, and, on October 28, 1998, Mr. Gordillo returned Mr. Paulk to the alternate work assignment at the Florida Diagnostic Learning Resource System. The investigator who conducted the preliminary personnel investigation concluded that the charge of battery against M.L. was substantiated as a result of the investigation. In a memorandum dated February 11, 1999, Mr. Paulk was notified that a Conference-for-the-Record would be held at the Office of Professional Standards on February 23, 1999. The stated purpose of the conference was to address the preliminary personnel investigation report which found that the charge of battery against student M.L. had been substantiated; Mr. Paulk's failure to follow administrative directives; Mr. Paulk's violation of the School Board rule prohibiting corporal punishment; Mr. Paulk's job performance to date; and Mr. Paulk's future employment status with the School Board. The conference was held on February 23, 1999, and was attended by Isaac J. Rodriguez, an executive director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards; Mr. Gordillo; Mr. Paulk; and Dia Falco, a UTD Bargaining Agent Representative. Mr. Rodriguez prepared a Summary of Conference-for-the-Record dated March 18, 1999. According to the summary, the report of the preliminary personnel investigation that substantiated the charges of battery against M.L. was reviewed. Mr. Paulk's employment history with the School Board was reviewed, including the June 5, 1996, memorandum regarding the unsubstantiated charge of battery in 1996; the reports of the preliminary personnel investigations of the substantiated charges of battery against A.G. and O.A.; and the summaries of the Conferences-for- the-Record held on June 12, 1997 and June 19, 1998, to discuss these charges. Mr. Paulk was advised that his continued use of excessive force was of serious concern and that disciplinary action would be taken after the matter was reviewed by the Senior Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards, the District Director of the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Psychological Services, Mr. Gordillo, and the School Board's attorneys. Finally, Mr. Paulk was given three directives: perform all duties as assigned; comply with all administrative directives; and refrain from using physical means to effect discipline. In a memorandum dated March 4, 1999, Mr. Gordillo transmitted to Roger K. Felton, District Director of the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Psychological Services, his recommendation that Mr. Paulk be dismissed from employment with the School Board. In a memorandum dated March 30, 1999, Mr. Felton transmitted to Joyce Annunziata, Senior Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards, his concurrence in Mr. Gordillo's recommendation that Mr. Paulk be dismissed from employment. In a letter to Mr. Paulk dated April 28, 1999, Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent of Schools, notified Mr. Paulk that he was recommending to the School Board that Mr. Paulk be suspended from employment and that proceedings for his dismissal be initiated. The School Board followed the Superintendent's recommendation at its meeting on May 12, 1999, and a letter dated May 13, 1999, was sent to Mr. Paulk notifying him of this action. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against A.G., O.A., and M.L. was unseemly and does not reflect credit on either Mr. Paulk or the school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against A.G., O.A., and M.L. was inappropriate. The behavior exhibited by these three students did not warrant the use of physical force because the behavior was not disruptive or out-of-control behavior that posed a danger of harm to themselves or others or threatened the destruction of property. Even had the use of physical force been warranted, Mr. Paulk used excessive physical force and did not use authorized SPM techniques. In addition, the evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk used physical force against these three students as punishment for their failure to follow his instructions rather than as a means of restricting their movements to de-escalate aggressive behavior. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk failed to follow the directives he received in June 1996, in June 1997, and in June 1998 to use physical force with students only when the use of physical force was warranted and to use only SPM techniques when physically restraining students. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against A.G., O.A., and M.L. was excessive and caused physical injuries to both A.G. and M.L., although the injuries were not serious, and broke O.A.'s necklace. This use of physical force by Mr. Paulk against A.G., O.A., and M.L. not only reflects a lack of professional judgment on Mr. Paulk's part but also is inconsistent with Mr. Paulk's responsibility as a school security monitor to provide a safe learning environment for the students at the Krusé Center. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's conduct with respect to A.G., O.A., and M.L. was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience because Mr. Paulk used physical force against three children, aged 12 and 13, who were either seriously emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped, in circumstances in which the use of physical force was not warranted. However, the evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's conduct was notorious or brought public disgrace or disrespect to the education profession. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that just cause exists to terminate Mr. Paulk's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order Dismissing Count V of the Notice of Specific Charges; Finding that, in accordance with the terms of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000, just cause exists to terminate the employment of Christopher A. Paulk; and Dismissing Christopher A. Paulk from employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 9th day of May, 2000.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent from her employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an art teacher at Western High School ("Western High"). Respondent's career with the School Board, which spans some 21 years, has not proceeded entirely without incident: on January 31, 1997, Respondent uttered profanity in the presence of her students, which resulted in the issuance of a written reprimand that directed her to "cease and desist from inappropriate remarks"; several months later, Respondent's further use of colorful language led to a second written reprimand; and, in August 2009, Respondent agreed to serve a three-day suspension "for inappropriate language." The School Board now seeks to suspend Respondent for five days based upon an allegation that, on August 16, 2013, she used profanity and "aggressively grabbed" a female student's arm during an episode in Western High's parking lot. The facts relating to the instant charges are recounted below. Instant Allegations On the morning of August 16, 2013——the final weekday before the start of the 2013-2014 school year——Respondent arrived at Western High's campus to place the finishing touches on her classroom. On several occasions throughout the day, one of Western High's assistant principals announced that the school's parking lot would be locked at 5:30 p.m. The final such warning, which was made at 5:15 p.m., prompted Respondent to exit the building approximately five minutes later. As she headed toward her vehicle, Respondent (accompanied by her mother, Carol Fischer, herself a longtime educator) noticed several groups of students decorating parking spaces in the school lot. As explained during the final hearing, the students' presence was not unusual, for incoming seniors at Western High were authorized, pursuant to a school fundraiser, to "purchase" a parking space and adorn it as each saw fit. Mindful that the school gate would soon be locked, Respondent walked toward the groups and, from a distance of approximately 50 yards, loudly directed them to pack up their belongings and leave the campus. Each of the groups complied, save for one, which prompted Respondent to approach the stragglers and repeatedly announce——with diminishing volume as she made her way closer——that they needed to go home. Suffice it to say that these importunings had no discernable effect on the group's activities; as a result, Respondent continued toward the parking spot where the students were working. Now in their immediate vicinity, Respondent informed the group (which included two female students, N.S. and T.C., both of whom were incoming seniors at Western High) that they had two minutes to gather their possessions and leave the campus. During the ensuing interaction, T.C. began to argue with Respondent and, to make matters worse, acted as if she intended to continue painting. Her patience understandably waning, Respondent reached toward T.C. and, in a non-violent fashion, placed her hand on the student's upper arm. This brief physical contact, intended to secure T.C.'s complete attention and gesture her in the direction of the exit, was instantly met with a vocal objection. Respondent immediately reacted by stepping backwards,1/ at which point the group began to gather up the painting materials. T.C. and the other students departed the parking lot a short time later. Contrary to the complaint's allegations, the credible evidence demonstrates that, although Respondent addressed the students with an elevated voice (but only as she approached from a distance), she at no point used profanity or any other inappropriate language.2/ Further, the record is pellucid that Respondent's momentary, gesturing contact with T.C. was completely innocuous and in no way constituted an "aggressive grab."3/ Indeed, T.C. acknowledged during her final hearing testimony that Respondent plainly intended no harm.4/ Finally, and with respect to the charge of insubordination, there has been no showing that Respondent's behavior ran afoul of any direct order. Although the School Board attempted to prove the existence of a "no touching whatsoever" rule, the testimony on that point was internally contradictory and ultimately unpersuasive. In any event, and as discussed shortly, a general policy——i.e., one applicable to all employees——does not constitute a direct order for the purpose of sustaining an insubordination charge. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of misconduct in office. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: exonerating Respondent of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; and awarding Respondent any lost pay and benefits she experienced as a result of the five-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anthony G. Acito, holds and at all times material hereto held, Teacher's Certificate No. 529895 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Petitioner is certified to teach social studies and elementary education. At all times material hereto Mr. Acito was employed as a teacher with the School Board of Palm Beach County. For the 1982-83 school year Mr. Acito was assigned to Crestwood Middle School where he taught social studies. His teacher's evaluation for that school year reflects an above-satisfactory to outstanding performance. For the 1983-84 school year, Mr. Acito was again assigned to Crestwood Middle School to teach social studies. At this time, due to increased enrollment, additional teacher units were mandated at Crestwood, which included additional physical education classes. Mr. Acito requested and was assigned to teach three physical education classes scheduled for the third, fifth, and seventh periods. The four counts lodged against Mr. Acito in this case deal with corporal punishment and/or excessive use of force by Respondent upon the persons of Scott Collins, Danny Urbaniak, Keith Cojocar, and Norman Bishop, then students in Mr. Acito's seventh hour physical education class, and the incidents complained of all occurred on December 1, 1983, during that class period. At the time of the incidents in question Collins, Urbaniak, Cojocar, and Bishop were, respectively, 13, 12, 12, and 13 years of age. By the complainants' own testimony, it is clear that the students in Mr. Acito's seventh hour physical education class, including the four complainants, were not marvels of decorum and that the class as a whole was quite disruptive. On December 1, 1983, as on other school days, the students changed into their physical education clothing and awaited Mr. Acito on the athletic field until he, also, had the opportunity to change. When Mr. Acito exited the locker room and blew his whistle to signify the commencement of class, the students, ideally, were to form into squads and pay attention. On December 1, 1983, as on other occasions when Mr. Acito blew his whistle and asked for their attention, the students did not quiet down or stop talking, but rather, continued "horsing around" and being disruptive. Scott Collins, although directed to get in his squad, left the formation to get a ball from behind Mr. Acito. Mr. Acito grabbed Collins by the arm and put him back in line. Mr. Acito told Collins, and the rest of the class, to sit down. By Collins' own testimony he was not grabbed hard by Mr. Acito or hurt. He was simply "put back in line." Danny Urbaniak, upon Mr. Acito's direction had formed up into his squad but continued talking to the student in front of him even though he admits Mr. Acito was at that very moment blowing his whistle at another squad trying to get them quiet. Mr. Acito grabbed Urbaniak by the arm, pulled him out of line because of his continued talking, and pushed him back behind the line of squads. Mr. Acito then kicked Urbaniak in the shin and pushed him away. Keith Cojocar entered the seventh hour class late and heard r. Acito arguing with Urbaniak. Even at this point the students were still "fooling around." Consequently, because they were "bad," the students were directed to do exercises rather than play soccer. Mr. Acito directed everyone to do push- ups but Cojocar did not do any, he just "lay there." Mr. Acito took Cojocar by the ear and led him away, put a loose neck hold on him from behind, and asked "if he'd ever do it again,"--to which Cojocar replied "No." Mr. Acito did not harm Cojocar. Norman Bishop, at the conclusion of the seventh hour physical education class, was in the locker room changing into his school clothes. At that time Bishop was speaking with a classmate and opined, regarding the events of that day, that "If he would of hit me, I would of hit him back." Unbeknownst to Bishop, Mr. Acito was standing behind him at the time he made his statement. Mr. Acito grabbed Bishop, turned him around, and pushed him against the lockers with his hand at Bishop's throat and advised Bishop not to tell anyone about what had happened that day. Mr. Acito used such force in pushing Bishop against the locker that Bishop experienced pain in his jaw, swelling in his neck, and headaches. Bishop was examined by Drs. Jerry Tankersley and Douglas J. Phillips. Dr. Phillips' initial diagnosis was that Bishop's temporomandibular joints were dislocated and that he would require orthodontic and therapeutic care estimated to cost approximately $5,000. An investigation into the incidents of December 1, 1983, was commenced December 2, 1983, after the parents of Norman Bishop complained to the principal at Crestwood Middle School. The investigation was abruptly terminated when Mr. Acito submitted his letter of resignation dated December 4, 1983. Prior to the events of December 1, 1983, Mr. Acito was well liked and effective as a teacher. As a consequence of the events of that day, however, he was no longer so regarded. As a consequence of his actions toward Collins, Urbaniak, Cojocar, and Bishop, criminal battery charges were filed against Mr. Acito, in the County Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Criminal Division, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 84-699 MMA02. On September 12, 1984, a not guilty verdict was entered.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Arthur Williams, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such violations are just cause for his suspension without pay for thirty days.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Arthur Williams, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract and was assigned to teach beginning band at Norland Middle School. The sole incident complained of in this case occurred on or about January 24, 2006, in the Respondent’s sixth period band class. The Respondent’s band class was located in a large classroom with three riser sections formed into a semi-circle. Students assigned seats in the higher section would step up the risers using the railed “hallways” leading to the upper sections. On or about January 24, 2006, C. M. was a student in the Respondent’s sixth period class. C. M. had an assigned seat in an upper riser section. For reasons known only to C. M., the student left his seat and walked down the riser hallway to pick up a piece of paper and throw it into a trash can located on or near the floor. Presumably, the trash can was at the lowest section (compared to the student’s seat). When the Respondent observed the student, C. M., out of his seat, he approached the student, put his hands on the student’s shoulders, turned him around (to then face his seat), and told him to return to his seat. In connection with the verbal direction to return to his seat, the Respondent gave the student a slight shove to direct him in the proper direction. The student, C. M., was out of his seat without permission, was unprepared for class, and was not responsible for throwing trash away (presumably an act he felt justified his behavior). The slight shove was so imperceptible that it did not offend any student who observed the action. C. M. did not show any sign of injury at the time of the incident described above. None of the students alleged that the Respondent had acted in anger in redirecting the student to his seat. None of the students perceived the act of redirecting the student as an act of corporal punishment or physical aggression against the student. Some six days after the incident complained of, the mother of the alleged victim took the student to the hospital. The mother claimed the student was diagnosed with a sprained ankle. There is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent caused the alleged victim’s alleged sprained ankle. None of the other student witnesses verified that C. M. was injured or seen limping on or about the date of the incident. The Respondent continued teaching at the school through the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. The Respondent did not endanger the student, C. M., at any time. After the incident complained of herein, the student’s mother decided to move the student from the Respondent’s class. When the Respondent went to a conference with the office of professional standards there was no allegation that the Respondent had failed to comply with the corporal punishment guidelines. The act of redirecting the student to his seat was not an attempt at corporal punishment. The Respondent did not make physical contact with the student, C. M., to maintain discipline. It is undisputed that the Respondent was merely attempting to get the student to return to his seat. The Respondent’s conduct did not disparage the student. The Respondent’s conduct did not embarrass the student. The Respondent did not push C. M. down. On or near the date of the incident, the Respondent called C. M.’s parent to address the student’s poor class performance. The incident complained of herein was not addressed during the call. In fact, prior to the call, C. M. had not complained regarding the incident described above. When faced with an allegation of poor class performance, C. M. told his parent about the incident described above and claimed he had been injured in the process. The alleged injury prompted the removal of the student from the Respondent’s class. Thereafter, the parent contacted the Petitioner’s region office to file a complaint against the Respondent. That complaint resulted in the instant action. Ms. Pritchett maintained that the Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely impaired as a result of the parent’s complaint regarding the incident. The record lacks any information regarding the Respondent’s past school performance. No prior disciplinary issues or actions were noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order concluding the Respondent’s behavior does not warrant a 30-day suspension. S DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
Findings Of Fact Although Wesley John Baker was born on November 13, 1963, he was only in the seventh grade in January of 1979, at the Dunnellon Middle School. He was one of twenty-five students in mathematics class respondent taught right after lunch hour. One day, after about seventeen of respondents students had assembled for postprandial instruction in mathematics, and after the class bell had rung, young Wesley sauntered into the classroom with both hands atop his head. Respondent stood in front of the class waiting for the stragglers to be seated. As Wesley passed between respondent and his classmates, he let his arms drop to his sides, striking respondent in the fact with his forearm in the process. The other children laughed to see one of their number hit the teacher. Wesley said, I'm sorry." "That's not enough," answered respondent as he struck Wesley with the back of his hand. This also elicited laughter from the young mathematicians. In subsequent conversations with school officials about the incident, respondent explained, "He hit me so I hit him back." When respondent hit Wesley back, the blow landed above Wesleys left eye, breaking the skin. Wesley's eye watered and hurt for the remainder of the day, and he was unable to keep his eye open. When his mother, Mrs. Ernestine Baker, saw him, she asked what had happened and took him to a doctor. No damage was done to the eye tissue, but a faint scar remained above the eye, at the time of the hearing. The school board of Marion County, in which Dunnellon Middle School is located, has written policies regulating corporal punishment. These regulations require that corporal punishment "be administered only after it has been authorized by the principal in writing, designating the person who may administer the punishment, " petitioner's exhibit No.4, and that administration of corporal punishment shall be witnessed by at least one other adult." Id. School Board policy also specifies that "[no other student shall be present during the administration of corporal punishment." Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. These regulations also require that corporal punishment be administered posteriorly by striking the student below the waist and above the knees"; and that corporal punishment "not be administered with malice towards the student nor at a time when the person administering the punishment is angered or impassioned.... Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. Respondent was aware of these regulations but questioned their wisdom. In the Dunnellon Middle School Registration and Information Handbook 1978-79, corporal punishment is defined as "the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rules." Petitioner's exhibit No. 2.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Education suspend respondent's teaching certificate for ninety (90) days. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esq. Professional Practices Council 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. Michael J. Cushing 890 St. Rt. 80 Belle Glade, Florida 33430
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent reported for duty while under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2016), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.1/, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. Ms. Jones held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 866702, covering the area of Music, which was valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Jones was employed as a music teacher at Village Green in the St. Lucie County School District. On May 8, 2017, Ms. Cynthia Garcia reported to work at Village Green around 7:30 a.m. The desk where visitors and staff members sign in is adjacent to the front office where Ms. Garcia works. Sometime between 7:30 a.m. and 7:50 a.m., Ms. Jones signed in at the desk and crossed the front office. Ms. Jones said hello to Ms. Garcia and apologized for the way that she looked. Ms. Jones had on no makeup and her hair or wig was unkempt. Ms. Garcia asked Ms. Jones if she was okay because she was acting a little giddy and didn’t seem to be herself. Ms. McQueen was in the hallway at Village Green going to her classroom when Ms. Jones called out to her. Ms. McQueen went over to her to see what she wanted. Ms. Jones was laughing and told Ms. McQueen that the students would not recognize her because she wasn’t wearing any makeup. Ms. McQueen smelled alcohol and noticed that Ms. Jones’ was inappropriately dressed and that her hair was untidy. Ms. McQueen testified that Ms. Jones was slurring her words, but she was able to understand what Ms. Jones was saying. Ms. McQueen testified that Ms. Jones did not have any coordination problems or trouble walking. Ms. McQueen told Ms. Jones to go to her office to straighten herself up. Ms. McQueen testified, “And my reason for doing that, because I wanted to get her away from the students, so that I could go to the office to get help, to tell administration.” Ms. McQueen testified that while she was talking with Ms. Jones, a few students began waiting outside of the music room where they were to rehearse for a musical production. Ms. McQueen saw Ms. Brown in the cafeteria. Ms. McQueen told Ms. Brown that she thought Ms. Jones was drunk, or had been drinking. Ms. Brown asked Ms. McQueen to take over her responsibility to stay with the children who were having breakfast so that Ms. Brown could go see Ms. Jones in the music room. Ms. Brown testified that when she spoke to Ms. Jones: [Y]ou could smell the alcohol, and her eyes was swollen and the whites was red. And the students kept trying to come through the back part of the –- it’s like the stage, because they was practicing. They practice in the morning for a play. And I wanted to try to keep the students from seeing her, so I like get in front of her. * * * Because I didn’t want them to see how she looked. Because her hair was kind of wild and her top was up, you can kind of see her stomach. I didn’t want the students to see Ms. Jones like that. Ms. Brown told Ms. Jones she needed to get herself together, and Ms. Jones responded that she would leave the school. Ms. Brown asked Ms. Jones if she wanted her to get someone to help, was told no, and she then told Ms. Jones that she would tell the school administration that they would need to get a substitute teacher for the day. This credible, eyewitness testimony of Ms. Jones’ colleagues that she smelled of alcohol, had swollen and bloodshot eyes, exhibited slurred speech, and was acting in an unusual, “giddy” manner is sufficient evidence to reasonably infer that Ms. Jones was under the influence of alcohol when she reported to the school for duty on the morning of May 8, 2017. Ms. McQueen and Ms. Brown left campus, with Principal Barrett-Baxter’s permission, to make sure that Ms. Jones had arrived at her home. When they arrived, they saw her rental car parked there. Later the same morning, Ms. Jones returned to Village Green. She went to the office area to talk to Principal Barrett- Baxter. It was not clearly shown that Ms. Jones intended to return to duty or be in contact with students when she returned. Principal Barrett-Baxter said that she could smell alcohol from across the desk, and confirmed the others’ earlier observations that Ms. Jones’ appearance was unacceptable. Ms. Garcia also credibly testified that the smell of alcohol was so strong that it lingered in the room after she left. Based on her observations and reports, Principal Barrett-Baxter directed Ms. Jones to have a reasonable suspicion drug test conducted. Officer Ken Rodriguez, who transported Ms. Jones for the testing, also testified that he smelled alcohol, that Ms. Jones was a “little foggy,” and that she appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. Two breathalyzer tests were conducted at Absolute Testing, indicating that Ms. Jones had blood alcohol level readings of .186 and .191. The events after Ms. Jones returned to Village Green were of little value in considering the charge in the Administrative Complaint because of the interplay of two circumstances: 1) Ms. Jones spent time at home alone after her initial presentation at Village Green and before the time the alcohol test was conducted; and 2) it was not clearly shown that Ms. Jones was reporting for duty to teach students when she returned to the school. There was no evidence of any prior discipline involving the Florida Educator Certificate of Ms. Jones.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent Renya Jones in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.; renewing her teaching certificate and placing her on probation for a period of three years; requiring her to obtain treatment through the Recovery Network Program at a frequency and for a duration deemed appropriate by the Commission; and requiring her to pay administrative fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Amended Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is presently 25 years of age. His date of birth is July 29, 1974. Petitioner had a troubled youth; however, since the August 6, 1994, incident (described below) that is the focus of the instant case, he has matured and gained a reputation of being a responsible adult member of his community. On Saturday, August 6, 1994, shortly after his twentieth birthday, at approximately 5:55 p.m., Petitioner was driving north on Andrews Avenue in downtown Fort Lauderdale. He had just finished running errands for his father in the downtown area and was on his way home. 5/ There were no passengers in his vehicle. As Petitioner approached the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, there was a woman standing on the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the intersection, facing south, who attracted his attention. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, the woman, Joyce Fleming was a police officer employed by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Officer Fleming was participating in an undercover operation designed to "combat street level prostitution activity." Her role in the operation was to pose as a street prostitute. When Petitioner stopped for a red light at the intersection of North Andrews Avenue and Second Street, he made eye contact with Officer Fleming, who waved at him and pointed him toward a nearby parking garage, which was underneath an office building. Petitioner pulled into the parking garage and parked his car, head first, facing a concrete wall and beside concrete pilings. Officer Fleming, who was wearing a wire, then walked up to the driver's side of Petitioner's vehicle and started talking to Petitioner. The conversation she had with Petitioner was tape recorded 6/ and monitored by backup officers (who were in the vicinity). Officer Fleming began her conversation with Petitioner by complaining that a certain police officer, who, she told Petitioner, had been across the street from where she had been standing on North Andrews Avenue, was always "bothering" her. It was because of this police officer, she explained to Petitioner, that she had not "want[ed] to get in over there." After being told about the police officer, Petitioner asked Officer Fleming, "Why don't I meet you somewhere else?" To allay Petitioner's concerns, Officer Fleming told him that the police officer was no longer across the street and that therefore she could "get in" his vehicle. Petitioner, however, indicated to Officer Fleming that he was still "nervous about it," to which Officer Fleming replied, "If you're nervous, you can go on." Petitioner, though, did not "go on." He chose to stay. 7/ Officer Fleming then asked Petitioner what he "want[ed] to do." Petitioner answered, "I don't know, what do you want?" Officer Fleming's response was, "Well, I don't care; just tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you how much." Petitioner told Officer Fleming (whom he believed to be a prostitute) that he was interested in a "blow job." 8/ He and Officer Fleming then haggled over the price. Petitioner ultimately agreed to pay Officer Fleming $10.00, 9/ after which the following exchange took place between Petitioner and Officer Fleming: Officer Fleming: Okay. We can do that then. Petitioner: Why don't I meet you somewhere else? Officer Fleming: You don't want to do it here? Petitioner: Well, I don't want a cop pulling up. It was at this point in time that back up officers arrived on the scene and arrested Petitioner for "soliciting for prostitution" in violation of Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1. At no time did Petitioner actually pay Officer Fleming any money; nor was there ever any physical contact, sexual or otherwise, between Petitioner and Officer Fleming. (Petitioner remained in his vehicle, while Officer Fleming stood alongside the vehicle on the driver's side, throughout their conversation in the parking garage.) The charge that Petitioner had violated Fort Lauderdale Municipal Ordinance 16-1 10/ by agreeing to pay Officer Fleming for oral sex was filed in Broward County Court, and it was docketed as Case No. 94-15421MO10A. On March 23, 1995, Petitioner filed a Sworn Motion to Dismiss in Case No. 94-15421MO10A. Appended to the motion was a copy of a transcript that had been prepared of the tape recording of the conversation Petitioner had had with Officer Fleming immediately prior to his arrest. The transcript, however, did not accurately and completely reflect the contents of the tape recording. It omitted Petitioner's affirmative response when he was asked by Officer Fleming, during price negotiations, whether he would be agreeable to paying $10.00 for her services. 11/ Pursuant to an agreement with the Municipal Prosecutor, Petitioner entered a Pre-Trial Intervention Program on or about July 5, 1995. Petitioner successfully completed the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. Consequently, on October 23, 1995, prior to any ruling having been made on Petitioner's Sworn Motion to Dismiss, the Municipal Prosecutor issued a Nolle Prosequi in Case No. 94-15421MO10A announcing that the "City of Fort Lauderdale decline[d] prosecution on all municipal violations against [Petitioner] arising out of [his] arrest on [August 6, 1994]." Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December of 1997 with a B.A. degree in English. On or about February 17, 1998, Petitioner submitted to the Department of Education (Department) an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate seeking an "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate. On the application, he acknowledged his August 6, 1994, arrest. From August of 1998 to January of 1999, Petitioner was employed as a tenth-grade English teacher at MacArthur High School in Hollywood, Florida (which, at the time, had an enrollment of 2,200 students). The principal of the school was (and still is) Beverly James. In Ms. James' opinion, Petitioner did a "very good job" while at the school, and she "would not hesitate" to rehire him if he received his teaching certification. In addition to his classroom responsibilities at MacArthur High School, Petitioner also served as the assistant coach of the school's wrestling team. The head coach of the team was Michael Zarra. In Mr. Zarra's opinion, Petitioner did a "good job coaching," and he would not "have any hesitation to have [Petitioner] back as an assistant wrestling coach." As evidenced by his job performance at MacArthur High School, by engaging in the conduct for which he was arrested on August 6, 1994, Petitioner has not impaired his ability to be an effective teacher. The incident, which took place when Petitioner was a 20-year old college student, four years before he began teaching at the school, was not widely publicized and it has not adversely affected his reputation in the community. By letter dated December 28, 1998, Petitioner was notified that his Application for Florida Educator's Certificate was being denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons that accompanied the letter. Shortly thereafter, Ms. James terminated Petitioner's employment at MacArthur High School. She did so only because she was told she had to inasmuch as Petitioner "would not be certified." On or about March 17, 1999, Petitioner was provided with an Amended Notice of Reasons reflecting that the denial of his application was based solely upon the August 6, 1994, incident involving Officer Fleming. Petitioner subsequently sought to reopen Broward County Court Case No. 94-15421MO10A. His efforts were successful. On June 23, 1999, Broward County Court Judge Joel T. Lazarus issued a Final Order of Dismissal in the case, which provided as follows: CAME ON TO BE HEARD on June 21, 1999 Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition and Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and being further advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Disposition be and the same is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, as to Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss and the Court's consideration of the matters before it, this Court makes a determination that no material issue of fact that sustains the criminal charges against this Defendant exist[s] and that the Defendant is entitled to dismissal as a matter or law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Sworn Motion to Dismiss be and same is hereby GRANTED and the Defendant is herewith discharged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order reversing the Department of Education's preliminary denial of Petitioner's Application for Florida Educator's Certificate and directing the Department to issue, unconditionally, the "initial two-year nonrenewable temporary" teaching certificate sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of April, 2000.
