The Issue The issue in the case is whether just cause exists for the termination of Respondent Dale W. Reichard's (Respondent) employment under a professional services contract with Petitioner Seminole County School Board (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact Dr. Vogel is the district school superintendent of the School District of Seminole County, Florida. Prior to his current employment, he was employed as the district superintendent in St. Lucie County, Florida for six and one-half years. Prior to his employment by the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida, he was employed as assistant superintendent for personnel and administrative services by the School Board of Osceola County, Florida, for 17 years. The Respondent is employed by the Petitioner at Oviedo High School on a professional service contract, pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 1012.33(3), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is employed as "instructional personnel," as defined by Subsection 1012.01(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The employment relationship between the Respondent and the Petitioner is established pursuant to the state law of Florida and the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Education Association, Inc., and the Petitioner. The Respondent's employment can be terminated for just cause only. The Respondent was arrested at Oviedo High School on May 9, 2007, on a felony warrant issued by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, for the offense of possession of cocaine. The Respondent's arrest resulted from a May 2, 2007, visit to the Respondent's residence by undercover investigators employed by the Volusia County Sheriff's Department. The Respondent was cooperative with the investigators and readily admitted that he was in possession of cocaine and gave the cocaine to them. An ensuing search of the Respondent's residence resulted in the investigators finding approximately 12 grams of material which field-tested presumptive positive for cannabis. The Respondent was charged in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, with possession of cocaine under information 2007-01526CFA WS. Subsequent to the Respondent's arrest at Oviedo High School on May 9, 2007, Dr. Vogel, as district school superintendent, placed the Respondent on suspension with pay and recommended to the Petitioner that the Respondent be suspended without pay pending termination. By letter of May 10, 2007, Dr. Vogel advised the Respondent that he would recommend to the Petitioner that the Respondent be terminated for misconduct in office. Dr. Vogel's recommendation for suspension without pay and termination was based on information provided to him by Robert Lundquist (Mr. Lundquist), the principal of Oviedo High School, and John Reichert, who is the executive director for Human Resources. By Petition for Termination, filed with the DOAH, the Respondent was further charged with conduct unbecoming an employee of the Petitioner by reason of his possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Proceedings for termination were abated pending resolution of the criminal charges then pending in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida. The Respondent entered into a Substance Abuse Offender Referral Agreement with the Office of the State Attorney, Seventh Judicial Circuit, which provided that the criminal prosecution would be dismissed if the Respondent successfully complied with the terms and conditions therein prescribed. The Respondent successfully completed his obligations under the Substance Abuse Offender Referral Agreement, which included counseling and random drug testing. The criminal prosecution was dismissed via a nolle prosequi of the charge entered on August 3, 2007. Mr. Lundquist has been the principal of Oviedo High School commencing with the 1996-1997 school year. Mr. Lundquist is the administrative head of Oviedo High School. At the time of the incident herein described, the Respondent held the position of teacher of American Government and chairman of the Social Studies Department at Oviedo High School. In addition, the Respondent was the boys' volleyball coach. The Respondent was considered to be a good teacher by Mr. Lundquist. Three weeks prior to the Respondent's arrest, Mr. Lundquist had a conference with the Respondent in which Mr. Lundquist communicated that he had heard through the Seminole County Sheriff's Department that there was a possibility that the Respondent was involved in drug use. Mr. Lundquist advised the Respondent that, if the information Mr. Lundquist had received was correct, the Respondent should stop his drug use and get help. Later that same day, the Respondent contacted the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to set up an appointment. The original appointment was for May 2, 2007. However, the Respondent was contacted by EAP and informed that the appointment had been changed to May 3, 2007.1 Mr. Lundquist has received no negative communications or comments from teachers regarding the Respondent. Several teachers who were members of the Respondent's department, and several teachers that observed the Respondent's arrest, asked Mr. Lundquist about the matter.2 Several students also had questions about the matter of the Respondent's arrest. Mr. Lundquist did not respond to the students. Mr. Lundquist has received no communications, either written or oral, from parents regarding the matter. To Mr. Lundquist's knowledge no information about the matter was published in local papers or broadcast by local radio or television stations. Mr. Lundquist confirms that the Respondent's performance as department chair, classroom teacher, and boys' volleyball coach during Mr. Lundquist's tenure as principal of Oviedo High School has met all performance expectations of the Petitioner and that the Respondent has continuously met the assessment criteria as specified in Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, and as found in the official agreement between the Seminole Education Association, Inc., and the Petitioner. Mr. Lundquist believes that a teacher's role goes beyond what is taught in the classroom on a daily basis. Mr. Lundquist believes that a teacher has an obligation to his or her colleagues, students, students' parents, and the community to uphold moral standards. Mr. Lundquist believes that a teacher is expected by students and the community to be a person of integrity and to display good sound judgment and moral character, both in school and in their community. Mr. Lundquist's trust in the Respondent has been destroyed by the Respondent's use and possession of cocaine and marijuana. Mr. Lundquist believes that the Respondent's use and possession of controlled substances, cocaine and marijuana, constitutes a betrayal of the trust reposed in the Respondent by Mr. Lundquist regardless of the fact that the Respondent voluntarily admitted to law enforcement that he used and possessed cocaine and marijuana at the time of the consent search of his home. Mr. Lundquist believes that the Respondent's conduct would diminish his effectiveness in the classroom and that it would be an error in judgment to place him back in the classroom. Mr. Lundquist believes that he can no longer trust the Respondent to supervise students involved in an extracurricular activity, e.g., volleyball, especially in light of Mr. Lundquist's belief that the Respondent apparently ignored the "heads-up" that Mr. Lundquist gave him during their conversation about what Mr. Lundquist had heard from law enforcement about the Respondent's suspected drug use. Dr. Vogel is aware that the criminal charge against Respondent was dismissed upon the Respondent's completion of a pretrial diversion program. Dr. Vogel believes that the Respondent's effectiveness as a role model for students was destroyed by his admitted criminal conduct and that a teacher's behavior extends beyond the classroom and the teacher's school's campus. Dr. Vogel believes that he can no longer trust the Respondent to be in presence of students, either as a teacher or a coach, because he can no longer serve as an effective role model for students. Dr. Vogel's recommendation for suspension without pay and termination is solely based on the nature of the conduct, the Respondent's arrest for possession and use of cocaine. Dr. Vogel acknowledges that he has received no complaints regarding the Respondent from teachers, students, or parents; that he is aware of no publicity regarding the Respondent's arrest; and that he is aware that the Respondent's performance as a teacher and department chair was satisfactory. It is Dr. Vogel's professional belief that a teacher who possesses and uses cocaine can no longer serve as a positive role model for students and, thus, is no longer effective as a teacher. The Respondent was arrested along with a friend in 1981 for possession of marijuana. The Respondent participated in a pre-trial diversion type plan through the Orange County, Florida, court system, and the charge was ultimately dismissed upon his completion of the program. The Respondent did not acknowledge the 1981 arrest for marijuana on his application for employment with the Petitioner because he believed that the charge had been expunged or sealed.3 The Stipulation of Facts included expressions of support for the Respondent by various colleagues which are set forth verbatim as follows: Diana N. Cabana has been a teacher for 10 years, during which Dale Reichard was the Department Chair for Social Studies, and is aware of the reasons for Mr. Reichard’s termination. Ms. Cabana describes Mr. Reichard as a colleague and friend, who has also been an excellent mentor. In addition to being a colleague of Mr. Reichard, Ms. Cabana is the parent of two students taught by Mr. Reichard, and believes that he was instrumental in their development both as students, and as citizens active in the community. Ms. Cabana further describes Mr. Reichard as an excellent teacher, and stated her sincere hope that he would be allowed to complete his teaching career. Jean Davis has been a colleague of Mr. Reichard for 15 years, during which time Mr. Reichard was also the volleyball coach of Ms. Davis' son. Ms. Davis is aware of the reasons for Mr. Reichard’s termination. Ms. Davis describes Mr. Reichard as an individual worthy of appreciation from both the school system and parents for his diligence and hard work. Ms. Davis states that Mr. Reichard is highly motivated and a self-starter who encourages students to get involved in their school activities, such as homecoming and powder puff football, as well as clubs and sports. According to Ms. Davis, Mr. Reichard has established a solid reputation as a highly regarded teacher and coach. Parents viewed Mr. Reichard as a role model, instilling sportsmanship, building confidence, and motivating students to congratulate the other team with a positive attitude – win or lose. In short, Ms. Davis believes that Mr. Reichard has clearly demonstrated through his job performance and dedication that he is an asset to the Seminole County School District. Joan Stone has been a colleague of Mr. Reichard for approximately 20 years, and she is aware of the reasons for his termination. Ms. Stone describes Mr. Reichard as very enthusiastic and states that his attitude made an impact on the social studies department at Oviedo High School. According to Ms. Stone, Mr. Reichard had a great way with the students, and many of his past students would be glad to tell you that he was and still is their all-time favorite teacher. Ms. Stone stated that Mr. Reichard’s keen interest in his subject-–American Government --influenced his students who developed their own interest in politics. Many of the students registered to vote as a result of his encouragement. Finally, Ms. Stone states that Mr. Reichard’s presence at Oviedo High School is definitely missed. Mary Ellen Woods first became acquainted with Mr. Reichard in 1985 when he was placed in her classroom as a senior intern from the University of Central Florida. According to Ms. Woods, it was quickly apparent that Mr. Reichard was no ordinary intern in that his depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject he was teaching far surpassed any other intern she had in her classroom before or after that time. Ms. Woods took pride in Mr. Reichard’s development over the years, including when Mr. Reichard was awarded Teacher of the Year and was appointed Social Studies Department Chairman. Ms. Woods also states that Mr. Reichard was not only an outstanding classroom teacher but a dedicated coach as well. He mentored numerous young people on the volleyball court and soccer field. Ms. Woods worked with Mr. Reichard in coaching powder puff football for many years, and his rapport with students was superb both in the classroom and through athletics. According to Ms. Woods, Mr. Reichard has created countless active citizens by inspiring an interest in this country’s democratic process as a teacher of American Government. Mr. Reichard made sure the young people in his class had the opportunity to register to vote thus establishing a lifelong habit of active participation in the political process. Mr. Reichard also inspired young people to have confidence in themselves through his coaching. According to Ms. Woods, Mr. Reichard was an integral part of the Oviedo High School family. He always had a smile for everyone and was universally liked and respected by the entire faculty and staff-– and still is. Mr. Reichard was a teacher that everyone knows because his students spoke so highly of him people made a point to see who he was. He generously helped anyone who needed it, and assisted many new teachers in getting acclimated to the high school environment. He was a good friend to those who needed an ear. He has always been a good friend to me and many others. Finally, Ms. Woods states that Mr. Reichard is the most naturally gifted teacher she have ever known, and that she sincerely hopes he will be permitted to share that gift once more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order reinstating the employment of the Respondent, Dale W. Reichard. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to impose sanctions against Respondent, Winston Northern (“Northern” or the “Teacher”), up to and including revocation of his Educator’s Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to Florida Educator Certificates, as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796(6), Florida Statutes (2016). The Commissioner of Education is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida Educator Certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016) At all times relevant hereto, Northern held a Florida Educator Certificate and was employed as a teacher in the Duval County School System, teaching at A. Philip Randolph Academy of Technology, a charter school within the Duval County school system (and referred to herein as the “School”). On October 30, 2013, L.E. was a ninth-grade male student in the Teacher’s fourth period class, Introduction to Information Technology. L.E., who had a history of misbehaving in class, was one of 25 students in class on that day. The facts of this case read like A Tale of Two Cities; “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Although the duration of the incident in question was very short, and the location where it occurred was limited in size, the disparity in the testimony of eye witnesses could not be greater. For some, there was clearly an egregious event precipitated by the Teacher’s actions. For others, there was only a minor disruption of class with little significance. Few of the witnesses seemed to have a clear memory of the events that transpired that day, as evidenced by the contradictory and imprecise testimony evoked at final hearing. The Commissioner’s View Mrs. Byrd (formerly Ms. King) was the School’s “computer technology coordinator.” She would often come into Mr. Northern’s classroom because most of the School’s computer- related supplies were kept in a closet in that classroom. Mrs. Byrd came into Mr. Northern’s room on October 30, 2013, to get some IT supplies out of the closet. As she exited the classroom, Mrs. Byrd saw a woman walking quickly towards the classroom door; the woman appeared to be very agitated. Mrs. Byrd asked the woman (later identified as T.E., L.E.’s mother, and also referred to herein as the “Mom”) if she needed assistance. Mrs. Byrd noticed that the woman was not wearing a Visitor’s badge, as required by school rules. The woman said she did not need any help and that Mr. Northern had called her to come and deal with her son’s behavior issues. At that point, Mr. Northern opened the door and ushered T.E. into the classroom, indicating to Mrs. Byrd that it was “okay.” Mrs. Byrd followed them back into the classroom. T.E. immediately made a beeline to where her son, L.E., was sitting. Mrs. Byrd remembered T.E. physically attacking her son as she yelled profanities at him. The beating, with fists and open hands to L.E.’s face, lasted “a long time.” Mrs. Byrd initially estimated it to be about a minute and a half in length, but later agreed that it was probably about 15 seconds in duration. During the time that L.E. was being physically attacked by his mother, Mr. Northern did not intervene. Mrs. Byrd was in shock at what she was witnessing. At some point, Mrs. Byrd recovered from her shock and began to shout Mr. Northern’s name over and over to get his attention. Mr. Northern then directed the Mom and L.E. out into the open area outside the classroom. A student told Mrs. Byrd she “needed to do something” after L.E., his mom and Mr. Northern left the room. She obtained L.E.’s name from a student so that she could report the incident. Once outside the classroom, T.E. continued to berate both L.E. and Mr. Northern. At that point, Mrs. Byrd (who had walked out of the classroom sometime after the others) walked towards the elevator which was located just across from the classroom. As she neared the elevator, she met Mr. Lewis, the principal at the school. She indicated to Principal Lewis that she needed to talk to him about something important, i.e., the incident she witnessed in Mr. Northern’s classroom. However, Principal Lewis heard the Mom cursing loudly at T.E. and instead of talking to Mrs. Byrd, he went to speak to the Mom. Mrs. Byrd entered the stairwell next to the elevator and went downstairs. Principal Lewis explained to the Mom that the language she was using was not allowed on campus and that she needed to calm down. She did so. T.E. then took her son downstairs and presumably signed him out of school for the remainder of the day. Mr. Northern did not indicate to Principal Lewis that there had been a problem of any kind in the classroom. Principal Lewis’ testimony overall was not persuasive. He seemed very unclear as to how the events unfolded and seemed to contradict other, more believable witness testimony. Mrs. Byrd was upset by the incident and immediately called the abuse hotline at the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) to report the incident. DCF advised Mrs. Byrd to notify administration at the School about the incident. Mrs. Byrd contacted the assistant principal, Mrs. Peeples, but not until the next day. Mrs. Peeples asked Mrs. Byrd to provide a written statement about the incident and Mrs. Byrd prepared the statement. At about 4:15 p.m. on the day of the incident, Mrs. Peeples allegedly received a telephone call from the parent of one of the other students in Mr. Northern’s class. The student had purportedly told his/her parent a fellow student, L.E., had been severely beaten by his mother in the presence of the entire classroom. Based on that call, Mrs. Peeples contacted Principal Lewis to tell him what she had heard from the parent. Principal Lewis remembered that he, not Mrs. Peeples, received the parent’s phone call on that day. He also remembered talking with Mrs. Peeples about the incident and that she recounted her conversation with Mrs. Byrd. Mrs. Byrd, however, said she did not talk to Mrs. Peeples about the incident until the following day. Therefore, who talked to whom and when the conversations occurred are not completely clear from the testimony provided. Principal Lewis contacted Mr. Northern and told him they needed to talk, so Mr. Northern later stopped by Mr. Lewis’ office. A short conversation was held, but Mr. Northern did not say that the Mom had physically attacked her son in the classroom. Mr. Northern did not remember being summoned to Principal Lewis’ office, but remembered talking briefly to him in the breezeway on the first floor of the School. The School gathered statements from six of the 25 children in Mr. Northern’s classroom that day. Three of the statements were not signed and did not clearly indicate who had written them. Mrs. Peeples, who decided which students to ask for statements and was present as each child wrote his or her statement, could not--on the day of final hearing--identify the authors of the unsigned statements. Mrs. Peeples’s testimony was credible, but not substantively helpful. Some of the students’ hearsay statements seem to confirm what Mrs. Byrd reported; some do not. From the affirming statements came these remarks: “His mom came up there and kept punching [L.E.] in the face.” (K.B.) “His mom had just started beating on him.” (W.W.) “[His] mother just started hitting him in the face.” (J.W.) “A mom . . . came in and was very angry, very verbal about her anger and started hitting her son and yelling.” (Unsigned) “[L.E.’s] mom started hitting him.” (Unsigned) None of the hearsay statements were particularly credible as they are all unverified and without information as to the author. The Teacher’s View On October 30, 2016, L.E. was engaged in playing a very violent video game on a classroom computer in Mr. Northern’s classroom. L.E. had accessed the game by way of a “modified” thumb drive which made his actions undetectable by school administration, which may have been monitoring the computer. Mr. Northern told L.E. to put the game away, because it was prohibited by school policy. Further, a school assembly had been held recently wherein the consequences for playing such video games were announced, i.e., five days suspension from school and 45 days restriction from use of school computers--at least that was Mr. Northern’s description of the events at final hearing. In his deposition (taken on July 18, 2016), Mr. Northern said the issue with L.E. was that L.E. was “playing video games” instead of logging on to the appropriate website. He made no mention of the nature of the video games or that they were violent or prohibited by school policy, only that L.E. was told three times to stop playing videos and log on to the website as directed. After the third warning, Mr. Northern decided to call in reinforcements, to wit: L.E.’s mom. It was customary for Mr. Northern to call L.E.’s mom or Dean Lapkin, a school administrator, when L.E. would act out in class or fail to stay focused on his work. Mr. Northern said L.E. was a bright student, very versed in computer skills. He had a lot of potential, but was very often off-track and off-task. When L.E. refused to comply with instructions, Mr. Northern would call T.E. and have her talk with her son. That was usually enough to get L.E. back on track. Principal Lewis confirmed that calling a student’s parent was an acceptable method for dealing with recalcitrant students. On the day in question, Mr. Northern finally pulled L.E. off the computer (whether for playing video games despite being warned three times or for playing forbidden violent video games) and telephoned L.E.’s mother. Mr. Northern said at final hearing that he had first contacted Dean Lapkin to see if L.E. might be released from the prescribed discipline for watching violent video games on campus. Dean Lapkin said the discipline was to be imposed, that Mr. Northern should write a referral and he, Lapkin, would make the call to L.E.’s mom. But somehow Mr. Northern determined that the dean was too busy to call T.E., so Mr. Northern called the Mom himself. Mr. Northern said he received the Mom’s telephone number from Dean Lapkin that very day, but that statement flies in the face of his prior testimony that he had called the Mom several times in the past about L.E.’s behavior. (This sort of discrepant testimony severely clouds the facts in this case.) As Mr. Northern was talking to the Mom, she put him on hold to take another call, reputedly from Dean Lapkin. When she returned to the phone call with Mr. Northern, the Mom said she was already at the School. In his deposition, Mr. Northern said that he called T.E. immediately, i.e., there was no mention of calling the dean first, and that she arrived at the School as they talked. Mr. Northern anticipated receiving a call from downstairs for him to send L.E. down to the Guidance Office to check out, or, possibly, that the Mom would be escorted to his classroom to get L.E. Instead, a few minutes after Mr. Northern completed his call to T.E., she appeared in his classroom. Mrs. Byrd had just left the room, so Mr. Northern assumed she had let T.E. into the room (as the door is generally locked). However she gained entrance, Mr. Northern heard L.E. say to someone, “Bitch, what you gonna do now?” and turned around to see T.E. racing toward L.E., cursing loudly. Mr. Northern testified that he “tried to rush over” to intercept the Mom before she got to L.E. He stated that he was able to get between the two and fend off the Mom’s attempts to hit her son. As far as he knew, the Mom never landed any blows on L.E. Mr. Northern did not remember anyone in the classroom saying anything to him during the confrontation. After some unspecified amount of time, Mr. Northern escorted T.E. and L.E. outside the classroom into the hallway area. The Mom continued haranguing her son in that area until Principal Lewis intervened. One student’s statement seems to confirm Mr. Northern’s comments: The student wrote, “Mr. Northern call [L.E.] to his desk then his mom came and took him out of the classroom.” At final hearing, Ms. Williams, a former student who was present on the day in question, remembered the Mom slapping at L.E. but could not remember if the Mom ever made contact. Hearsay evidence at final hearing presented by Mrs. Byrd, uncorroborated but not objected to, indicates that during the DCF investigation L.E. had reported that his mom never hit him, but neither L.E. nor T.E. testified at final hearing to verify what actually happened. According to Mr. Northern and at least two of the students, Mrs. Byrd was not in the classroom during the confrontation between L.E. and his Mom. Mr. Northern did speak to Principal Lewis at some point after the incident. According to Mr. Northern, they met in the breezeway on the first floor for a few moments. Principal Lewis maintained that he called Mr. Northern to his office to talk about the incident later on the day it happened. Mr. Northern’s testimony was not persuasive as to the specifics of his meeting with Principal Lewis. Other Factors in the Dispute The Mom’s physical size was discussed by three witnesses. Mrs. Byrd described her as being “bigger than me.” (Mrs. Byrd is approximately five feet, two inches tall and stout in stature.) Ms. Williams said the Mom was about five feet, four inches tall and “not that big.” Mr. Northern said she was about five feet, one inch tall and weighed about 102 pounds. L.E. was a ninth-grade student and was sort of slight in stature. Mrs. Byrd said the Mom did not have a Visitor’s badge on her person. She could not remember what the Mom was wearing on that day, but did not see a badge. Mr. Northern said the Mom was wearing a halter top and tight jeans that day, totally inappropriate clothing under the student dress code (as he initially thought T.E. was a student). She did have a Visitor’s badge but, with no place to put it on her clothes, she had it in her purse. Neither party presented the Visitor’s log for that day to substantiate whether T.E. had registered or not, so we shall never know. It is interesting that Principal Lewis never asked T.E. about a Visitor’s badge. There were allegedly three investigations done concerning the alleged incident: One by the school; one by DCF; and one by law enforcement. None of the investigative reports (or their ultimate findings) was introduced into evidence in order to substantiate either party’s position. It was not mentioned whether photographs were taken of L.E. to ascertain bruising or other injuries from the alleged beating. So, again, we shall never know. After the investigations were concluded, Principal Lewis did not “trespass” the Mom from coming on campus in the future, even though he had authority to do so if warranted.1/ Neither the Mom nor L.E. was called to testify or bring some clarity to the matter at hand. Presumably they would have confirmed the position of one side or another in this matter, but again we shall never know. Nor was Dean Lapkin called to verify his involvement in the situation. Mr. Northern served as a teachers’ union representative at the School. He has brought complaints to Principal Lewis on numerous occasions as part of his duties in that role. Mr. Northern has also brought direct complaints to Principal Lewis regarding computer equipment issues in his own classroom. The two men have a “history” outside the present dispute. In fact, just about two weeks prior to the alleged incident, Mrs. Byrd wrongfully removed ten computers from Mr. Northern’s classroom, forcing him to have Principal Lewis intervene to have the equipment returned. The Amended Administrative Complaint in this matter contains four counts: Count I is a general count alleging that Mr. Northern violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; Count II alleges Mr. Northern’s failure to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and safety; Count III alleges intentional distortion of facts concerning an event; and Count IV alleges failure to maintain honesty. What the unrefuted evidence at final hearing proved is this: Mr. Northern was teaching his class on October 30, 2013. L.E. was a student in that class. L.E.’s mother came to the classroom cursing loudly and took L.E. away. Mrs. Byrd had been in the classroom in close proximity to L.E. as he was being removed from the classroom by his mom and/or Mr. Northern. Mrs. Byrd reported an incident to DCF and to the School administration. Mr. Northern discussed the matter with Principal Lewis. “Tis a far harder decision I make in this case than I have ever made . . .,” at least as to what actually transpired that fateful day in Mr. Northern’s classroom. The conflicting and unclear stories delivered by the key players in this incident (minus the two primary protagonists), does little to explain what actually happened on that day. Based on the totality of the conflicting testimony, it is likely that T.E. came into the classroom and accosted her son. The finer details of what she did, however, seem to be forever lost.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Winston Northern. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Raymond J. Agostino, holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 385460, covering the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Agostino was employed as an assistant principal at North Fort Myers High School in the Lee County School District. On the morning of May 16, 2003, at about 5:34 a.m., a 911 emergency call was received by the Cape Coral Police Department. A female voice could be heard screaming on the line. The 911 operator asked the caller to state the nature of the emergency. The caller did not identify herself but could be heard screaming, "Get the fuck off of me! Get the fuck off of me!" Michael Carroll, the 911 operator who received the call, testified that when he answers an emergency call, his equipment provides a readout of the caller's phone number and address. Mr. Carroll relays the call to the police department's dispatcher, who in turn dispatches officers to the indicated address. In this instance, the caller identification equipment indicated that the call came from a telephone with the number "458-5077." At the time, this was the phone number of Mr. Agostino and his wife, Pamela Agostino. They resided at 1943 Northeast Fifth Terrace in Cape Coral. Officers Don Donakowski and Jason Matyas of the Cape Coral Police Department were dispatched to the Agostino house at about 5:35 a.m. on May 16, 2003, and arrived in separate cars at about 5:39 a.m. From outside the house, they observed a shirtless male, later identified as Mr. Agostino, in the living room area. They did not see Mrs. Agostino. They knocked on the front door, and Mr. Agostino answered. The officers identified themselves, told Mr. Agostino why they had been sent to the house, and asked him what happened. Mr. Agostino told the officers that he and his wife had been arguing over financial matters but denied that there had been any kind of physical confrontation. Officer Matyas noted that Mr. Agostino was reluctant to provide details of the incident. The officers noted no visible injuries on Mr. Agostino. While talking to Mr. Agostino in the doorway, they observed Mrs. Agostino emerge from the master bedroom. Officer Donakowski went inside the house to speak with Mrs. Agostino, who appeared very emotional, scared, and crying. Officer Donakowski observed that she appeared to have been in a physical altercation. There were scratches and a lump over her right eye and dried blood in her hair. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she and her husband had an argument. She told Officer Donakowski that her husband was bipolar and sometimes would go on binges, including spending money he didn't have. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that her husband asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage. She told him she didn't have the money, and he became angry and began screaming at her. Fearing for her safety, she ran into the bedroom and locked the door. When Mr. Agostino broke down the door to get to her, Mrs. Agostino grabbed the bedroom telephone and dialed 911. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that when her husband saw her dialing 911, he threw her down, knocked the phone out of her hand, gouged at her eyes, and pulled out a handful of her hair. It was during this attack that she screamed at her husband to get off of her. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she was then able to escape her husband's grasp and run into another room. She also told Officer Donakowski that her husband had attempted to strangle her in a confrontation on the previous day. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she would not give a written statement because she feared retaliation from her husband. After he interviewed Mrs. Agostino, Officer Donakowski went outside and spoke with Mr. Agostino, while Officer Matyas conducted his interview with Mrs. Agostino. Mr. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that the only thing that happened was an argument, though he did admit to breaking down the bedroom door. Mr. Agostino stated that he had never physically abused his wife in seven years of marriage. Officer Matyas noted that Mrs. Agostino was visibly upset and shaken. He observed fresh bloody scratches and swelling around her right eye, as well as blood in her hair near the scratches. Officer Matyas also noted several broken panels in the master bedroom door. When Officer Matyas asked Mrs. Agostino what had happened, she told him that she and her husband had been in the living room. Mr. Agostino asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage, because he had spent $600 on a sprinkler system. She told him that she could not give him the money because she needed it for a car payment. Mr. Agostino became angry and verbally abusive. Mrs. Agostino became fearful and locked herself in the bedroom. Mr. Agostino began banging on the bedroom door. As Mrs. Agostino picked up the phone to call 911, Mr. Agostino broke through the door and entered the bedroom. He forced Mrs. Agostino's head down to the floor while gouging at her eyes with his fingers and thumbs. She agreed to give him the money and he let her up. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Matyas that there had been a physical confrontation on the previous day in which her husband attempted to strangle her. She believed her husband was bipolar, though he had not been medically diagnosed. She told Officer Matyas that she did not want to press charges because her husband could be fired from his job. Based on the physical evidence and witness statements, the officers arrested Mr. Agostino and charged him with Battery--Domestic Violence. Officer Donakowski took photographs of Mrs. Agostino's injuries, the broken door, and a clump of hair that Mrs. Agostino stated had been pulled from her head by Mr. Agostino. The photographs were admitted into evidence at this proceeding. The charges against Mr. Agostino were subsequently dismissed. The Lee County School District investigated allegations of misconduct against Mr. Agostino arising from his arrest. At his predetermination conference, Mr. Agostino denied that any physical confrontation took place between his wife and him. The school district concluded that there was no probable cause to impose discipline on Mr. Agostino. At the hearing in this matter, Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, it was, in fact, she, who attacked her husband. She testified that at the time, she was taking medication for petit mal seizures that made her very agitated, violent, and confused. She stated that the medication also caused her hair to fall out in clumps, accounting for the hair observed by the police officer. The medication named by Mrs. Agostino was Keflex. In fact, Keflex is a marketing name for cephalexin, a cephalosporin antibiotic unrelated to treatment of seizures. However, the symptoms described by Mrs. Agostino are consistent with common reactions to seizure medications. It is within reason that Mrs. Agostino, who is not a medical professional, simply confused Keflex with another medication she was taking for seizures. Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, she was attempting to confront Mr. Agostino about their finances, but he would not talk to her. Mrs. Agostino testified that his silence infuriated her, and she became violent. Mr. Agostino retreated into the bedroom. She broke through the door and attacked him, hitting him with the telephone, then throwing the telephone at him. Mrs. Agostino testified that she did not know how the 911 call was made. She theorized that the speed-dial may have been activated when she threw the phone at Mr. Agostino. She also had no idea how the scratches appeared around her eye, unless she hit her head on the bedroom door as she broke it down. Mrs. Agostino testified that she told the police officers that her husband attacked her because she was mad at him. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he and his wife were arguing about money. Mrs. Agostino became very agitated and started to become violent. Mr. Agostino retreated to the bedroom, closing and locking the door behind him. Mrs. Agostino "came through the door" and attacked Mr. Agostino, who put out his hands to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino started hitting him with the telephone. Mr. Agostino tried to get away, and she threw the phone at him. Mr. Agostino went into the living room. Mrs. Agostino followed and continued screaming at him. Mr. Agostino kept the couch between himself and his wife. At that point, the police knocked at the front door. Steven DeShazo, the principal of North Fort Myers High School, testified that he has worked with Mr. Agostino for eight years. Mr. DeShazo has had conversations with Mr. Agostino about scratches and abrasions on the latter's arms, presumably caused by Mrs. Agostino. Mr. DeShazo testified that he has had conversations with both Agostinos about their need for counseling, but that Mr. Agostino did not want to discuss his family problems. Mr. DeShazo discussed the May 16, 2003, incident with Mr. Agostino a few days after the events. Mr. Agostino told him that Mrs. Agostino had attacked him, and he had tried to fend her off. Mr. DeShazo had no personal knowledge of the events of May 16, 2003. The testimony of the Agostinos at the hearing completely contradicted the statements that Mrs. Agostino gave to the police on the morning of May 16, 2003, as well as Mr. Agostino’s admission to Officer Donakowski that he broke down the bedroom door. Only one version of these events can be true. It is found that the version of events related by Mrs. Agostino to the police officers was the truth. The police officers were at the Agostino house within four minutes of the 911 call. They observed that Mr. Agostino was pacing the living room floor and was out of breath. Both officers observed that Mrs. Agostino was very emotional, crying, scared, and upset. These observations lead to the finding that Mrs. Agostino was still suffering under the stress of the attack, and in her emotional state did not have time to contrive a false story. This finding is supported by the fact that Mrs. Agostino's statements to the police officers were consistent with all the other evidence: the 911 call, the broken door, the clump of hair, her own physical injuries, and the fact that she was in the bedroom when the police arrived. At the hearing, Mrs. Agostino attempted to make her new story comport with the physical evidence but was far from convincing. The clump of hair was plausibly explained as a reaction to medication, but she had no explanation at all for the scratches above her eye. Mr. Agostino's testimony hinted that he might have scratched her eye while trying to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino theorized that throwing the telephone might somehow have caused it to speed-dial 911. Even if the undersigned accepted the phone-throwing theory, there is no explanation for why the female voice on the 911 call was screaming, "Get the fuck off of me," if Mrs. Agostino was the aggressor and Mr. Agostino's only physical reaction was to fend her off. There is also no explanation for why Mrs. Agostino was in the bedroom when the police arrived. Mr. Agostino testified that she was in the living room when the police knocked on the front door, directly contradicting the testimony of both police officers. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he told the police and school officials that there was no physical confrontation in order to protect his wife, who is also an employee of the Lee County School District. He feared that she would lose her job if it became known that she attacked him. Given the evidence presented at the hearing, it is far more likely that Mrs. Agostino changed her story in order to protect her husband’s job. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude when he broke down the bedroom door, forced his wife's head down to the floor and gouged her eyes, releasing her only when she agreed to give him the money he wanted. This was an act of serious misconduct in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence by men against women. The evidence presented is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino attempted to strangle his wife on May 15, 2003. In this instance, there was no physical or other evidence to corroborate Mrs. Agostino’s hearsay statement to the police officers that her husband had attempted to strangle her. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the May 16, 2003, incident was Mr. DeShazo's testimony that there was news coverage of the arrest. Mr. DeShazo stated that several students approached him expressing concern about Mr. Agostino and their hope that he would be allowed to remain at the school. Mr. DeShazo testified that no parents came to him expressing concern about the incident. There was no evidence to prove that Mr. Agostino's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Agostino's service in the community. There was insufficient evidence presented to establish that Mr. Agostino's performance as a teacher and an employee of the Lee County School District was diminished as a result of the May 16, 2003, incident and its aftermath. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino is the assistant principal for student affairs, which he described as the most high pressure, stressful job at the school. Mr. Agostino has never lost his temper at work, even in situations in which he has been hit and spat upon by unruly students. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino has been at work every day and has handled this uncomfortable situation with complete professionalism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued placing Respondent on a two-year period of probation, subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify, including the requirement that Mr. Agostino undergo a full psychological evaluation and receive any necessary counseling to ensure that he is fully capable of performing his assigned duties with no further incidents such as those of May 16, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Burandt, Esquire Roosa, Sutton, Burandt, Adamski & Roland, LLP 1714 Cape Coral Parkway, East Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9620 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined because of Respondent's misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Background and parties Mr. Negedly holds Florida Educator's Certificate 836720, in English, which was valid through June 30, 2008. At all times pertinent, he was employed by the Volusia County School District as a language arts teacher at Heritage Middle School (Heritage). The Department of Education, which was headed by Petitioner at all times material to this case, is the state agency charged with investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida Educator's Certificates. The Education Practices Commission is charged with, among other things, imposing discipline on teachers. The Becker incidents During the 2004-2005 school year, Jami Lynn Becker was a consultation teacher at Heritage. A consultation teacher advises and otherwise aids teachers who have exceptional student education (ESE) pupils in their classes. She ensured that ESE students were provided the accommodations to which they were entitled. Mr. Negedly taught sixth-grade language arts at Heritage. There were three ESE students in his class. Ms. Becker's duties included visiting his class in order to provide services to those three students. On September 16, 2004, immediately before the commencement of classroom activities, Ms. Becker went to Mr. Negedly's room to inquire if he needed any help. During the conversation, Mr. Negedly mentioned that he and his wife had by happenstance seen Ms. Becker driving into New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Ms. Becker related that she was there to receive counseling regarding a recent divorce. Mr. Negedly moved the subject of the conversation to his own marriage and related that he was having problems and was sexually frustrated. He stated that he was having impure thoughts. He suggested that he was willing to engage in a physical relationship with Ms. Becker if she was willing. Ms. Becker was completely shocked by this conversation. Ms. Becker knew Mr. Negedly's wife, Joely Negedly, because she taught at Heritage also, and Ms. Becker suggested that he should direct his intimate conversations to his wife, not her. Mr. Negedly then revealed that he had the same feelings with another teacher, Jaqueline Brame, in the previous year. At that point in the conversation, the school bell rang, students entered the classroom, and Ms. Becker told Mr. Negedly that she would pray for him and then departed for her office. She also made it clear to him that she hoped that this type of conversation would not be repeated. However, that was not to be the case. About 45 minutes later, Mr. Negedly provided Ms. Becker with a note saying that he was sorry if what he said was too much, too fast, and that he hoped that he had provided her with some help. During the seventh period, which was Mr. Negedly's planning period, he came to Ms. Becker's office and renewed the conversations about his sexual frustration and stated that he didn't understand why God intended for man to be with one woman for his entire life. He asked Ms. Becker not to tell others about the conversations. On one or more occasions, Mr. Negedly came into Ms. Becker's office at the end of the school day and talked to her for as long as 45 minutes. Both his presence and his conversations during these times made her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Becker is a self-described non-confrontational person and could not bring herself to tell him to leave. These sort of encounters occurred about seven times over several weeks. Ms. Becker felt that the conversations he initiated were inappropriate. His words made her feel uncomfortable, and she felt that it was necessary for her to take evasive action in order to avoid him and therefore avoid repeat occurrences. She also honored his request not to reveal the nature of his conversations. At some point, Ms. Becker approached Ms. Brame, the person Mr. Negedly had identified as a previous target of his affections, and told Ms. Brame of her experiences. Ms. Brame related her experience with Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Becker ascertained that they were very similar. As a result, Ms. Becker resolved to inform higher authority. This plan was shelved, however, by the intervention of Hurricane Jeanne, which resulted in the suspension of school activities. On September 28, 2004, when school resumed, Mr. Negedly came into her office and after about 45 minutes Ms. Becker told him that his conversation was inappropriate. A few days after that, Ms. Becker reported these events to Mrs. Gunderson, who was an assistant principal and supervisor of ESE. All of these encounters occurred on school grounds. However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's suggestions. Mr. Negedly never touched Ms. Becker, threatened her person, or used sexually explicit language. His actions disturbed her to the extent that her ability to teach was affected. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously compromised. The Brame incidents Jacqueline Brame is currently a teacher at River Springs Middle School in the Volusia County School District and was a teacher at Heritage during all times pertinent to this proceeding. Ms. Brame was Mr. Negedly's mentor when he began teaching at Heritage and worked with him on a sixth-grade team of teachers providing education to the same 150 children. By the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, Ms. Brame, Mr. Negedly, and Joely Negedly had become close friends. They mingled socially and would visit one another in their homes. Ms. Brame confided in Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Brame described their relationship as "best friends." Ms. Brame was having marital problems, and she shared intimate details about this with Mr. Negedly. She valued his advice and respected his opinions about her problems. After the 2003-2004 school year commenced, Mr. Negedly attempted to move the relationship into a romantic one. He told her that he cared for her deeply and that he was in love with her. These comments made Ms. Brame uncomfortable. She reminded Mr. Negedly that he was married, that she, Ms. Brame, was Mrs. Negedly's friend, and that his son was in her class. This conversation occurred in school, during the school day. He told Ms. Brame that he wanted to have a physical relationship with her. This continued even when Ms. Brame was seven months pregnant. After each advance and rebuff, Mr. Negedly would apologize. His pursuit continued for almost a year. On numerous occasions she would tell him that his advances were unwelcome and inappropriate. Ms. Brame, like Ms. Becker, described herself as someone who did not like confrontation, and she did not firmly tell him that his behavior was unacceptable. Once when Ms. Brame had temporarily abandoned her marital home as the result of a domestic dispute, Mr. Negedly invited her to stay at his home. Ms. Negedly was out of the area at this time because of her duties as a consultant for the college boards, but their children were present in the home. Ms. Brame refused. However, she did not take the invitation to be an invitation for sex. She said that had Ms. Negedly not been away during this time, she might have accepted the invitation. Mr. Negedly's pursuit made Ms. Brame uncomfortable and occasionally sick to her stomach. It adversely affected her emotions and affected her teaching. The events happened in school, in the school cafeteria, and after school, but in connection with school activities. As a result of his unwelcome overtures she had to attend counseling. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously reduced or compromised. Eventually Ms. Brame restructured their relationship. She transformed it into a professional friendship and maintained this status through the 2003-2004 school year. At no time during these encounters did Mr. Negedly touch Ms. Brame inappropriately or use sexually explicit language. Most if not all of the encounters occurred on school grounds or in connection with school activities. However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's overtures. Ms. Brame did not tell anyone in authority about Mr. Negedly's behavior. She cared deeply for Mr. Negedly and his family. She believed remaining silent was her Christian duty. She stated during the hearing that she does not believe he should be removed from the teaching profession. Ms. Brame's allegations surfaced during the investigation into Mr. Negedly's conduct that resulted from Ms. Becker's allegations. The Hepsworth incidents Ms. Kuuleialoha Hepsworth was a teacher's assistant at Heritage during the first semester of 2004. She was in charge of the "lunch club." This informal organization provided lunches to teachers who desired to have their lunch prepared by commercial providers. Ms. Hepsworth would collect money from participating teachers, acquire the food at nearby restaurants, and deliver them to those who had placed orders with her. Once when Mr. Negedly handed her money to be used for purchasing lunch, she claimed he inappropriately brushed the bottom of her hand. Mr. Negedly was the sponsor for the school yearbook and in connection with that duty, he was taking pictures of children in a seventh-period classroom Ms. Hepsworth was teaching. Ms. Hepsworth testified that he said that he was intrigued with her and that "he wanted to pursue her." She said she asked him, "What about your wife?" She said he then asked her if "I would do his wife too, because that would be too cool." Ms. Hepsworth claimed that she was "freaked out." She related that this latter incident occurred on the Friday before Mr. Negedly was removed from the school because of the Becker allegations. She was asked on October 28, 2004, to give a statement to an investigator and that is when she revealed her alleged encounters. The alleged behavior of Mr. Negedly as related by Ms. Hepsworth was so dissimilar to the events related by Ms. Becker and Ms. Brame that it is deemed unworthy of belief. Mr. Negedly Mr. Negedly's targets were women who did not like confrontation and who sought unsuccessfully to communicate their discomfort passively. Had they been confrontational with him, or if they had reported his behavior to higher authority immediately, the behavior could have been corrected locally, and the downward spiral of unpleasantness which has resulted, could have been avoided. On the other hand, these two women may have been selected as targets because of Mr. Negedly's perception that they were unlikely to either harshly react to his overtures or immediately report him to those in authority. Mr. Negedly's certificate expired June 30, 2008. He was employed as a teacher from the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year until the latter part of the school year 2005-2006. Mr. Negedly received a certificate of appreciation for his outstanding dedication to education from the assistant principal of Heritage, on May 7, 2002. All of his performance assessments indicated that he met standards, and he had no disciplinary record prior to the discipline at issue in this case. As previously noted, he was given the additional duty of yearbook sponsor at Heritage. He was also made sponsor of the Junior Beta Club. Heritage Principal Dennis Neal wrote a recommendation dated May 7, 2004, when Mr. Negedly applied for a Stetson University Teacher Scholar Grant that related, "Mr. Negedly continues to demonstrate high professional standards and a dedication to his students' success both in and out of the classroom. He is a valuable team player who can be counted on to go above the norm in all his endeavors. I commend Mr. Negedly on taking on the challenge of an advanced degree and professional growth." When Mr. Negedly was teaching English at David Hinson Middle School, he was chosen teacher of the month for October 2005 by students and teachers. Subsequent to the exposure of Mr. Negedly's transgressions, he attended counseling with his wife at Associated Psychiatric Services in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. As late as April 13, 2005, counseling continued. The counseling was ordered and paid for by the Volusia School District. In January 2005, the school board punished Mr. Negedly by suspending him for five days without pay. As a result of Mr. Negedly's lack of judgment, he was taken from his classroom at Heritage and transferred to the district headquarters; his wife had to obtain a transfer to another school; Mrs. Negedly and her child were the subject of incorrect and hurtful conversations by students, faculty, and others; and Mr. Negedly, who sincerely loved teaching, lost his career.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 4th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA Legal Services 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Frederick Dingle Charles, holds teacher's certificate number 264894, issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of substitute teaching. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1992. During the 1989-90 school year, respondent was employed by the Dade County School Board as a teacher at Homestead Middle School. On or about September 20, 1989, respondent was arrested and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 89-627-CR-Aronovitz. On October 15, 1990, he was found guilty of such charge and committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 121 months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of respondent, Frederick Dingle Charles, be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 13th day of June 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Frederick D. Charles # 41454-004 Metropolitan Correctional Center 15801 S.W. 137th Avenue Miami, Florida 33177 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based on my obersvation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the briefs which were filed post- hearing, the following relevant facts are found. Ernest B. Brown is the holder of Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 167290, covering administration and supervision, elementary education and junior college which by its term is valid until June 30, 1985. Ernest Brown, Respondent, has been employed in the public schools of Pinellas County as fifth grade teacher at Gulf Beaches Elementary School since August, 1975, and was on continuing contract during the 1976-77 school year. He resigned effective May 31, 1977 after inquiries were raised concerning his personal conduct with a female fifth grade student (Michelle Stewart). Thereafter the Department of Education received a report from the Pinellas County School officials on or about June 1, 1977 indicating that Respondent had been charged with lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a female child under the age of 14 and handling and fondling a female child under the age of 14 years. Pursuant thereto and following an inquiry by the staff of the Professional Practices Council, on July 18, 1977, said Council issued a report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council whereupon the Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exist to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. By letter dated July 27, 1977, the Commissioner found probable cause and directed the filing of the instant petition herein. Michelle Stewart, eleven years old and presently a fifth grade student at Gulf Beaches Elementary School, was a student of Respondent while she completed here third grade instruction. Ms. Stewart was approximately three weeks late reporting for classes during her third grade school year. After being in school for approximately two weeks, she sought assistance from Respondent regarding problems she was having with her math. At that time, there were approximately three or four other students also seeking assistance from the Respondent. Respondent asked Michelle to sit in a chair behind his desk where she waited until the other students had received their assistance. According to Ms. Stewart, Respondent asked to touch her pants in the crotch section. Ms. Steward was shocked but did not protest when the Respondent touched her in the seat of her pants for approximately one minute. On another occasion, Respondent was invited to attend a birthday party given at Michelle's house by her. Respondent was reluctant to attend inasmuch as he did not have a gift to give her. He reluctantly agreed to attend based on the enticement of Ms. Stewart, her mother, and several other students who attended the party. When persuaded to attend the party, Respondent agreed only to come if Ms. Stewarts mother permitted him to take Ms. Stewart shopping for some clothing within the next few days. As best as can be determined from the record, it appears that the birthday party was during the early part of May, 1977. Within a few days, Respondent arranged to take Ms. Stewart shopping by obtaining permission from her mother. However, as the facts were later brought out, it appears that Respondent obtained permission from Ms. Stewart's mother by telling her that he wanted Ms. Stewart to assist him in arranging some books on his book shelves, and Ms. Stewarts mother agreed with the condition that Ms. Stewart be brought back home before six oclock. Ms. Stewart testified that she was picked up by Respondent and taken to his home where they were alone. Immediately after entering Respondents house, he asked here if she was hungry and whether or not she would like to fix herself a sandwich and watched TV for a few minutes. Thereafter Respondent took some pictures of here with his Polaroid camera. Respondent later offered her some clothing and brought them out telling her that she could try the dresses on in his presence. Ms. Stewart undressed in Respondent's presence and when she finished trying on her dresses that he had purchased, Respondent went to the bathroom and undressed, entering his living room area with only his shirt on. During this time Ms. Stewart was undressed and Respondent asked her to lie down on the floor where he had placed a towel and had relocated an electric fan positioned so that it would blow down on them. She testified that he laid on top of her for approximately ten minutes stroking and kissing her. After this incident was over (approximately ten minutes) Respondent pleaded with Ms. Stewart to refrain from telling anyone about the incident to which she agreed. However she testified that she did tell some of her friends about the incident. Ms. Stewart testified that during the next school year she opted to be in another teacher's classroom and Respondent rebelled by talking to her and here mother in an attempt to get her to change her mind. She refused to do so because she wanted to be in the class with a neighbor and her boyfriend. During the school year Ms. Stewart recalled that she and approximately two other students were taken to several extracurricular activities by Respondent after school hours, including the circus, lipizian stallions, and Holiday on Ice. Detective William Creekbaum presently employed as a real estate salesman, was formerly employed as a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department was assigned to investigate complaints regarding incidents that the Respondent had allegedly been engaged with several minor students including Michelle Stewart. Detective Creekbaum was assigned to investigate the case on or about May 19, 1977 at which time, and during the course of his investigation, he interviewed approximately ten minor female students. On May 31, 1977, he decided that he should contact the Respondent and make certain inquiries of him, which he did at the school. He visited the school and asked the Respondent to come with him down to the police station for some questions. The Respondent drove his car down to police headquarters and a statement was given to Detective Creekbaum. Prior therto, Respondnent was apprised of his rights per Miranda. Detective Creekbaum explained to Respondent the necessity of his being truthful during his investigation, although he stressed the fact that he made no promises that the matter would be handled internally". He testified, and the statements bear out the fact that the Respondent was, in fact, advised that the investigation was criminal in nature. Initially, during the interview, Respondent denied the material allegations of the charges that he had fondled Michelle Stewart, however, upon repeated questioning by Detective Creekbaum, Respondent admitted that he had fondled Michelle Steward as charged. Although Respondent's position on this admission is that he only told Detective Creekbaum that he had fondled Michelle Stewart because he "thought that was what he wanted to hear and further he was led to believe that nothing would come of it". After the admissions by Respondent, Detective Creekbaum advised Respondent that he was under arrest where he was taken to the booking section of the police department. Immediately thereafter, Douglas McBriarty, an employee of the personnel department for the Pinellas County school system and charged with resolving teacher problems, visited Respondent at the jail where Respondent also admitted to the charge of fondling Michelle Stewart. Dr. McBriarty advised Respondent that it would be the Board's recommendation to immediately suspend him pending a decision on the merits and further action by the board to seek revocation of his (Respondent's) teaching certificate by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent asked if he had any options whereupon Dr. McBriarty told him that he could resign. At that point, the Respondent resigned effective May 31, 1977. The Respondent took the stand and testified that he was misled by Detective Creekbaum into thinking that nothing would come of the incident and that while he denied initially fondling Ms. Stewart, he only changed his story to an admission because he was of the opinion that that was what Detective Creekbaum wanted. He also testified that he was of the opinion that nothing would come of the incident as related by Detective Creekbaum. 1/ Without question, the Respondent enjoys a good reputation in the community and by his fellow peers at the school. He is regarded as a very good instructor who goes over and above his call of duty with respect to his classroom duties. Witnesses Nancy H. Akins and Catherine Smith, both instuctors in the Pinellas County school system, testified of their familiarity with the Respondents professional life and both gave him high marks. As stated, the Respondent denied the material allegations of the charging allegations in this case. Presently he is project director for the Tampa sickle cell disease project. In addition to denying the allegations of the complaint herein he testified that he was "set up" by Detective Creekbaum. He voiced his opinion that he felt that if he were cooperative and stated what Detective Creekbaum wanted him to say that he would go free. The undersigned has examined the record to see whether or not any misrepresentations or other statements were made to prompt Respondent to admit to the fondling of Michelle Stewart and the record is barren in this regard. Based thereon, I shall recommend that the allegations contained in the petition filed herein be sustained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of Respondent, Ernest B. Brown, be suspended for a period of two years. ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
