Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: Claudio Senan, date of birth, September 18, 1967, was assigned to the Henry H. Fowler Jr. High School as an eighth grader during the 1982-83 school year. By letter dated March 16,1983, Petitioner, Claudio Senan's parent, Ms. Otero, was advised that the Petitioner was being assigned to the Jan Nann Opportunity School, North, based on a recommendation of the principal and a school screening committee of the Department of Alternative Education Placement based on the student's disruption of the educational process in the regular school program. Evidence reveals that during October through December, 1982, the Petitioner was continuously defiant which resulted in his being referred for indoor suspensions on more than three occasions. This pattern continued during the period January through March, 1983. In all of these incidents, Petitioner disrupted his school classroom activities. During early March, 1983, Petitioner was stopped by the Hialeah Police Department and assigned to truant officers. The Petitioner has received only minimal credits since his enrollment in the regular school program. As example, during the 1980-81 school year, Petitioner enrolled for 12 credits and earned 8 credits. During the 1981-82 school year, Petitioner again enrolled for 12 credits and earned 5. During the 1982-83 school year, the Petitioner earned no credits. Efforts to curb the Petitioner's disruptive activities while enrolled in the regular school program have not been successful. Further, Petitioner is not earning credits or otherwise benefiting from the education process being afforded him due to his disruptive conduct in the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order assigning the Petitioner, Claudio Senan, to an alternative educational placement. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Maria Otero 1140 W. 29th Street, Apt. 26 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. , Esquire and Mark Valentine, Esquire 300 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue This is a case in which the School Board of Dade County proposes to assign Rodolfo Damian Menedez to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. The School Board contends that the assignment to opportunity school is appropriate because of the student's "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." The Respondent and his parents oppose the assignment to opportunity school. This case was originally scheduled for hearing on September 20, 1985, but was continued because there were no court reporter and no translator in attendance. The parties agreed to reschedule the hearing on oral notice of less than 14 days in order to secure an early hearing date. At hearing on October 7, 1985, both parties stated they had no objection to the notice of hearing. At the end of the formal hearing, the Hearing Officer advised both parties that they would be allowed ten (10) days within which to file proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law. On October 21, 1985, the Respondent filed a document titled "Final Order" which has been treated as a proposed recommended order with proposed findings of fact. As of the time of the issuance of this Recommended Order, the Petitioner has not filed any proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are incorporated in the appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact There is information in the school records which indicates that the Respondent was involved in other instances of misconduct, but I have not made further findings in that regard for several reasons. First, the records do not appear to be all that carefully prepared, which causes me to place little credence in the accuracy of the records. Second, the records were not corroborated by testimony of a witness with personal knowledge, except for certain admissions in the testimony of the Respondent and his mother. Third, the Respondent denied the accuracy of some of the information in the records. Third, the Respondent denied the accuracy of some of the information in the records. And, finally, much of the information in the records is vague and general and does not adequately explain the nature of the incidents of the nature of the Respondent's role in the incidents, this being particularly true of the incidents involving fighting.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order rescinding the assignment of Rodolfo Damian Menendez to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North and assigning him to an appropriate school in the traditional school program. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1985. APPENDIX The factual assertions contained in the Respondent's posthearing document titled "Final Order" have been treated as proposed findings of fact and are specifically ruled on as follows: The substance of the proposed findings of fact contained in the following paragraphs have been accepted and incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order: FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, and EIGHTH. The proposed findings of fact contained in the following paragraphs are rejected as irrelevant in light of the other findings and in light of the recommended disposition of this ease: FIFTH, SIXTH, and SEVENTH. The proposed findings of fact in the following paragraph is rejected because it is a proposed conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact: NINTH. As of the time of the issuance of this Recommended Order, the Petitioner had not filed any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ignacio Siberio, Esquire 525 N.W. 27th Avenue Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33125 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. William R. Perry, Jr., Director Alternative Education Placement Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Richard A. Cohan, was employed by the Dade County School Board as a classroom teacher continuously from the time of his initial hiring in August 1970 until November 19, 1986, when he was suspended by Petitioner. During Respondent's employment with the Dade County School Board, he has taught at Shenendoah Junior High School, Booker T. Washington Junior High School, Kinloch Park Junior High School, Kensington Park Elementary School and Miami Edison Senior High School. Respondent was employed as a continuing contract teacher at Miami Edison Senior High School at all times relevant to the alleged misconduct herein. 1984-85 School Year Respondent's performance as a classroom teacher was satisfactory until the 1984-85 school year when he was absent 41 days from school. Frederick Sturgeon, Principal of Miami Edison Senior High School, made a notation concerning the absences on the Respondent's 1984/85 annual evaluation. 1985-86 School Year The Respondent's absenteeism continued into the 1985-86 school year. On November 5, 1985, Sturgeon held a conference for the record with Respondent because he had been absent 27.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Sturgeon was also concerned because Respondent failed to follow established school procedures when reporting his absences. During the 1985-86 school year, teachers who anticipated an absence were required to call a specific telephone number at the school and leave a taped message. The school secretary could check the messages during the night and arrange for any needed substitutes. The Respondent, however, usually called the school on the morning of the day he was absent. Thus, the school would have very little time in which to secure a substitute teacher who was specifically suited to teach the subject matter of the Respondent's classes. At the November 5, 1985 conference, Respondent was given specific instructions by Sturgeon to: Report any future absences to Assistant Principal Weiner personally and to discontinue calling the tape recording machine to report absences; Ensure that weekly lesson plans were available so that a substitute teacher would be able to continue with the lesson for that day; and Have on file with the school three days of "emergency lesson plans" dealing with general academic skills. On February 28, 1986, Sturgeon held another conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had been absent 5 times since the November 5, 1985 conference. On three of the days, Respondent did not call to report his intended absence. Sturgeon reiterated the same directives given Respondent during the November 5, 1985 conference. As of April 24, 1986, Respondent had been absent 58.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Because Respondent's absence pattern made it difficult to schedule a face to face conference, Sturgeon wrote a letter to Respondent expressing his concern over the high number of absences and the fact that from March 18, 1986 through April 24, 1986, there were 26 days during which the Respondent had not furnished lesson plans for his classes. Sturgeon again reiterated the directives of the November 5, 1985 conference. On May 12, 1986, a conference for the record was held with Respondent at the school board's Office of Professional Standards. Present at the conference were Assistant Principal Weiner, the Respondent, Dr. Gil (a coordinator in the office), and a union representative. The conference was held to discuss Respondent's performance assessment and future employment with the school board. The Respondent indicated his absences during the year were due to his grandmother's illness, the fact that he was not functioning well and the fact that he was taking medication for an upper respiratory illness. At the May 12, 1986 conference, the Respondent was directed to call Ms. Weinter directly to report any absences and to return his grade book to the school by May 13, 1986. Dr. Gil also determined that Respondent should be evaluated by a physician and an appointment was scheduled for the Respondent with Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist. The Respondent first saw Dr. Rousseau on May 15, 1986. On May 20, 1986, the Respondent had still not furnished the grade book to the school. Ms. Weiner directed Respondent, by way of a memorandum, to produce the grade book as previously requested. On May 30, 1986, Sturgeon completed an annual evaluation in reference to Respondent's teaching performance. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in the category of professional responsibility. On June 4, 1986, Sturgeon discussed with Respondent his most recent absences (May 29th to June 3rd) and the fact that he had not called Ms. Weiner to report them, had not provided lesson plans for two of the days and had still not provided the grade book to the school. The Respondent stated that he would comply with the directives in the future and provide his grade book to the school. Respondent was absent from June 6, 1986 until June 19, 1986. By letter dated June 11, 1986, Sturgeon requested that Respondent provide final examinations for his students and again directed that Respondent furnish the school with his grade book. On June 19, 1986, Sturgeon held a conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had not provided final examinations for his classes (one of the other teachers had to prepare the final exams), had not produced the grade book and had not provided lesson plans for use during his absences. The Respondent indicated to Sturgeon that on occasions, he attempted to contact Ms. Weiner but was unable to get through to her and at other times he forgot to contact her. The Respondent also informed Sturgeon that he was having a personal problem that he could not share with the school, and that the personal problem was having such an effect on him that he didn't feel that he could comply with the directives. On July 17, 1987, a conference was held at the school board's Office of Professional Standards, between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to review Respondent's performance over the previous school year. In Sturgeon's opinion, the Respondent's students had not been graded properly during nearly the entire year, final exams had to be administered which did not adequately assess the students' progress and the students had not reached the course objectives. At this time, the Respondent was a little more specific about the problem that he had mentioned to Sturgeon earlier and stated that he was having a mental problem and that he had experienced a series of traumatic experiences which had affected his ability to attend school. At the conclusion of the July 17, 1987 conference Sturgeon decided to recommend a short term of suspension, a medical examination and a period of controlled monitoring during the next school year. The recommendation was approved by the school board and Respondent was suspended for ten work days beginning the 1986-87 school year and was placed on probation for a 45 day monitoring period. The Respondent did not contest the suspension. 1986-87 School Year The Respondent returned to work from his suspension on September 16, 1987. Classes for the new school year had already commenced. Prior to returning to work, Respondent had gone to school and was given a teacher handbook in biology by Ms. Weiner. Respondent prepared lesson plans and tests based on the teacher handbook he had been given. When Respondent returned to school, he was given a new teacher handbook for biology. Respondent had to re-do all of his lesson plans and tests. In addition, he discovered that none of his classes had been issued textbooks. Respondent also received a folder filled with five classes worth of work for the proceeding 15 days which was assigned by the substitute teacher. On September 29, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class. Respondent was rated "acceptable" in five categories but "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This rating was based on the fact that there was no work done by the students contained in the student folders, his grade book contained only one entry grade per student for only one week and students were allowed to grade other students' essay-type examinations. Weiner gave Respondent a prescription for improving his deficiencies which included the directive that he conduct at least two formal assessments of student progress per week and maintain student folders to keep evaluative items. During October 1986, the Respondent was absent 15 days. Most of the absences were due to a severe intestinal flu which Respondent contracted. The Respondent failed to report his absences directly to Ms. Weiner as previously directed. On some occasions, the Respondent attempted to call Ms. Weiner, but could not get through to her on the telephone. When Respondent was unable to contact Ms. Weiner he would sometimes call the answer phone and leave a recorded message. On October 27, 1986, a conference for the record was held at the Office of Professional Standards between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Ms. Weiner's observation of Respondent, his continued failure to contact Ms. Weiner directly regarding absences and his failure to file emergency plans. On November 3, 1986, Sturgeon conducted an observation of the Respondent's classroom. Sturgeon rated the Respondent "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This unacceptable rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not have any student folders and had not assigned any homework. School policy required that teachers assigns homework at least twice a week. Respondent was also rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. On November 14, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class and rated him "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. The Respondent had no student folders, did not conduct at least two formative assessments of the students per week and there were no summative assessments of the student's progress. The Respondent admitted that he did not have formal folders and that his evaluation techniques were deficient. The Respondent stated that he was unable to employ the student assessment procedures recommended given by Ms. Weiner during the first few months of the 1986-87 school year because he was in the process of "catching up" after his return from suspension and was unable to do all of those things in such a short period of time. In addition, Respondent was hindered in his attempt to catch up because he was unable to have a lot of needed items copied because at times the machines were broken and at other times teachers with current items requiring reproduction were given priority. On November 19, 1986, Petitioner suspended Respondent from his position at Miami Edison Senior High School. Beginning in the 1984-85 school year and continuing through to the 1986-87 school year, Respondent suffered from a dysthymiac disorder referred to as neurotic depression. Respondent's condition was first diagnosed by Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist, on May 15, 1986. At the insistence of Dr. Gil, Respondent went to Dr. Rousseau's office for an examination. Dr. Rousseau was chosen from a list provided to Respondent by Dr. Gil. Dr. Gil personally made the appointment for Respondent to see Dr. Rousseau. Respondent at first did not realize or believe that he was suffering from a mental illness and initially resisted the treatment provided by Dr. Rousseau. However, Dr. Rousseau was able to establish a psychotherapeutic relationship with the Respondent after a short period of time. After the doctor-patient relationship was established, Respondent decided to continue seeing Dr. Rousseau and kept weekly appointments from June, 1986 until November, 1986. Respondent was treated with individual psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. In November of 1986, Respondent stopped seeing D. Rousseau because Respondent moved to Atlanta, Georgia, shortly after being suspended. Neurotic depression is a serious mental illness of a cyclical nature which may be physically disabling while the afflicted person is in a pathological state of depression. The symptoms of a neurotic depression include extreme sadness, apathy, lack of motivation, inability to concentrate, psychomotor retardation, insomnia and loss of appetite. Respondent's periods of pathological depression were characterized by feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and an apathy toward outside activities, including his employment. During Respondent's depressive states he would isolate himself at home, withdraw from all social contact, neglect his nutrition and hygiene and suffer insomnia. At times, Respondent would be unaware of the passage of time and would have crying spells. In his depressive condition, sometimes Respondent knew what he was required to do, such as calling in to report an absence, but because of his despair and dejected mood, was unable to motivate himself to do anything. Respondent's apathy and inability to attend to his necessary duties was a direct result of his neurotic depression. Due to the depressive symptomatology, a neurotically depressed person might fail to perform required duties for a number of reasons. As a result of an inability to concentrate, the depressed person may be unable to receive and assimilate instructions. The depressed person having a desire to complete a required duty may lack the physical capacity to perform because mentally he or she feels unable to do so. Further, because of an unconscious, passive- aggressive need for punishment, a depressed person may neglect to perform a required duty. The Respondent was examined by Dr. Albert Jaslow, a psychiatrist, on September 15, 1986 at the request of Dr. Gil of the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. Jaslow confirmed that Respondent was suffering from a mental illness and found that Respondent had made progress with his treatments from Dr. Rousseau. Dr. Jaslow noted that Respondent had reached a state of "relative adjustment" and had begun to realize that it would be necessary for him to be involved in a psychotherapeutic relationship in order to control the negative behavioral aspects of his periods of depression. Dr. Rousseau believes that Respondent responded well to treatment after an initial period of resistance and lack of insight (which is a part of the depressive symptomatology). Dr. Rousseau feels that the Respondent was getting better during the course of therapy but will need to continue taking his medication and receiving psychotherapy in order to fully complete the recovery process and control any recurring symptoms of depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be dismissed from employment; however, said dismissal shall be held in abeyance for 2 years from the date of the Final Order contingent on the following: Respondent's present suspension shall remain in effect until the commencement of the 1987-88 school year when Respondent shall return to work; Respondent shall continued treatment with Dr. Rosseau or another qualified psychiatrist of his choice; Respondent shall maintain acceptable performance evaluation reports during the school year, overall acceptable annual evaluations and be recommended for employment by his school principal at the end of the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years. The Office of Professional Standards, Dade County Board, shall monitor the Respondent's progress and fulfillment of the terms of the Final Order. If the Office of Professional Standards provides information by letter or motion to the school board that the Respondent has failed to meet any of the terms of this Order, the school board shall, if satisfied that the information is correct, immediately effectuate Respondent's dismissal by majority vote. If Respondent meets the requirements of the Final Order, the dismissal shall be remitted without further action. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4805 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. (No finding of fact 3) Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 31. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 8360 West Flagler Street Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33144 William duFresne, Esquire 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 331133 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Patrick Gray Division of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue - Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33136 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Daniel Z. Duncan, was a student at Hialeah Junior High School (HJHS) in Hialeah, Florida during school years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). During school year 1985-86, Daniel was a thirteen year old eighth grade student at HJHS. According to his grade reports, he received one B, one C, three D's and one F during the school year. Nonetheless, he was promoted to the ninth grade. The following school year, a deterioration in grades occurred. In fact, Daniel was absent at least twenty-one days between September 10 and November 3, 1986, and received F's in every course. During the fall of 1986 Daniel was involved in a series of disruptive incidents which culminated in a child study team's recommendation that he be transferred to an opportunity school. An opportunity school offers smaller classes for its students and has personnel who are specially trained to deal with students having behavioral or related academic problems in the regular school environment. The incidents which led to this recommendation are discussed below. On September 13, Daniel snatched a gold chain from another student while the two were in the second floor school restroom during class break. Daniel was charged with theft and was suspended from school for five days for this misconduct. On September 24, while on a five day suspension for misconduct, Daniel returned to the school campus. This was in violation of school rules which prohibit a suspended student from being on the school grounds. Despite having been told by a teacher to leave the premises, Daniel returned a second time later that day. He was cited for trespassing after his second Visit and received a two-day indoor suspension. On October 1, Daniel entered Judy Byrum's classroom and placed his books on his desk. He then left the classroom and never returned. After Daniel lied to her the next day about his whereabouts on October 1, Byrum referred Daniel to the assistant principal because of his absence. Daniel received an indoor suspension for this conduct. On October 3, Daniel and a fellow student were "horseplaying" in the school hallway. For this Daniel was cited for disruptive behavior and given a three-day-indoor suspension beginning on October 6. In view of his repetitive disruptive conduct, a school child study team was convened on October 3 to determine what action, if any, was required to deal with Daniel's problems. After reviewing his grades, attendance and behavior, a decision was made to recommend Daniel's transfer to an opportunity school. It was also recommended that he be given individual counseling and that weekly progress reports be compiled. Because of subsequent disruptive conduct which prompted his transfer a few weeks later, Daniel did not receive the recommended individual counseling at HJHS. On the morning of October 9 Daniel came to school wearing a baseball hat with the words "suck my dick" written on the hat. When his science teacher observed this, he instructed Daniel to give him the hat. Daniel refused and retreated to the school yard. Subsequent efforts by a security guard to retrieve the hat were unsuccessful, and it was finally necessary that an assistant principal escort Daniel to the principal's office. It should be noted that Daniel's refusal to obey the orders of the teacher and security guard was in the presence of other students, and had the effect of undermining his superiors' authority. After Daniel's mother was telephoned by the assistant principal regarding the incident, Daniel "bolted" out of the office and left the school premises. He was later given a five day suspension from school. A conference with Daniel's mother was held on October 10. At that time, all circumstances surrounding the "hat" incident were discussed, and other teachers were brought in to explain various problems they were having with her son. Daniel was transferred to Douglas MacArthur High School-North after the "hat" incident and has remained there since that time. His grades have improved, and he has apparently adjusted to that school environment. Daniel's mother testified that she was very concerned about her son's welfare. She felt that other alternatives existed besides transferring her son out of Hialeah Junior High School. However, she acknowledged that she had met in conference with school officials at least five or six times to discuss Daniel's disruptive behavior, and that her son's grades were very poor. She contended, however, that counseling might improve Daniel's behavior, and that HJHS had not made a serious effort to correct his behavior before the transfer decision was made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Daniel Z. Duncan be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and Ordered this 3rd day of February, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire Suite 205 8360 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33144 Ms. Minerva Duncan 2614 N.W. 65th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Milton Aaron Wetherington, holds Florida teacher's certificate number 035136 issued by the State Department of Education covering the areas of physical education, history and administration/supervision. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1991. This proceeding involves an administrative complaint filed against Wetherington by petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education. The complaint stems from various complaints lodged with the Volusia County School Board by several students and parents who alleged that Wetherington engaged or attempted to engage in improper relationships of a romantic nature with female high school students assigned to his classes. The filing of the administrative complaint precipitated the instant action. Wetherington, who is 57 years old, has been a teacher for some twenty seven years, the last seventeen in the Volusia County school system. From 1975 until 1984 Wetherington was a teacher at Spruce Creek School in Port Orange, Florida. Because of the pending disciplinary proceeding, he was reassigned to a non-instructional position as an assistant manager of purchasing and property for school year 1984-85. However, after the charges came to light in early 1984, Wetherington was allowed to continue as a teacher for the remainder of the school year, and was a chaperone on the senior class trip to Walt Disney World. In his twenty seven years of teaching, he has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him. In school year 1983-84 Wetherington taught a political systems course to first semester seniors. Two of his students were Lisa and Tammy, both seventeen years of age at the time, and the best of friends. Seven of the specific charges in the complaint involve respondent's relationship with Lisa, and to a lesser extent, Tammy. Lisa lived at home with her mother and step father for a part of her senior year. Because of problems with her stepfather, who beat her, she moved out at the end of January, 1984, to live with a girlfriend. She was involved with drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, and was experiencing financial problems. Lisa needed a social studies course to graduate, and transferred into Wetherington's class about two weeks after the semester started. She had not met or known Wetherington prior to that time. Wetherington immediately took a special interest in Lisa, and selected her to assist him during office hours with grading papers and the like. Lisa spotted an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and began cultivating the relationship in an assiduous manner. Her testimony reveals she had two goals in mind: to obtain money from Wetherington and to get a good grade without studying. She also saw the opportunity to get her friend Tammy a good grade since she had access to Wetherington's grade book. The relationship was non-sexual, and all parties agree that Wetherington made no sexual advances or demands upon Lisa. One evening during the fall of 1983, Wetherington asked Lisa if she and Tammy wanted to get a pizza after a football game. Lisa agreed and Wetherington gave her $20 to purchase the food. The three met briefly in separate cars at a local Pizza Hut, but after the girls saw other students there, they all drove in Wetherington's car to the Breakers Restaurant and Lounge, an establishment in New Smyrna Beach. They arrived around 12:45 a.m. or so, and after being seated in a booth next to the stage on which a band was playing, they placed an order for pizza. Because of the lateness of the hour, the waitress informed there the kitchen had closed. They then departed the premises and returned to Daytona Beach where all went their separate ways. The two girls claimed Wetherington purchased them an alcoholic drink at the Breakers, but a member of the band, who happened to be a teaching colleague of Wetherington disputed this and observed the three had no drinks during their five to seven minute stay at the restaurant. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and it is found respondent did not "purchase alcoholic beverages for both students" as alleged in the administrative complaint. At some point in the first semester, Wetherington gave Lisa a key to his house in Holly Hill where he lives alone. According to respondent, he did so since he wanted Lisa to have a place to go in the event she suffered a beating from her stepfather. Lisa visited his house approximately five times in the company of a girlfriend when Wetherington was home, and an undisclosed number of times when he was not at home. One of Wetherington's sons lives at Bunnell, and visited his father regularly. The son kept a stash of marijuana at the house which the son used when he visited. Wetherington acknowledged that this was true, but maintained he did not know where it was hidden at the time. Indeed, he claimed he never used drugs himself, and objected to their use by other persons. Wetherington gave Lisa instructions to use the key only when she had problems with her stepfather, but Lisa ignored these instructions. While at Wetherington's home, she used both alcohol and marijuana on at least one occasion in his presence. The alcohol (wine) was taken from Wetherington's refrigerator while the marijuana was either brought onto the premises by Lisa, or came from the son's hidden stash. 1/ There is no credible evidence that Wetherington himself used "marijuana and alcohol at his residence with female students" as charged in the complaint. During the school year, Wetherington gave Lisa a friendship ring valued at $12, some $500 in cash, between $400 and $500 worth of clothes, and lent her an Amoco gasoline credit card for gasoline purchases to get her to and from the part-time job she held. Lisa charged some $120 worth of gasoline on the card as well as $247 in auto repairs. With her mother's consent, and after clearing it with the school principal, he also paid Lisa's mother $500 for the equity in Lisa's car, transferred the title to his own name, and financed it with a Miami bank. Lisa got to use the car with the understanding that she would pay him $125 a month, which was Wetherington's obligation on the bank note. Wetherington considered all this to be a "loan," and kept a book detailing the total amount advanced to Lisa. As a part of the social studies course, Wetherington required each student to prepare a term paper. Wetherington gave fourteen students, including Lisa and Tammy, copies of term papers written in the prior year with instructions to use them as a "format" or "guideline" in preparing their own. Lisa and Tammy simply changed the title page, and turned the papers back in as if they were their own. They each received a grade of 25, which was the highest grade in the class. Lisa claimed she simply did what Wetherington told her to do, and Tammy corroborated this claim. Although Wetherington was negligent in failing to detect that the papers turned in by Lisa and Tammy were identical to those previously given them to be used as a "formats" the evidence does not support a finding that Wetherington gave them the papers for the purpose of evading any academic requirements. The final charge concerning Lisa and Tammy is that Wetherington "[o]n at least one occasion kissed and hugged a female student." This charge apparently stems from Wetherington kissing Lisa on the cheek one day and giving her a paternal hug. Wetherington does not deny this, but contends it was not romantic in nature but done in a fatherly way. Wendy was a seventeen year old senior at Spruce Creek High School in school year 1983-94. She is the source of some four separate charges against respondent in the administrative complaint. Wetherington approached her at the beginning of the year and asked if she wanted to be his teacher's aide. She said yes, and he accordingly rearranged her schedule so that she worked in his office or classroom during first period as an aide, and was a student in his social studies class the following period. During the first nine weeks, Wetherington gave Wendy two rings, one for her birthday and the other to simply keep till the end of the school year. He also gave her $230 in cash over this period of time. He kept a log detailing each amount of money given to her, and considered the payments to be a loan. While working in Wetherington's classroom one day, Wendy walked by Wetherington who pulled her onto his lap and began rubbing her upper thigh. He also approached her one day in his office and put his arms around her waist and pulled her towards him. After she told him, "I don't want this," he released her. She then pulled away and claimed she immediately reported the incident to the principal. The principal could not recall such a conversation. The next day Wetherington apologized to her in his office, but he then turned off the lights in the room and began hugging her. She pushed him away and ran out of the room. Although Wendy again claimed that she immediately reported the incident to the school principal, the principal could not recall such a meeting. In any event, Wendy went to her parents, disclosed the various incidents and gave them the two rings given to her by Wetherington. The parents were understandably irate, and went to the principal demanding that Wendy be transferred out of Wetherington's class. A meeting was held by the principal, with Wetherington and the two parents in attendance. At the meeting Wetherington simply acknowledged that he admired Wendy very much, that she was a good student, and that the cash given to her ($230) was a loan for car payments and voice lessons because he trusted her. However, Wendy does not own a car, and her another paid for all voice lessons. Moreover, her father is a physician who has provided well for his family. The mother then wrote Wetherington a check for $230 to repay the "loan." Wendy was also transferred out of respondent's class. Wendy acknowledged that she "took advantage" of Wetherington, and characterized their relationship as simply a friendship. In a note written to him in a school yearbook at the end of the year, she apologized for "putting (him) through hell" and wished she "could erase it all." Wetherington denied any romantic involvement with Wendy, and acknowledged only that he had kissed her twice on the cheek, once at a football game and another time outside his house. He attributes Wendy's story to emotional problems she was experiencing that fall caused by her relationship with a married man. Wetherington portrayed himself as a teacher genuinely interested in his students. He estimated he has given financial aid in the form of loans and gifts to students over the years in excess of $10,000. Because he has raised seven children of his own, he vigorously denied having any illicit or sinister purpose in his dealings with Lisa and Wendy. Instead, he contended he was merely helping them overcome personal and financial problems so that they would be better persons after graduation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found GUILTY of violating Rules 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e), and Subsection 231.28(1)(c), as set out more specifically in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for three years and that he be retained by the school board during his probationary period only as a non- instructional employee. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1985.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of allegations that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate physical touching of a female student.
Findings Of Fact M. A. is a thirteen year old student at West Miami Middle School. At the time of the alleged incident, she was twelve years of age, was approximately five feet, three inches, tall, and weighed about one hundred sixty pounds. She had gained about twenty or thirty pounds more as of the time of the formal hearing in this case. The School Trust Counselor, Diana De Cardenas, had been seeing M. A. and M. A.'s sister for eating disorder problems because both girls were somewhat overweight. The counsellor had seen M. A. on several occasions because of allegations that M. A.'s mother and M. A.'s brother were hitting her at home. Her brother did not want her to eat and when he saw her eating he would beat her. M. A. saw the counsellor because of these facts and was often upset and crying. The Respondent, Millard Lightburn, is forty-two years old and has been a teacher for over fifteen years. The Respondent is Hispanic. He previously taught school in Nicaragua and speaks both English and Spanish. The accusing child, M. A., is also Hispanic. The Respondent taught a computer application course and from time to time he would use students to help file papers and keep records. Shortly before the time of the alleged incident, the Respondent asked two students, M. A. and a male student named L. D., to help him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. The student named L. D. did not come to help the Respondent on the day in question because L. D. was asked by another teacher to help with a problem in the cafeteria. On the day in question, the Respondent was having lunch while working in his classroom. M. A. was in the class alone with him helping him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. This was the second day that M. A. had assisted the Respondent with the paperwork. As the work was finished, the Respondent said to M. A., "Thank you very much; thank you for your help." He put his hand on her shoulder and put his cheek next to hers and gave her a peck on the cheek in a manner that is customary and traditional among Hispanics in Dade County, Florida. The Respondent demonstrated this gesture at the hearing. This same gesture was also demonstrated by two other witnesses, Shirley B. Johnson and Assistant Principal Eldon Padgett. West Miami Middle School is about 93 percent or 94 percent Hispanic. In that school and in the Hispanic community served by the school, it is customary for people to hug and to touch one another on the cheek or to give one another a peck on the cheek. Such conduct is common at all Hispanic schools in Dade County, Florida. The gesture demonstrated by the Respondent and by two other witnesses is a customary Hispanic gesture in Dade County, Florida, and is not considered to be offensive or inappropriate by other members of the Hispanic community. The Respondent, Millard E. Lightburn, did not at any time touch the student, M. A., in an inappropriate or offensive way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-06174 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, but with the additional findings to the effect that another student had been invited to be present at the same time as the student, M. A. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details, or as irrelevant. Paragraph 9: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 13: First line rejected for reasons stated immediately above. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 32: The first three full lines and the first four words of the fourth line are accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as also irrelevant. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment pursuant to Sections 231.36(1)(a) and 231.35(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed as a social studies teacher at Bell High School since 1988. He is employed under a professional services contract for instructional personnel. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has received satisfactory performance appraisals. He was selected Bell High School Teacher of the Year and Gilchrist County Teacher of the Year in 1996. Respondent's competency as a teacher is not at issue here. It is undisputed that Respondent is an effective teacher except as alleged by Petitioner in this case. 1998/1999 School Year On January 26, 1999, Superintendent Thomas (Superintendent) wrote a letter recommending Respondent for the James Madison Fellowship Program. In the letter, the Superintendent stated that Respondent is an outstanding teacher who is academically strong in the field of social studies, American History, and American Government. The letter recounts Respondent's involvement as the senior class sponsor and in developing a cultural exchange program and a junior achievement program. Respondent was the senior class sponsor in the Fall of 1998. In the first days of school, Respondent prepared and presented the seniors with a detailed letter containing information, including, but not limited to, officer duties and responsibilities. The section on officer duties and responsibilities stated, in part, that the senior sponsor reserved the right to remove officers for incompetence or inappropriate behavior. Subsequently, a certain female student was elected senior class president. She and Respondent had a personality conflict from that time forward. Part of the problem involved the student's initiation of class projects without Respondent's approval, which was contrary to Respondent's procedures outlined in the letter referenced above. Respondent often found fault with the senior class president's performance of her duties and her inability to devote full time to her elected position because of extracurricular activities. On several occasions, Respondent made comments to the senior class president that embarrassed her in front of other students and teachers, embarrassing her to the point of tears. One time Respondent told the student that he was not going to chaperon "some damn carwash" and miss his football game. The student complained to her parents about the way Respondent treated her. In November 1998, the student and her parents requested a parent/teacher conference with Respondent. The assistant principal also attended the meeting. After Respondent offered to shake the father's hand, the conversation almost immediately resulted in a heated discussion between the student's father and Respondent. During the conversation, Respondent informed the parents that he had students in his class that were more important than their daughter's feelings and that if the daughter was going to complain to her parents, she was fired from her position as senior class president. The student's father then accused Respondent of being disrespectful of the daughter and objected to Respondent's use of curse words in front of the daughter. Respondent stated that he did not consider "damn" a curse word. On November 9, 1998, the parents made a written complaint about Respondent's conduct before and after the parent/teacher conference. They requested that the letter be placed in Respondent's personnel file. Respondent responded with a letter dated November 8, 1998. He claimed that he had been summoned to the office for a meeting with a hostile parent for which he had been completely unprepared. Respondent denied that he had ever cursed the student. Respondent stated that he did not ever intend to be "bushwhacked" again. Respondent later told the principal that the student was fired as class president. The principal said that she would not be removed from her elected office. Respondent then resigned his position as senior sponsor. In January 1999, Respondent wrote a letter to the Superintendent and members of the school board. The letter outlined a series of events and incidents alleged by Respondent to represent the inadequacies of the school system. For example, the letter includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) allegations of nepotism and incompetent teachers; (b) allegations that a student broke the nose of Respondent's daughter after a coach told her to hit the student if he sexually harassed her again; (c) allegations that a coach had walked into the girls locker room while they were changing; and (d) allegations that the coach had retaliated against Respondent by falsifying his daughter's grades because Respondent complained about the locker room incident. Apparently the Superintendent did not reply in writing to Respondent's January 1999 letter or require any employee to write a letter of apology. Nevertheless, competent evidence indicates that the Superintendent investigated Respondent's concerns and properly resolved all issues, including the disciplining of employees where necessary. Respondent was responsible for the establishment of a World War II (W.W. II) Monument on the grounds of the Gilchrist County Courthouse in honor of the veterans who fought in that war. Respondent often invited veterans to speak in his class regarding their wartime experiences. Mr. Cody Bennett, a W.W. II veteran, spoke to Respondent's class approximately 16 times. On one occasion, the principal questioned whether Mr. Bennett had signed in at the office and whether Respondent had requested pre-approval of Mr. Bennett's presentation according to the school's policy. Bell High School policy requires a visitor to sign in at the main office and to be approved by an administrator. The policy states that guest speakers should be pre-approved by an administrator. Mr. Bennett's class presentation was not pre-approved by an administrator. Because Mr. Bennett had not signed in at the office before visiting Respondent's classroom, Respondent signed him in as he was leaving the campus. 1999/2000 School Term In the Fall of 1999, Respondent requested another male teacher to demonstrate something for Respondent's students. The male teacher agreed and went into Respondent's class. Respondent then requested his colleague to show the class the "three point stance" of a football player. After the teacher bent over with his hands on his knees, Respondent asked the teacher to spell the word "r-u-n." As the class burst out laughing, the embarrassed teacher quickly left the class. The teacher later realized that he had been requested to demonstrate a homosexual act in front of the class. Respondent made the same request of another male teacher. After asking his colleague to show the class a football lineman's position (knees bent ready for a block), Respondent requested the teacher to spell the word "r-u-n." Once again the class burst out laughing. The second teacher did not fully understand the inappropriate joke until he left Respondent's classroom. By letter dated October 22, 1999, the principal of Bell High School wrote a letter to Respondent reprimanding him for the inappropriate sexual implication of Respondent's behavior. The principal directed Respondent to write letters to the teachers, apologizing for his conduct that constituted extreme misconduct for a teacher. The principal warned Respondent that such conduct in the future could result in discharge. The principal noted in his October 22, 1999, letter that Respondent had shown a negative attitude toward the principal as Respondent's supervisor. The principal stated that he expected Respondent to show a more positive attitude in the future. The principal placed the letter of reprimand in Respondent's personnel file. As requested by the principal, Respondent wrote letters of apology dated October 22, 1999, to the teachers. Both letters stated Respondent's regrets for causing his co- workers embarrassment for the incident that he referred to as a "spontaneous practical joke." Respondent admits that the practical joke was in bad taste and demonstrated a lapse of judgment on his part. During the hearing, the teachers testified that they maintained good professional and personal relationships with Respondent despite the incidents. One day before class in April 2000, one of Respondent's students told him that she needed to leave his class early to attend a school softball game. Respondent was unnecessarily harsh and embarrassed the student when she reminded him during class that she had to leave the class. In chastising the student, Respondent emphasized that the student did not need softball to graduate but that she did need his class. The incident was videotaped because a group of students were about to make a class presentation at the time. The student's parent wrote a letter to Respondent, complaining about Respondent's treatment of the student. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Respondent had humiliated the student about her work and yelled and screamed at the student for interrupting class when leaving for the game. Respondent replied to the parent's complaint by letter dated April 28, 2000. Respondent objected to being slandered by a student. He stated that the student's grade for incomplete work would stand as recorded. Respondent admitted that he did not like interruptions in his class due to sports events. He said he would no longer give the student a "mild scolding" to enhance her performance. According to Respondent's letter, he felt the parent's letter was hostile, unfounded, and personally insulting. On May 1, 2000, the principal advised Respondent that he was transferring the student out of Respondent's class due to the strained relationship on the part of the student. The letter requested that Respondent furnish the principal with the student's grades and a copy of the videotape of the incident involving the student's interruption of class. Respondent complied with the principal's request to provide the principal with the student's grades. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent altered the student's grades before doing so. However, there is competent evidence that Respondent never complied with the principal's request to produce the videotape. 2000/2001 School Term Petitioner requires its teachers to maintain a portfolio containing examples of assignments and student work samples. One purpose of the portfolio is to assist supervisors in assessing the teachers' performance at the end of the year. On May 2, 2001, the teachers at Bell High School were advised that their portfolios would be due on May 18, 2001. Respondent did not turn in a portfolio by the required date. Toward the end of the 2000/2001 school year, the fire alarm was activated at Bell High School. The record is unclear whether the alarm was the result of a planned fire drill or a false alarm due to recurring problems with the fire alarm system. In any event, Respondent did not interrupt his class to take his students outside as required by school policy. In June 2001, the assistant principal at Bell High School and Respondent met to review Respondent's end-of-the- year performance evaluation. Petitioner's signature on the evaluation would have indicated only that the assistant principal had reviewed it with Respondent. During the meeting, the assistant principal explained that Respondent's score would have been higher but for Respondent's failure to turn in a portfolio and his failure to take his class outside during a fire alarm during semester exams. Respondent disagreed with the assistant principal over his evaluation, in part, because a one-point higher would have resulted in an increase in Respondent's salary. The assistant principal responded to Respondent's objections stating, "You made it easy." Because he did not agree with the evaluation, Respondent told the assistant principal that he was wasting Respondent's time and that he did not "want to listen to any more of this." Respondent then requested that he be dismissed so that he could attend a school board meeting. Respondent started to leave the room. When the assistant principal requested Respondent to return to discuss the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Why listen to more of this bullshit?" Respondent then told the assistant principal that he was a "spineless lizard." Respondent then wrote "I do not concur" on the evaluation and without signing his name on the evaluation, left the room. By letter dated June 6, 2001, the principal of Bell High School reprimanded Respondent for his inappropriate, unprofessional, and insubordinate conduct toward the assistant principal. The principal reminded Respondent that he previously had been reprimanded for his attitude to the former principal. The principal stated that such conduct in the future could result in discharge. The principal's letter of reprimand directed Respondent to write a letter of apology to the assistant principal. Before the letter was placed in Respondent's personnel file, Respondent signed it, including the statement "I spoke only the truth." On June 6, 2001, Respondent wrote a one-sentence letter of apology to the assistant principal. The letter simply stated, "I am sorry." Respondent subsequently wrote a letter dated June 8, 2001, directed to the principal and others, including the Superintendent, but not including the assistant principal. Respondent's letter listed a number of incidents in which Respondent felt that he had been unfairly treated. Respondent's June 8, 2001, letter asserts that a teacher twice called him a "son of a bitch" without receiving a reprimand. That incident involved a situation where Respondent told a teacher that he was not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. The teacher then called him a "son of a bitch." Respondent asked his colleague to repeat what she said in front of witnesses and she did. The principal subsequently counseled with Respondent and the teacher, giving them both a verbal reprimand, and telling them not to make such inappropriate comments to each other in the future. In his June 8, 2001, letter, Respondent requested an investigation of each of the incidents. Respondent also stated in the letter that he was sorry if he hurt the assistant principal's feelings. The assistant principal never received a copy of the letter containing Respondent's apology. The Superintendent subsequently performed an investigation. By letter dated October 11, 2001, the Superintendent advised Respondent that the issues raised in his June 8, 2001, letter had been reviewed. Competent evidence supports the Superintendent's conclusion in the letter that the former or current principal at Bell High School had properly addressed each of Respondent's concerns. 2001/2002 School Term On August 6, 2001, the Superintendent signed and issued to Respondent a Professional Service Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools for the 2001/2002 school term. The contract states that Petitioner had determined that Respondent had satisfactorily completed all requirements of law for such a contract. On August 10, 2001, Respondent signed a form indicating that he had received a copy of Bell High School's Teacher Handbook. The handbook included an emergency plan that required teachers to keep their classroom doors locked each period of the day. The policy was created as a safety measure after the "Columbine" shooting spree. Respondent generally followed the locked-door policy. However, occasionally he would leave the door open so that students could go and come from the restroom without interrupting the class. Respondent also left his door open for about 10 or 15 minutes in the morning because one student from another school zone arrived late every morning and Respondent did not want the class interrupted. Despite the inconvenience to Respondent in having his class interrupted, leaving the door open was contrary to established policy. Sometime prior to August 15, 2001, Respondent extended an invitation to Brett Hillman to visit his class. Mr. Hillman was a former student of Respondent and on leave from active military service. When Mr. Hillman arrived on campus, he was arrested for trespassing on school property. Respondent subsequently wrote a letter dated September 14, 2001, to the county judge assigned to hear the criminal trespass case against Mr. Hillman. Respondent's letter explained to the judge that he felt responsible because he had neglected to have Mr. Hillman's visit to the campus approved through the office. An assistant state attorney subsequently wrote a letter dated October 18, 2001, advising the principal that Mr. Hillman's case was resolved in a deferred prosecution procedure. The assistant state attorney explained the problems associated with the prosecution not being aware of Respondent's invitation for Mr. Hillman to visit Respondent's classroom. One of Respondent's classes in the Fall of 2001 was an eighth-grade American History class. The students ranged in ages from 14 to 17. The following incidents occurred with students in that class. Several times Respondent asked students if they had a date for the weekend. If the student replied that he or she did not, Respondent would respond, "Oh, I didn't think so" or "Ha-Ha, I didn't think so." On one occasion, Respondent replied, "I figured not because you're so ugly." The regularity in which Respondent made these statements and manner in which the students understood them indicates that the students were not offended and understood that Respondent was joking. On at least one occasion, Respondent discussed the difference in Democrats and Republicans with two of his students. Respondent told the students that Democrats are asses, not donkeys, and Republicans are elephants. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent made this comment intentionally to slander or make a profane statement about either of the political parties. At times, Respondent used inappropriate language in an attempt to motivate his students individually. For example, Respondent called one student who was rather large, "Bigun," meaning no disrespect to the student. However, on at least one occasion, Respondent told "Bigun" that he was lazy and should drop out and shovel shit if he did not want to stay in school. On another occasion, Respondent told "Bigun" to get his fat ass out of his (Respondent's) class. Respondent told a bashful student that if he did not want to participate in class, he could get the hell out of the class, drop out, and flip burgers. Respondent made this comment because the student did not want to read out loud in class. Respondent also made the following statements to students: (a) a student should drop out and get a job flipping burgers so she would not be on welfare for others to support; (b) a student should get out of school and stop stinking it up if they did not want to learn; (c) two students were a pain in the ass because they had not finished a report and did not want to learn; (d) it was bullshit for a student not to want to participate in a project; (e) a student should shut up; and (f) a student should get the hell out of here. Sometimes Respondent made inappropriate comments to the class at large. Respondent told the class he knew he was an asshole but the class would have to live with it because he did. Respondent also said he "could be a nice person, but just don't piss him off." Respondent would remind his class that if they dropped out of school and got a job, their boss would yell at them and tell them to get off their fat ass. Respondent made some of these comments in the context of a lesson on illiteracy. Nevertheless, Respondent's choice of words to make his point regarding the importance of an education in getting and keeping a good job was inappropriate. On two occasions, Respondent told a student to "get the hell out of this classroom" if the student did not want to learn. The second time that Respondent made this statement, the student left the class, spoke to the principal, and spent a couple of days in the In-School Suspension (ISS) room. When the student returned to Respondent's class, Respondent learned that the student had spoken to the principal. Respondent then stated, "All this crap is happening all over again." On another occasion, Respondent used the word "damn" in a conversation with a student. During the conversation, Respondent also stated, "[t]his is my class and I'm running the show here. And if you don't want to go along with it, you can get out." After making this statement, another student in the same area of the classroom started laughing and making fun of the first student. In discussing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Respondent told his students that they could say anything because they had a right to freedom of speech. To make his point, Respondent told the class that they could curse each other or him outside of class and he would not write them up because of their right to speak freely. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent condoned student use of curse words in class. On September 11, 2001, the atmosphere in Respondent's class was emotionally charged as everyone learned about the attack on New York City. Later in response to a student's questions, Respondent used the words "rag heads," referencing the terrorists responsible for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Respondent used the same terms in discussing the terrorists with the principal. In the Fall of 2001, one eighth-grade student complained to his mother that Respondent was singling him out and embarrassing him in class. The mother told her son to tough it out for another week because Respondent might have been having a bad day. The student later complained again to his mother about Respondent's embarrassing treatment in the classroom. Based on the student's repeated complaints, the mother sent a message to Respondent asking him to call at his convenience. After receiving the message, Respondent immediately returned the mother's call. During the conversation, Respondent stated that the student was "not completing his work. I chewed him out really good yesterday so maybe he'll do something today." When the mother inquired about the student's allegations that Respondent was singling the student out in class and embarrassing him to the point of tears in front of the other students, Respondent replied, "Yes, that's true, but I am a hard teacher and I am not gonna cuddle and baby [the student] in my classroom. He either does what I say or he fails." When the mother questioned whether Respondent had told his students to quit school and stop wasting Respondent's and the school's time if they did not want to work, Respondent admitted that he had made such a statement. When the mother asked Respondent not to embarrass her son in front of the class, Respondent stated, "[y]ou wouldn't call up your doctor or your lawyer and harass them, and I don't expect you to do this to me." When the mother responded that she was just trying to find out what was going on, noting that Respondent was chewing her out, Respondent replied, "If there is nothing else, I have a class to teach so you can make an appointment like everybody else" then hung up the phone. Respondent appeared to be angry when he returned to the classroom after speaking with the mother. Respondent then requested to see the student's work folder. After making a derogatory comment about the work in the folder, Respondent told the student to get it organized and tossed it down on the student's desk, causing the papers to fall on the floor. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the folder hit the student in the chest, but the incident did cause the student embarrassment in front of his classmates. The mother subsequently called the assistant principal to complain about Respondent's unprofessional behavior. Specifically, the mother stated that Respondent had hung up on her and that she wanted her son removed from Respondent's class. After receiving written complaints from the mother and her son, both of which contained allegations that Respondent used curse words in class, the assistant principal gave the information to the principal. Based on the complaints from the mother and her son, the principal initiated an investigation on October 11, 2001. He first talked to several students in the class. The students did not know why they were being questioned. Without naming Respondent, the students were asked whether any teachers used profanity in the classroom. The students named Respondent as the only teacher who did so. Each student was talked to separately, sequestered, and asked to write a statement concerning Respondent's conduct in the classroom. There is no competent evidence that the students were unduly influenced or coached regarding the content of their statements. Two students, who did not want to get involved, were allowed to return to class. The student's initial statements and the mother's statement were submitted to the Superintendent. Because the statements warranted further investigation, the Superintendent appointed a committee to look into the matter. Respondent sent a memorandum dated October 16, 2001, to the members of the school board. In the memorandum, Respondent complained that he was being harassed because students from his at-risk class were being summoned from class to provide statements regarding his classroom activities without his knowledge. According to Respondent, the administration's current investigation was consistent with past personal attacks on Respondent. Respondent demanded that Petitioner provide him with all written statements by students, teachers, and parents and any notes in the possession of administrators but not included in his personnel file. He demanded that Petitioner refer the alleged harassment to the Educational Practices Commission. He insisted that he receive prior notification of any subsequent investigations. The Superintendent appointed an outside investigator as soon as he learned that Respondent believed the investigation was politically motivated and in retribution for Respondent running against the Superintendent in the most recent election. During the investigation, Petitioner once again pulled the students who had signed previous statements from class. At that time, Petitioner requested the students to sign affidavits that their initial statements were true. The only other times that Petitioner pulled students from class in relation to this case was to speak with an investigator or attorney in preparation for trial. On one occasion a student asked to call her father. At that point Petitioner's counsel stopped talking to the student. On or about October 15, 2001, Respondent called the Superintendent at home one night, demanding copies of all documents being considered in the investigation. During this conversation, Respondent told the Superintendent that the investigation was all a bunch of crap, that the principal at Bell High School was an idiot, and that he (Respondent) was not interested in the Superintendent's bullshit procedures. When the independent investigation was completed, the Superintendent reviewed all of the information. He considered Respondent's years of service, his satisfactory performance evaluations, and his personnel file, which contained two letters of reprimand. The Superintendent concluded that termination of Respondent's employment was appropriate after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors. By letter dated October 29, 2001, Respondent was invited to a meeting to discuss the allegations against him, which at that point included misconduct in office and/or gross insubordination. Specifically, the letter stated that Respondent had: (a) used profane or obscene language; encouraged or condoned student's use of profanity; intimidated and embarrassed students; and (d) continued refusal to obey direct orders from school board personnel. The Superintendent's letter advised Respondent of his rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, giving him a five-day notice of the meeting scheduled for November 5, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to allow Respondent an opportunity to rebut the allegations against him. In a letter dated November 1, 2001, Respondent objected to the meeting scheduled for November 5, 2001, because it did not provide him with a five-day notice from the time that he received the October 29, 2001, letter. Respondent also requested that the Superintendent furnish Respondent with copies of certain documents, including his personnel file, all written complaints from students, parents, and teachers, and a copy of Petitioner's policies. Respondent's November 1, 2001, letter stated that the eighth-grade class had been exploited and that the student's affidavits had been solicited under duress. There is no persuasive evidence to support these allegations. Respondent claimed that the classroom was hostile and not conducive to effective education. Respondent asserted that he was not certified to teach the eighth-grade class because it was not a mainstream class. He requested that he be assigned to teach another class for that time block. By letter dated November 1, 2001, the Superintendent rescheduled the meeting for November 7, 2001, to ensure that Respondent was given adequate notice. The Superintendent also reminded Respondent that he had been furnished a copy of his entire personnel file and copies of affidavits obtained during the preliminary investigation. The Superintendent's letter enclosed a copy of the parent's letter that initiated the investigation. The letter sets forth the conditions under which a copy of Petitioner's policies would be made available to Respondent. Finally, the Superintendent's November 1, 2001, letter denied Respondent's request for reassignment as premature. However, that request was subsequently granted. On November 4, 2001, Respondent wrote a letter to the Superintendent. The letter states, among other things, that a student had called his home to tell him that his daughter was threatening other students. Respondent demanded a written explanation from the Superintendent regarding the persons who assisted the student in using the office phone to make the call and insisting that the Superintendent investigate the incident. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent's daughter ever threatened her classmates. Respondent attended the meeting with the Superintendent on November 7, 2001. During the meeting, the Superintendent granted Respondent's request for additional time to respond to the allegations in writing. Respondent made his written response in a letter dated November 12, 2001. In Respondent's November 12, 2001, letter, Respondent apologized for using certain inappropriate words in class but argued that technically they were not defined as "profanity." He denied that he had ever disobeyed a direct order but apologized for offending the Superintendent in a heated conversation. He denied intimidating and embarrassing students, claiming that he only administered warranted admonishments. Respondent could not recall what he had said to students about the terrorists on September 11, 2001. He condoned the division of the word "assassination" into syllables to help the students learn to spell it. He denied that he called a student fat but admitted that he may have used the work lazy. Respondent accused a student of using the word ass instead of donkey to describe Democrats, stating that he thought nothing of the student's comment at the time. By letter dated December 7, 2001, the Superintendent suspended Respondent's employment with pay. The letter stated that the suspension would be effective until Petitioner's next board meeting on December 11, 2001. Respondent and another school employee ran against the Superintendent for the elected position of Superintendent of Gilchrist County Schools in 2000. The Superintendent was reelected in the first primary. There is no persuasive evidence that the Superintendent's investigation and ultimate decision to recommend suspension of Respondent's employment was politically motivated. There have been other incidents where the Superintendent has had to discipline teachers for using profanity. There has been no situation where the Superintendent has failed to take some disciplinary action against these teachers. The type of discipline in each incident was decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances. Petitioner has a policy entitled "Profane or Obscene Language," which states as follows in pertinent part: Under no condition shall any School Board employee be permitted to use profane or obscene language in his or her relationship with students. Any employee who uses profane or obscene language while speaking to, communicating with or in the presence of students shall be guilty of misconduct in office, conduct which seriously reduces his/her effectiveness as an employee and failure to comply with a School Board rule. On every occasion in which a violation of this policy has been brought to the attention of the Superintendent, he has issued some form of discipline. There is no policy requiring the Superintendent to inform anyone about the discipline of another teacher. During the public input period of the hearing, the general public was given an opportunity to present oral or written communications. Five individuals spoke on Respondent's behalf. Some of these witnesses could not believe that Respondent would engage in the conduct of which he was accused but conceded that if Respondent had behaved in such inappropriate conduct, it might change their opinion of him. Two citizens testified on behalf of Petitioner during the public input period. One witness was a former student of Respondent who presented credible testimony that Respondent called him a "swinging dick" on one occasion and threw the student's shoe out the window on another occasion because the student had his foot on his desk. The other public input witness testifying for Petitioner was the father of a former student. This witness presented credible evidence that Respondent engaged in degrading and humiliating behavior toward his family, by insulting them during a parent/teacher meeting. During this meeting, Respondent accused the father of not having the ability to comprehend or deal with the situation and that the father was not mentally capable of carrying on a conversation with him. Respondent used many posters as visual aides in his classroom. For example, Respondent had pictures of every president of the United States up on the walls. One of Respondent's classes in 1992 hung President Clinton's picture upside down until the assistant principal required Respondent to turn the picture right side up in 1998. Respondent routinely placed a Groucho Marx nose on the picture of the President when the class was studying about that president. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent used the nose to disparage one president over another. However, there is competent evidence that Respondent did not immediately remove the nose from President Clinton's picture when the assistant principal requested him to do so. In the Fall of 2001, the principal found one poster on the outside of Respondent's classroom door. The posted depicted a crying baby and a picture of the official seal of the United States Democratic Party, with the caption "Don't be a cry baby." The principal removed the picture from Respondent's door because the principal did not believe the poster was politically neutral. In prior years, the principal twice instructed Respondent to remove a car tag from his bulletin board. The car tag showed a person urinating on President Clinton's name. The second time that Respondent was directed to remove the tag, he covered the tag with a paper containing the word "censored" on it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from his employment as a teacher in the Gilchrist County School System. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Don Thomas, Superintendent Gilchrist County School Board 310 Northwest 11th Avenue Trenton, Florida 32693-3804 William H. Andrews, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A. Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Dan Taylor Post Office Box 657 Bell, Florida 32619-0657
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Anthony George Fields, was a student enrolled in the public school system in Dade County, Florida. Since the 1979-1980 school year the Respondent has been enrolled at various times at either Centennial Junior High School or Cutler Ridge Junior High School in Dade County. During that period of time Respondent has been placed on either indoor, outdoor or bus suspension 14 times, totaling 57 days. The causes of Respondent's suspensions have been disruptive and defiant behavior, fighting in the classroom, possession of a knife, profanity, kicking another student, punching holes in the seat of a bus and theft of a purse. Respondent has been seen by his grade-level counselor a total of five times as a result of referrals during the 1981-1982 school year in an attempt to deal with his inappropriate behavior. In addition, the student's class schedule has been revised, and his counselor has had conferences on several occasions with Respondent's mother. As a result of the student's disruptive behavior, as outlined above, he was administratively reassigned from Centennial Junior High School to the Youth Opportunity School- South, an alternative school placement, as of November 21, 1981. Through February 11, 1982, Respondent had been absent from class without an excuse for 45 days.
Findings Of Fact Clarence Dixon received a Bachelor of Science degree with academic honors from Bethune-Cookman College. He was active in athletics and was rated "All-American" in football. He was employed by Piper High School for the 1980- 81 school year in his first teaching position. He was hired to teach physical education, and was encouraged by the principal of Piper High School to take an active part in the black community. Sandra Brown is employed at Piper High School as a security specialist. She met Dixon through their work association and asked Dixon to counsel her son, as she knew he respected Dixon. Mrs. Brown related several conversations wherein Dixon made sexual advances to her. Mrs. Brown was also involved in the initial school investigation of Dixon's alleged sexual improprieties with Piper High School students; Sharon Cooper is a 15-year-old female student at Piper High School. She had been upset over rumors that involved her reputation, and was considering leaving school over the matter. Dixon became aware of her problem end counseled her to remain in school and ignore the rumors. Carl Nadler, a 16-year-old student at Piper High School, overheard Cooper tell Dixon that, "All the guys say I suck dicks and fuck." This was the statement attributed to Dixon in Count 2 of the Petition. However, it appears that Dixon did not use these words, or at least did not use them in a sexually suggestive context. Lesia McGee is a 17-year-old student at Piper High School. She did not testify at the hearing due to illness, but the parties agreed to allow her deposition to be admitted as evidence associated with Count 5 of the Petition. Her testimony establishes that Dixon told her, "If you wear those purple pants again, I'm going to tongue you to death." Any doubt regarding the sexual implication of this statement was removed by remarks Dixon made to McGee on other occasions to the effect that she had a good figure and would she be enough of a lady not to tell anyone if she and Dixon were to make love. McGee readily admitted that Sandra Brown wanted her to exaggerate her complaint, but she refused. Her testimony indicated no animosity toward Dixon nor influence by Sandra Brown. Freddie Jones is a student at Piper High School. He informed another student, Sandra Cunningham, that Dixon had asked Jones to spread a rumor about her. Jones recanted his initial statement to investigators at the prehearing deposition. He returned to the allegation at the hearing, explaining that he had tried to help Dixon by lying at the deposition, but came to believe it was more important to tell the truth. Jones' testimony lacks credibility because of its inconsistency with his earlier sworn statement. Valynda Johnson is an eleventh grade student at Piper High School. She and Dixon had frequent contacts even though she was not his student. Several times Dixon sent her passes to leave class in order to meet him on the athletic field. Dixon concedes that he once sought to have her excused from class to do some typing for him. On one occasion, Dixon invited Johnson to a basketball game with him and on another to meet him at a convenience store. On two occasions, Dixon asked Johnson, "When are you going to let me do that?" or words of similar import. When she asked what he meant, he replied, "You know what I'm talking about." Johnson was unsure of Dixon's intentions, but believed that Dixon was probably seeking sexual relations with her. Although Johnson was confused on some of the details of her testimony, she was a generally credible witness, showing no animosity toward Dixon or influence by Sandra Brown. Rene Snelling is an 18-year-old student at Piper High School. Dixon and Snelling became friendly, and Dixon made periodic comments to her about her figure and potential for a modeling career. They also discussed a trip to visit a college in Kentucky. Although Dixon took only male students on this trip, he did bring back souvenir T-shirts for Snelling and several other students. Dixon also phoned Snelling at her home and once told her he had a gold chain for her. The comment on which Count 8 is based involved Dixon's question to Snelling, "If we ever had sex would you [Snelling] be ladylike enough not to tell anyone?" or words of similar meaning. This conversation took place in the school library where Snelling was working on a class assignment. Dixon denies making this statement but recalls that when he asked to sit beside her in the library she replied that a nice-looking man like Dixon could sit next to her. Although Snelling was unsure of some of the details of her contacts with Dixon, she was a generally credible witness and showed no animosity toward Dixon or influence by Sandra Brown. Hooker T. Robinson is a 18-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard Rene Snelling tell another student that if Coach Dixon were not so dedicated to his wife she would fuck him. Robinson was called by Respondent apparently to discredit Snelling's testimony. However, Robinson's testimony indicates that a sexual attraction was developing between Dixon and Snelling which is consistent with the charges contained in Count 8. Darryl Allen is a 15-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard Chanita Austin, Rene Snelling and Valynda Johnson discussing Dixon in early January. He heard one of them say, "He [Dixon] is acting so high class and doesn't speak anymore," or words of similar import. Darwin Taylor is a 15-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard a discussion between Sandra Brown and Rene Snelling about February wherein Mrs. Brown stated to Snelling, "Don't worry, we've got him where we want him." Taylor further overheard Mrs. Brown advise Snelling to tell the judge that Dixon gave her a gold chain and tried to touch her and have sex with her. This testimony and that of students Lesia McGee and Chanita Austin (deposition) establishes that Mrs. Brown either intentionally or in the zeal of her investigation encouraged exaggerations. However, the students testifying in this proceeding recognized this and were net swayed by Mrs. Brown's encouragement. The testimony of Piper High School students Alvin Williams, Eugene Wimbs and Ernest Merrell is not material and is accorded no evidentiary weight herein. The depositions of Piper High School students Sandra Anderson, Chanita Austin and Jackie Dawson do not contain evidence relevant to the charges herein and are likewise accorded no weight. The testimony of Anthony Ash, Broward County CTA representative, and Andrew Thomas of the Broward County School System, involve procedural matters not directly relevant to factual questions at issue here. The Respondent denies making the statements and other improper conduct attributed to him by the witnesses. He points out that the complaining witnesses are all from the same neighborhood and are all below-average students. He theorizes that they were confused over factual matters and did not appreciate the damage their statements could have upon him, and that they were unduly influenced by Sandra Brown. The testimony of these Piper High School students, with the exception of Freddie Jones who changed his testimony, was generally credible. They demonstrated an appreciation for the gravity of their complaints and the potential impact on Dixon's career. They did not show any resentment toward Dixon, but rather viewed him as a friend or former friend. The witnesses were encouraged to come forward by Sandra Brown. As noted above, Mrs. Brown's investigative techniques were lacking in objectivity. However, there was no indication that any witness committed perjury as a result of improper influence by Mrs. Brown. Although it was apparent that the students did discuss this case among themselves, there was no indication of any conspiracy against Dixon.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts 3 and 4 of the Petition be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be found not guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2 and 6 of the Petition. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 5, 7 and 8 of the Petition. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be discharged from employment as a teacher by the Petitioner School Board of Broward County. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1244 SE Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Richard H. Frank, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
