Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 227677, covering the areas of Chemistry, Biology, and Middle Grades General Science, which is valid through June 30, 1996. Petitioner has been certified to teach in Florida since 1969. On or about February 5, 1979, Respondent was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct, a misdemeanor, in Orange County, Florida. Respondent pled not guilty to the charge, waived a jury trial and was tried before the court and found guilty. The count withheld adjudication and on or about May 2, 1979, the Court sentenced Respondent to pay a $350.00 fine, plus court costs. On or about June 24, 1985, Respondent executed, under oath, an Application for Extension of Certificate. Respondent answered "no" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? Respondent was negligent in completing his application in that he failed to acknowledge his 1979 arrest for Disorderly Conduct for which the Court withheld adjudication. The renewal application was completed six years after the incident and Respondent simply forgot to list it on the form. On or about December 25, 1992, Respondent was arrested and charged with Battery, a first degree misdemeanor, following a domestic disturbance with his wife in Seminole County, Florida. Respondent pled nolo contendere to the battery charge. On or about February 11, 1993, the count withheld adjudication and sentenced Respondent to serve six months probation. Probation was successfully terminated on August 23, 1993. On or about September 6, 1993, Respondent was arrested and charged with Aggravated Battery, a third degree felony, and Shooting Into or At a Building, a second degree felony. Respondent pled not guilty to the charges and was tried and convicted on both counts following a trial by jury. On or about May 30, 1994, the Court adjudicated the Respondent guilty of Aggravated Battery and withheld adjudication on the charge of Shooting Into or At a Building. Respondent was sentenced to 3 years in prison on the battery charge (Count I). He was placed on one year probation on Count II and required to pay court costs. The conviction and sentence was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida. The court upheld the conviction and sentence. However, it did certify a question as one of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court Respondent testified that he has been a school teacher for more than 25 years and has an outstanding record in the community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(c), (e), (f), (i), (j), Florida Statutes and not guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes and Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5)(a) and (h). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of 5 years, followed by a period of 3 years probation should the Respondent become recertified in Florida and upon such reasonable and necessary conditions as the Commission may require. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 22nd day of December, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 (in part), 5 (in part), 6 (in part. Rejected as hearsay and irrelevant: paragraphs 4 (in part), 5 (in part), 6 (in part). Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Knight, Pro Se 1817 Harding Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against Respondent for alleged violations of the statutes and rules regulating Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544 in the subject areas of economics and drivers' education valid through June 30, 2005. In a case before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, Frank T. Brogan as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. James F. Davis, Respondent, Case No. 9450786-C, among the allegations was the reference to Respondent's arrest on March 6, 1994, for driving under the influence and adjudication on October 4, 1994, related to that offense. In Case No. 94-012585 MM A, County Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Respondent pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty on October 4, 1994, to the driving under the influence offense and was fined $1270.00 as part of the disposition of the case. Pertaining to Case No. 945-0786-C, in an action before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, Frank Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. James F. Davis, Respondent, Case No. 96-022-RT, final order, entered June 19, 1996, the Education Practices Commission accepted a settlement agreement between the parties. As a consequence, Respondent received a letter of reprimand. In the case disposition, Respondent agreed to be placed on probation for a period of two years commencing with the issuance of the final order, assuming Respondent's current employment as an educator in Florida at the time the final order was entered. Respondent was so employed. Among the conditions of his probation were that Respondent "violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules and state board of education Rule 6B-1.006." Through the settlement agreement, accepted in the final order, Respondent agreed that should he fail to comply with each of the conditions of probation set forth in the settlement agreement; then the Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, would be authorized to bring an administrative complaint for sanctions up to an including the possible revocation of the teaching certificate based upon a violation of the terms of the probation. The present Administrative Complaint is premised upon this agreement authorizing a further administrative complaint for alleged violations of the conditions of probation. Contrary to the expectations of his probation, Respondent was arrested on March 22, 1998, in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, while driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, to the extent that Respondent's normal faculties were impaired. Section 316.193, Florida Statutes. This arrest led to the filing of a criminal information in the case of State of Florida vs. James Felder Davis, the Respondent herein, in a case before the County Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-19559-MM, charging a violation of Section 316.193, Florida Statutes. Although no proof was presented that the DUI case No. 98-19559-MM has been resolved, facts are known concerning Respondent's driving on March 22, 1998. On that date Officer J. T. Carey of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed Respondent in an automobile passed out in the drive-thru at the Taco Bell Restaurant at 9300 Atlantic Boulevard. Other cars were going around Respondent's car to avoid it. Respondent was in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition and the car running. No other person was in the car with Respondent. The officer tried several times to wake Respondent. When the officer succeeded, he asked Respondent to step out of the vehicle. Respondent had to use the door to brace himself when getting out of the car. Respondent's appearance revealed bloodshot watery eyes. Respondent's speech was slurred. Respondent had soiled his shorts and had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. Respondent was very disoriented. Respondent's car was removed from the lane of traffic at the drive-thru, and the officer then drove Respondent to an adjacent location to perform a field sobriety exercise. This involved an eye test, a walk and turn in which the Respondent was required to walk nine steps on a line and turn around and come back. The Respondent was required to stand on one leg a period of 30 seconds to test balance; another test performed was the finger to nose exercise. Respondent performed poorly on the exercises. Officer Carey believed that Respondent was too impaired to drive and arrested Respondent for DUI. Respondent refused to take a breathalyzer test to measure impairment. In the school year 1992-93 Respondent was hired as a driver's education teacher at First Coast High School, part of the Duval County School District. Respondent worked in that capacity through January 18, 2002. It was anticipated, though not established in the hearing record, that Respondent would retire from his position with the Duval County School Board on January 31, 2002. The Duval County School District took action against Respondent for misconduct. This action was taken on February 16, 1999, and accepted by Respondent on February 24, 1999. The nature and specifications of the misconduct related to the March 22, 1998 arrest and charge for driving under the influence. The nature and specifications were also related to the grounds for discipline in the Education Practices Commission Case No. 945-0786-C, leading to the final order that has been discussed. The Duval County School Board perceived that the arrest and charge on March 22, 1998, violated the terms of the settlement agreement as contained in the final order from the Education Practices Commission related to Case No. 945-0786-C, thus violating Section 231.262(7), Florida Statutes. The School District also found a violation of the State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession and Rule 6B- 1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession on the subject of the need to be of good moral character, the need to avoid engaging in acts of gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude and the conviction of misdemeanors other than minor traffic violations. The disciplinary terms imposed by the Duval County School District included a written reprimand and suspension without pay for ten working days before the 1998-99 school year entered.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Count 1; dismissing Counts 2 through 5, other than in relation to Count 1; and suspending Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate No. 284544 for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 US Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 33459 James F. Davis Post Office Box 11990 Jacksonville, Florida 32239 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this case, Respondent, Bruce M. Williams, held Florida teacher certificate number 414669 authorizing him to serve as a substitute teacher. On March 21, 1984, after a trial by bury in the County Court of Alachua County, Florida, on Case No. 83-4274-MM-A , Respondent was found guilty of the offense of trespass after warning. On April 30, 1984, the Judge of the County Court entered a Judgement of Guilt and placed the Respondent on one year's probation with the stipulation that, among other things, he not go onto the University of Florida campus unless his probation officer gave him prior permission. This judicial determination of guilt. It was the culmination of a series of events involving the Respondent and his repeated entrances onto property owned by the University for which he was repeatedly warned and directed not to return. Respondent contends that he had legitimate reasons to be on the University property each of the times in question and contests the use of these reports branding them a violation of his rights. He overlooks the fact that the conviction came after several instances of unauthorized entrance and that the conviction was based on proven violations. Nonetheless, it appears that on December 30, 1982, Respondent was observed by Kenneth E. Solomon, an investigator with the University police department, in the parking lot of Diamond Village, a University married students' housing area not open to the public. Mr. Solomon attempted to identify the Respondent who was at first reluctant to identify himself but who finally agreed and indicated that his wife was inside doing their laundry. Since this is an area reserved for university students and their families, Mr. Solomon issued a warning to Respondent not to trespass on University property and thereafter filled out and filed a report of the incident. Thereafter, on March 15, 1983, Keith B. Reddick, who was at that time an officer with the University police was called to University Hospital (Shands), where he was met by a Mrs. Fugate and a guard who had Respondent in custody. Mrs. Fugate advised at that time that Respondent had previously been at the hospital on March 7 with no legitimate reason for being in the area. On that occasion, when asked why he was there, Respondent indicated he had been given permission to be there by a member of the medical school faculty, Dr. Cruz. Dr. Cruz categorically denies ever having given Respondent permission to be where he was. In fact, she met him only once when he stopped her and asked her about the possibility of a job with the hospital. At that time she told him there were none available except for fellowships for which an applicant had to be a physician already. Nonetheless, he gave her a resume and she believes he indicated he was involved in research. With this one exception, she has had no contact with him and never gave him authority to work with patients in her department or be there for any reason. On this latter occasion, when asked what he was doing there, Respondent replied that he had become lost while looking for a laboratory. He also said he was looking for a doctor friend whose name he could not remember and as a chemistry major, was working on his thesis. On this occasion, Officer Reddick took Respondent to the police station, showed him a map of the campus, told him where he could and could not go on the campus by pointing to the map areas, and told him not to return again to the university unless on official business or for public functions. The following day, on March 16, 1983, Respondent was observed in the Shands Hospital cafeteria by Officer Rogers of the University police. When asked for his identification and reason for being there, Respondent indicated he had paid a bill in the laboratory, so Rogers let him go. When Rogers checked the story out, however, he found that the bill which was alleged to have been for unauthorized use of the hospital copying machine, had in reality been paid three hours before the Respondent was contacted. Rogers again saw Respondent on March 29, 1983 in the hub area of the University book store on campus. Rogers had been notified by Reddick that Respondent was on campus and when he had approached the Respondent, Respondent walked off and into the book store. Rogers and three other officers contacted Respondent in the book store where Respondent indicated he had met with a Mrs. Greene, a University affirmative actions officer and upon receiving that explanation, the officers let him go. Respondent was again identified on July 6, 1983, by officer Edward Miles who observed him in an off-limits gynecological area on the 4th floor of the University hospital. When Miles arrived at the scene, a contract security officer was talking with Respondent. This officer had seen Respondent in the area and had asked for identification in response to which request, Respondent showed a student identification card which was no longer valid since Respondent was no longer a student. Asked what business he had in this particular area, Respondent indicated he was looking for work but when, after 30 minutes, he could not verify this story, Officer Miles placed Respondent under arrest and took him to campus police headquarters. From all of the above, it is clear that though Respondent may have felt he had a legitimate basis for being on the campus and, in fact, may have had when he went to speak with Mrs. Green and went to pay the bill at the hospital, he stretched these occasions into several unauthorized occasions even after he had been warned with full knowledge that his presence on the campus was not authorized. The conviction in County Court was not contested at the time and on the basis of the above evidence, appears to have been warranted. On July 8, 1983, an arrest warrant was issued out of the Circuit Court for the 8th Judicial Circuit in Alachua County alleging sexual battery in violation of Section 794.011, Florida Statutes. This warrant contained allegations that Respondent had committed a sexual battery against his 9-year- old stepdaughter. However, Respondent was tried on a reduced charge of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and at his trial he entered a plea of no contest. Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years probation the terms of which required him to undergo mental health counseling among other requirements. Respondent continues to deny his commission of the offenses to which he pleaded no contest at the trial. However, in a statement he made at the time of his arrest, he admitted several factors which contradict that. He admitted that he had a very physical relationship with his stepdaughter; that he appeared nude in front of her many times; and that he would be in bed with her laying on top of him while both were nude with the child's mother there as well. He also admitted having French kissed his stepdaughter (she indicates he taught her how to do this) but denies having any sexual intercourse with her. Respondent contends that these charges are all a plot to deprive him of the close relationship with his family, instituted by someone unnamed and unidentified. The fact remains that Respondent is delinquent in his probation and has made little progress in the required mental health counseling because of his continued belief that he has done nothing wrong but is the victim of this conspiratorial plot. Sometime in or around February 1984, Respondent entered the restaurant owned and operated by Mrs. Vlahopous, in Gainesville, and asked to speak with her daughter, Alex, who apparently had come to the blood center at which he worked. At this point Respondent identified himself as "Dr. Bruce. When she asked him for his office address and phone number since Alex was not there, he said he didn't have an office, but he wrote his name and phone number on one of her cards for her. After Mrs. Vlahopous thought about this over night, she went to the blood bank where Respondent had said he worked and asked for Dr. Williams. At this point she was told by blood bank personnel that Williams was not a doctor, had been fired, and would be rejected if he came there again. Be that as it may, Sharron A. Sturdevant, an official of the blood bank where Respondent had been working, does recall that at times Respondent was referred to as Dr. Bruce at the center. This was, however, only a term of affection or friendliness and was not in any way intended to authorize him to hold himself out to the public as a doctor. Respondent did work for the City of Gainesville in a conservation project in May and June of 1984 but he was terminated because he had not listed his full police record on the application form. This termination was a matter of necessity under city personnel policies which required termination of anyone who intentionally falsified an application form. It had nothing to do with Respondent's performance or anything that took place while he was employed by the city. Mr. John Middleton, Principal of Ft. Clarke Middle School, knew Respondent as a paraprofessional at the alternative school when Mr. Middleton was principal there and Respondent was employed for approximately a month and a half. While Respondent was working at the alternative school he was working as aide to another teacher. He was apparently unable to accept the fact, however, that when a teacher and a paraprofessional (aide) are in the same classroom, it is the teacher who always is in charge. Respondent was discharged from his employment at the alternative school because of an incident where it was alleged he had usurped the authority of and changed the orders of the teacher for whom he was working, in front of the class. The investigation report, which Mr. Middleton received from the teacher and students who observed the incident indicated that the Respondent was loud and boisterous at the time of the incident. Since these students at the alternative school were emotionally handicapped to start with, a fact which Respondent knew, his misconduct was even more serious than it would have been in a normal situation. These students need calm more than noise. In the situation here, Respondent's actions served only to upset them. Mr. Middleton had observed that prior to this incident, Respondent's dealings with the students aggravated rather than helped them. As a result, this incident was only one factor in the decision to terminate Respondent from employment and after the incident took place, Mr. Middleton wrote an unsatisfactory performance report on the Respondent. Based on his personal observation of the Respondent, and what he now knows of Respondent's criminal record, Mr. Middleton is convinced that a teacher with this record could not be effective in the classroom. His effectiveness would be definitely reduced by his misconduct and his conduct would not set a positive example for students. In his opinion, students should not be exposed to anyone with criminal convictions. These sentiments are reinforced by Mr. Wilford A. Griffin, a career service specialist with the Alachua County School Board, who first met Respondent when Respondent left Newberry High School seeking a place in the Alachua County system. Respondent had been terminated at Newberry High School because of some problem with his certification which had nothing to do with performance or misconduct. After the alternative school termination referenced above, Respondent was placed at Eastside High School but was terminated there because of his difficulties with teachers similar to those he had at the alternative school. As an aide, he disagreed openly with teachers in the classroom and in this case, the teacher complained that he would not follow directions and would not do what the teacher wanted done. In all cases, Mr. Griffin counseled with the Respondent about the problem. Respondent obviously felt that the complaining teacher was demeaning him. He felt that he was being helpful and had been rebuffed. Based on his experience with this Respondent, Mr. Griffin would never again try to place him within the school system. Considering Respondent's record in and out of the classroom, Mr. Griffin could not recommend Respondent for employment in the school system. He believes Respondent could not be an effective teacher because of his inability to understand the ramifications of his actions. This does not even consider the convictions which merely aggravate the situation even more. There is no evidence to counter these professional opinions of Respondent's fitness to teach and they are accepted and adopted as fact.
