Findings Of Fact On or before July 29, 1969, respondent applied for a type four teacher's certificate, which was issued to him on October 29, 1969. Thereafter, while he was employed as a teacher by the Duval County School Board, he did course work nights at the Continuing Education Center, affiliated with Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), which eventuated in the award of a master's degree on August 30, 1971. On January 31, 1972, respondent applied for a type two teacher's certificate, in order to be eligible for an assistant principal's job, and because his master's degree satisfied the educational prerequisite for upgrading his teacher's certificate. In applying for type two teacher's certificate, respondent filled out an application form. On the form was the question, "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?" Respondent answered this question in the negative by checking a blank after the word "No." On July 7, 1972, a type two teacher's certificate was issued to respondent. On May 6, 1969, respondent was convicted of an offense under Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1975), because of a check he drew to the order of FAMU in the amount of thirty dollars ($30.00). According to court records, respondent pleaded guilty to this charge by mail, although at the hearing he had no recollection of the offense or of the disposition of the charges. Respondent did remember the six bad check charges of which he was found guilty in the spring of 1971. These cases, too, arose because he drew checks to the order of FAMU, two in the amount of forty-eight dollars ($48.00) and four in the amount of fifty-seven dollars ($57.00). These checks were all written the same quarter and delivered to individual professors at FAMU. At the time respondent wrote the 1971 checks, he knew he had insufficient funds on deposit to cover them, but he reasonably believed he would be able to cover the checks before they cleared. They all bounced and they all resulted in convictions and fines under Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1975), half on pleas of nolo contendere and half on pleas of guilty. Respondent eventually made good on all the checks written to FAMU's order. Respondent testified that he believed the 1971 bad check proceedings had been civil, rather than criminal, at the time he filled out the application form for a type two teacher's certificate. The evidence as a whole established, however, that respondent deliberately concealed the fact of the bad check convictions. On January 22, 1976, respondent filled out an application form for employment by the City of Jacksonville On this form appears the question, "Have you ever been arrested, taken into custody, held for investigation or questioning, charged with driving while intoxicated, or charged with an offense with any law enforcing agency? (Excepting minor traffic violations)." Respondent placed and "X" in a box beside the word "YES," and amplified his answer, in pertinent part, as follows: "I wrote Fla. A&M University a check and had to make restitution." (emphasis supplied) In 1975, respondent took a leave of absence from teaching, in order to do work at the University of Florida towards a Ph.D. degree. Before he left Jacksonville for Gainesville, he rented a typewriter from McDavid Typewriter Service, paying two weeks' rent in advance. On two occasions, he called Mr. McDavid from Gainesville to assure him that he would return the typewriter, once he had retrieved it from the typist working on his dissertation. After a warrant for his arrest issued, respondent returned the typewriter on October 31, 1975, slightly more than five months after he had rented it. Respondent paid Mr. McDavid two hundred twenty-seven dollars ($227.00) for back rent and to cover the cost of fixing the carriage on the typewriter. Criminal proceedings resulted in an order, entered January 26, 1976, withholding adjudication of guilt and placing defendant on probation, upon respondent's plea of nolo contendere to an amended information charging attempted grand larceny of the typewriter. For the latter part of respondent's probationary period, he was supervised by Joe M. Kiser, a probation officer. Mr. Kiser expressed confidence in respondent, and predicted no future skirmishes with the law. Because of respondent's exemplary behavior while on probation, Judge Black terminated his probation almost four months before the date on which probation was originally scheduled to end. During the school year 1975-76, respondent worked under Mr. Nathaniel Davis, then principal at Ribault Junior High School. Respondent supervised another teacher and an aide and did a marvelous job. The students were respectful and felt respondent would listen to them. He set an excellent example for the students, while he was in their presence. He was able to improve the behavior of truants and other students who posed disciplinary problems. In the course of the school year, in Mr. Davis' opinion, respondent changed for the better because he had learned a lesson. Mr. Davis would want respondent teaching under him. Mr. Ted Montgomery, currently principal of Ribault Junior High School, met respondent on August 23, 1976, and is respondent's supervisor. Respondent counsels students who have dropped out of school or on the verge of doing so. He tries to establish links between the school and the students' homes. He is hard working and does a good job. He gives to students of his own time. Mr. Montgomery wants respondent to continue teaching under him.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that respondent be reprimanded. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Room 530 Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1572 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Haldane Taylor, Esq. 605 Florida Theatre Building 128 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Tom Benton Professional Practices Council 319 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ===========================================================
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.
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 Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent held Florida teacher's certificate number 681506, covering the areas of Pre-K through Grade 3, which was valid until June 30, 1995. On or about November 4, 1986, Respondent was charged with battery by information filed in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. On December 29, 1986, following a non-jury trial, Respondent was found guilty as charged. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was ordered to pay $77.00 in court costs. In 1990, Respondent submitted an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau of Teacher Certification of the Department of Education (Bureau). On the application, she checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) even if adjudication was withheld? Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. Please Check One: Yes No If yes, you must give complete details for each charge. As Respondent was aware, her negative response to this question was untrue inasmuch as, in 1986, she had been found guilty of the crime of battery in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. In 1992, Respondent submitted another Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, knowing that her response was false, she answered "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) to a crime other than a traffic violation? A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge In 1993, Respondent submitted a third Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, she knowingly gave false information by checking "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. On February 7, 1994, while working as a teacher at Golden Glades Elementary School, a public school located in Dade County, Respondent was involved in an altercation with a student, C.K., in the doorway to Respondent's classroom.2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1) of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, concerning her falsification of the 1990, 1992, and 1993 certification applications she submitted to the Bureau; (2) barring Respondent from applying for certification for a period of three years for having committed these violations; and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should discipline the Respondent, Bruce R. Ferko, on charges set out in an Administrative Complaint that he was alcohol intoxicated on and off the job as an elementary school teacher, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), once falsely represented to the administration at his school that he was unable to teach because he was in the emergency room of a hospital when he was in fact in the county jail on (DUI) charges, and was guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), (e), (f) and (h), Fla. Stat. (1989).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bruce R. Ferko, held teaching certificate number 553660 issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering elementary education, at all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, until it expired on June 30, 1990. From approximately August, 1986, until approximately March, 1990, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Southern Oak Elementary School in the Pinellas County School District. On July 11, 1988, the Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fleeing and eluding a police officer, and driving with a suspended license. He pled guilty to the charges on August 30, 1988, and was sentenced to 30 days in the county jail, which was suspended, was fined a total of $382, was ordered to pay a total of $425 of court costs, was required to attend DUI school, and was placed on six months probation on two of the charges, to run concurrently. On several occasions during the 1988/1989 and 1989/1990 school years, the Respondent arrived at school with a smell of alcohol on his breath that was strong enough for at least four different employees at the school to have noticed on different occasions. When the smell was brought to the Respondent's attention, he sometimes would excuse himself to brush his teeth. On or about May 24, 1989, a fellow teacher with whom the Respondent team taught third grade in the 1988/1989 school year, noticed a very strong smell of alcohol on the Respondent's breath. The teacher was concerned and reported it to the school's assistant principal. The assistant principal consulted with the School District's chief personnel officer, who advised the assistant principal to have a conference with the Respondent about it this time. The Respondent admitted that he had been drinking the night before, had about five drinks, and did not eat breakfast. (Later, the assistant principal learned that he had been out until 2:00 a.m. that morning.) The assistant principal decided to send the Respondent to get something to eat and had to make arrangements to cover the Respondent's classroom responsibilities in the meantime. The Respondent often was late for school, especially during the 1988/1989 and 1989/1990 school years. Sometimes, he would take a shower at school when he arrived; sometimes, he would brush his teeth when he arrived at school. Once, after arriving late, the Respondent told an improbable tale of how his car broke down, requiring the Respondent to jump out and fall on his knee (although his white pants showed no evidence of this). Later the same day, the Respondent lay on top of another teacher's desk, in front of the teacher, and acted as if he was going to sleep. On January 17, 1990, the Respondent came to school late with the strong smell of alcohol on his breath and brushed his teeth when he arrived. While leading his class either to or from physical education class, the Respondent was heard singing "at the top of his lungs" This inappropriate behavior disrupted the classes being held nearby. The evidence was insufficient to causally connect the unusual behavior described in Finding 6, above, to the Respondent's use of alcohol. On the morning of October 12, 1989, the Respondent called the school office to arrange for a substitute classroom teacher to take his place for the morning. He reported that he was in the hospital emergency room and was spitting blood. The Respondent was asked if he was sure he only needed a substitute for the morning and was asked to call again if he would not be able to be in that afternoon. The Respondent neither called nor appeared for work the rest of the day, and last minute attempts had to be made to find a substitute for the Respondent for his afternoon classes. That evening, between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., the Respondent telephoned the school secretary at home to ask if he was in trouble. He gave the excuse that he was lying on a table in the emergency room all morning having a barium enema and was not permitted to get up to call the school to get a substitute for the afternoon. Later, school officials learned that the Respondent had not been at the hospital that morning but rather, in fact, had been arrested earlier on the morning of October 12, 1989, and was in the Pinellas County Jail. (The evidence at the final hearing did not specify the charges or their disposition.) On the morning of October 24, 1989, the Respondent was scheduled to take his class on a field trip to Ruth Eckerd Hall, a performing arts center in Clearwater, with the other third grade class. The Respondent was late for school again, so late that the field trip almost had to be cancelled. He arrived with the strong smell of alcohol on his breath and complaining of a headache. When the bus arrived at Ruth Eckerd Hall, the Respondent jumped off and, inappropriately, headed across the busy parking lot toward the building well ahead of the children in his class, who were hurrying to try to keep up with him. The other third grade teacher was concerned for the safety of the children in the Respondent's class and had to take some of the stragglers from the Respondent's class, of whom the Respondent appeared oblivious, under her care for their safety. When the Respondent returned to school after the field trip, still complaining of a headache, he inappropriately yelled at one of the children in his class for not being appropriately dressed for Ruth Eckerd Hall, upsetting the child. On November 11, 1989, a Pinellas Park Police Department patrol officer saw the Respondent in his car weaving down the street and running a stop light. The officer attempted to stop the Respondent, who sped off in his car, leading the officer on a two mile chase at 60 miles per hour, 20 mile per hour over the legal speed limit, that ended in the driveway of the Respondent's residence. The Respondent resisted arrest (without violence), saying that he did not want to go back to jail because he would lose his job. The patrol officer had to call for back up assistance, and it took three officers to take the Respondent down to the ground to handcuff and arrest him. Although the Respondent's breathalyzer showed 13 to 14 percent blood alcohol, there was no evidence whether the breathalyzer was properly calibrated. However, the Respondent failed all four field sobriety tests, and it is found that he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. Criminal charges are pending against the Respondent. He has failed to appear for criminal court proceedings, and there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent, Bruce R. Ferko, guilty as specified in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and imposing the sanction that he be barred from applying for a new teacher certificate for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 18th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5822 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as not proven. There was no evidence to prove the third and fourth sentences. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 5.-10. Accepted but subordinate, mostly to facts found. 11. Accepted and incorporated. 12.-21. Accepted but subordinate, mostly to facts found. Rejected as not proven. The witnesses were not clear as to the Respondent's contract status, and there was no evidence to prove the rest of the proposed finding. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675 Bruce R. Ferko 109 Collier Place, Apt. 2C Cary, North Carolina 27513 George A. Bowen Acting Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
