The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission may revoke or suspend John T. Guzalak's Florida teaching certificate, or otherwise discipline Mr. Guzalak, for violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered September 21, 1992?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the EPC, is authorized to discipline individuals holding Florida teaching certificates. The Respondent is John T. Guzalak. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Guzalak held Florida teaching certificate number 615516. Mr. Guzalak is certified to teach English and Speech. Mr. Guzalak's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. From approximately August of 1987, until June of 1992, Mr. Guzalak served as a teacher for the Okaloosa County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Mr. Guzalak's Attendance at Choctawhatchee Senior High School. Mr. Guzalak attended, and graduated from, Choctawhatchee Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Choctaw"). Mr. Guzalak graduated from Choctaw in 1981. Choctaw is a high school located in Okaloosa County, Florida. Choctaw has approximately 2,000 students, 117 to 120 teachers and a total of approximately 160 employees. While a student at Choctaw, Mr. Guzalak was active in debate and drama. His drama teacher was Mary Jo Yeager. Ms. Yeager was so impressed with Mr. Guzalak's acting ability that she cast him in the male leading role of essentially every play produced at Choctaw while Mr. Guzalak was a student there. Ms. Yeager and Mr. Guzalak developed a friendship and still remain friends. Mr. Guzalak's Employment by the School Board. After Mr. Guzalak had graduated from Choctaw and was attending college, Mr. Guzalak informed Ms. Yeager that he was interested in becoming a teacher. Ms. Yeager, who was planning to retire in a few years, talked to Richard G. Bounds, the Principal at Choctaw, about the possibility of Mr. Guzalak replacing her when she retired. Prior to August, 1987, Mr. Guzalak applied for a teaching position with the School Board as a teacher at Meigs Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Meigs"). Ms. Yeager recommended that Mr. Guzalak be hired. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Meigs and began his employment with the School Board in August, 1987. Mr. Guzalak taught speech/drama and English during the 1987-1988 school year at Meigs. The Stage Crafters' Party. In January, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a local theatre group known as Stage Crafters. The group presented a play in which Mr. Guzalak participated during that month. Mr. Guzalak organized and gave a party for the cast of Stage Crafters after the presentation of the play. The party was held at the home of Mr. Guzalak's parents, where Mr. Guzalak lived until approximately August, 1991. Mr. Guzalak invited all students in his speech/drama classes at Meigs to attend the Stage Crafters' party. Mr. Guzalak invited his students because he thought it would be beneficial for his students to meet and talk to individuals who were involved in drama and who had more experience with acting. Mr. Guzalak had alcoholic beverages available for his guests during the Stage Crafters' party. A table was set up where guests were able to obtain alcoholic drinks. Adults drank alcoholic beverage in front of Mr. Guzalak's students during the party. Alcohol was consumed in the presence of students who were under the legal age required to consume alcoholic beverages. The evidence failed to prove that students who were not legally old enough to drink alcohol who were at the Stage Crafters' party were encouraged or allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. The evidence also failed to prove that underage students were in fact drinking in the presence of Mr. Guzalak or that Mr. Guzalak drank alcoholic beverages in front of any underage students. The testimony of Chris Hutcherson, a student at Meigs at the time of the party, concerning the party was contradicted by the testimony of Aaron Utley, another student at Meigs at the time, and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak testified that the underage students who attended the Stage Crafters' party were mainly relegated to half of the house and the adults and alcohol were located, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages took place, in the other half of the house. Mr. Guzalak testified that this separation of his underage students from the adults consuming alcohol was deliberate and intended to mitigate the extent to which alcohol would be consumed in front of his underage students. This testimony contradicts the purpose for which Mr. Guzalak indicated the students were invited to the Stage Crafters' party and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak simply failed to exercise good judgement when he allowed his underage students to attend a party without also inviting their parents when he knew that alcoholic beverages would be consumed. Mr. Guzalak was counseled by Bobby Smith, Principal at Meigs and Mr. Guzalak's supervisor, after Mr. Smith learned of the party. Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Smith that he had not consumed alcohol in the presence of his students at the party. Mr. Guzalak did admit that alcoholic beverages had been consumed in front of his students, although he minimized the extent to which alcohol had been consumed. Mr. Smith counseled Mr. Guzalak about his lack of judgement in allowing his underage students to attend a party where alcohol was being consumed. Meigs Student-Cast Dinner. In May, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a play presented at Meigs. The cast of the play consisted of Meigs students. After the play, Mr. Guzalak took the cast of the play to dinner at a restaurant. Some parents also attended the dinner. Mr. Guzalak failed to inform Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Meigs administration about the dinner. During the dinner Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of the students, who were too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages, and the parents who attended the dinner. After the dinner about five students stayed to talk to Mr. Guzalak after everyone else had departed. When Mr. Guzalak was ready to take the students home who had stayed, he let one of the students drive his automobile. The student driver was 15 years of age at the time. The student driver had a learners' driving permit which allowed her to drive with an adult in the automobile. The student driver took the other students home and then drove to her own home. Mr. Guzalak then drove himself home from the home of the student that had driven his automobile. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had allowed the student driver to drive his automobile because he was concerned about the fact that he had consumed a glass of wine. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not give the drinking of the glass of wine with dinner in the presence of the students any thought, one way or the other, and is not credible. Mr. Guzalak allowed the student to drive his automobile that evening because Mr. Guzalak wanted to be accepted by students as a friend and not just a teacher. Consuming alcoholic beverages in front of students is against the policies of the School Board. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guzalak had previously discussed the inappropriateness of a teacher consuming alcohol in front of students as a result of the Stage Crafters' party. Despite this prior warning, Mr. Guzalak again exercised poor judgement and failed to adhere to School Board policy. Mr. Smith was informed of the dinner and spoke to Mr. Guzalak about it. Mr. Smith admonished Mr. Guzalak for drinking alcohol in front of his students. A few days after their discussion, Mr. Guzalak was given a formal, written reprimand by Mr. Smith. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Guzalak was specifically reprimanded for drinking alcohol in front of his students. He was also informed that he was required "to discuss any and all school sponsored activities with [Mr. Smith] before they occur." See Petitioners' Exhibit 2. During Mr. Smith's conference with Mr. Guzalak, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Smith about why it was improper for him to consume alcohol in front of students under the circumstances of the cast dinner. Mr. Guzalak found it difficult to understand why the drinking of a glass of wine with dinner in the presence of students by a teacher was inappropriate. Mr. Guzalak's Employment at Choctaw. Ms. Yeager decided to retire from Choctaw after the 1988-1989 school year. She recommended that Mr. Bounds hire Mr. Guzalak to be her replacement. Mr. Bounds questioned Mr. Smith about Mr. Guzalak's performance at Meigs. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Bounds of the dinner incident when Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of students and provided Mr. Bounds with a copy of the written reprimand, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that Mr. Smith had given to Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Bounds, Mr. Guzalak's supervisor at Choctaw, discussed Mr. Smith's written reprimand with Mr. Guzalak prior to, or soon after, Mr. Guzalak's employment at Choctaw. Mr. Bounds cautioned Mr. Guzalak about consuming alcohol in front of underage students. This was the third time that Mr. Guzalak had been cautioned about the inappropriateness of consuming alcohol in front of underage students. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak began his employment at Choctaw in August of 1989. Mr. Guzalak taught at Choctaw during the 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 school years. Part of his duties included coaching the forensic teams. The 1990-1991 School Year--Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak developed and maintained relationships with several Choctaw students which went beyond the appropriate and acceptable teacher- student relationship. Those relationships were more typical of the relationships that students develop among themselves. During the 1990-1991 school year students would go to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit. Students who went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year included Sarah Stimac, David Barron, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul, Kevin Mock, Richard "Matt" Schoditsch, David Hodges, Thomas Ignas and Ross Foster. Sarah Stimac, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were seniors at Choctaw during the 1990-1991 school year. David Barron was a sophomore at Choctaw. David Hodges and Thomas Ignas were juniors at Choctaw. Matt Schoditsch and Ross Foster were also students at Choctaw. Initially, students began going to Mr. Guzalak's home for school- related purposes. They went for assistance from Mr. Guzalak with school subjects, to practice for plays and to practice for forensic team competitions. Students eventually began visiting Mr. Guzalak's home primarily for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak allowed students to come to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit without invitation, without informing Mr. Guzalak they were coming and without asking for Mr. Guzalak's permission. While at Mr. Guzalak's home, students would watch movies, listen to music, play music, play chess, talk and "just hang out." Mr. Guzalak's characterization of student visits as tending to be "academic in nature" is rejected. At some time during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Guzalak invited a group of students who had formed a rock band to come to his home to practice for an upcoming pep rally. Bobby Arnold was one of the first students to be invited to practice at Mr. Guzalak's home. Eventually, the students included Steve Bucci, Kevin Foster and John Randall. A few other students would join in on occasion. At some point, students, including those mentioned in the foregoing finding of fact, would go to Mr. Guzalak's home and just play music as opposed to practicing for some upcoming event. Other students, including Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock would listen. The music sessions were social in nature and were not school related. Bobby Arnold's suggestion that the students and Mr. Guzalak, in addition to playing music, would talk about books is rejected to the extent that Bobby Arnold was suggesting an academic purpose for his visits. As Steve Bucci described the visits, they were "jam sessions." Bobby Arnold went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least five to seven times during the 1990-1991 school year. Steve Bucci indicated that the music sessions at Mr. Guzalak's home took place two times a month and more often if he was getting ready for a talent show. Matt Schoditsch went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least six times. Matt Schoditsch's testimony that he only went to Mr. Guzalak's home for academic purposes and not for social reasons was contradicted by many of the other witnesses in this proceeding, including Mr. Guzalak, and is rejected. Mr. Schoditsch's suggestion that students would "be sitting there reading a book or something . . . Magazines" is rejected. Even Mr. Guzalak admitted that students came for social reasons. David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home more than twelve times and less than twenty times. During three to five of those visits by David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home, beer was consumed by underage students in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Matt Schoditsch, Kevin Foster, Patrick Peavy and others were at Mr. Guzalak's home at times that David Barron saw beer consumed by underage students in front of Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak also consumed beer in David Barron's presence and the presence of other underage students. The beer consumed by David Barron was either provided by Mr. Guzalak or Mr. Barron brought his own beer. On one of the occasions where Mr. Guzalak provided beer to David Barron at Mr. Guzalak's home, it was a type of beer that David Barron had not seen before. Mr. Guzalak said that he got the beer when he had gone north to visit his parents. On one occasion Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in front of Kevin Mock. This took place despite the fact that Mr. Guzalak had previously been counselled by Mr. Smith (twice) and Mr. Bounds about the impropriety of drinking alcohol in front of students. Mr. Guzalak offered Kevin Mock a drink of the wine and Mr. Mock took it. Sarah Stimac also went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year. Patrick Peavy started taking Ms. Stimac to Mr. Guzalak's. Mr. Peavy was Ms. Stimac's boy friend during the 1990-1991 school year. Mr. Peavy and Ms. Stimac had started doing things with a group of their friends during the summer of 1989 and by the end of the summer they had developed a relationship. Sarah Stimac began going to Mr. Guzalak's home because Patrick Peavy and his friends, primarily Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock, liked to go there and they went there often. On one occasion during the 1990-1991 school year, Sarah Stimac saw Mr. Guzalak and Eric Gaul smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home in the guest rest room. They used a "bong", a pipe-like device used for smoking marijuana. Ms. Stimac also witnessed Patrick Peavy and Kevin Mock smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Mock admitted to Martha Clemons, his girl friend during part of the 1990-1991 school year, that he had smoked marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Sarah Stimac also saw marijuana smoked and alcoholic beverages consumed on at least one other occasion at Mr. Guzalak's home. Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock visited Mr. Guzalak's home more frequently than other students. By their own admissions, they went to Mr. Guzalak's home, on average, from two to three times a week. Contrary to Mr. Guzalak's testimony that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock were rarely at his home at the same time, Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's together or were at Mr. Guzalak's home at the same time often based upon their own admissions. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis. Sarah Stimac substantiated the fact that Patrick Peavy went to Mr. Guzalak's home frequently. She went with him approximately six times. She also picked him up at Mr. Guzalak's and she telephoned Mr. Peavy at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Peavy told Ms. Stimac and his parents that he was going to Mr. Guzalak's home more often than he actually went. Mr. Peavy lied to Ms. Stimac and his parents so that he could do other things without Ms. Stimac or so that he could do things that his parents would not let him do if he told them the truth. This gave Ms. Stimac the impression that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home more often then he actually was. Despite this fact, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis for non-academic purposes. The 1990-1991 School Year Initiation Night. At some time during the Fall of 1990, an annual event, referred to as "Initiation Night," took place at Choctaw. Groups of students at Choctaw traditionally go out together on Initiation Night. On Initiation Night during the Fall of 1990, Sarah Stimac drove Angie Smallwood to Mr. Guzalak's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. to pick up Patrick Peavy. Mr. Peavy had told Ms. Stimac that he would be there. Mr. Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were at Mr. Guzalak's home and were picked up by Ms. Stimac. After Sarah Stimac picked up Patrick Peavy, he told Ms. Stimac that he had been drinking and that he had smoked marijuana and taken LSD. The evidence, however, failed to prove where these events took place. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was present when these events took place or that he was aware of what had happened. After leaving Mr. Guzalak's home, Ms. Stimac and the students she picked up went to a local pizza restaurant and met other students, including Matt Schoditsch. The students then went to a bayou where they built a fire. Eric Gaul had a bottle of spiced rum. At some point during the evening Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies appeared. When they did, despite the cold evening, Patrick Peavy, who had been swinging on a rope swing over the water, fell into the water. Whether Mr. Peavy did so because he was startled (as he testified) or because he was trying to get rid of the marijuana and LSD he had in his pocket (as Ms. Stimac testified) need not be decided. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was directly involved in this incident. It is also not necessary to decide whether Mr. Peavy had drugs in his pocket because the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak had anything to do with any such drugs. After Eric Gaul admitted that the bottle of spiced rum he had, and which the deputies had found, was his and he had convinced the deputies that he had a stranger buy the rum for him at a liquor store, the students were allowed to leave. Although Mr. Gaul, after getting into Ms. Stimac's automobile, stated that he had been given the rum by Mr. Guzalak, the evidence failed to prove the truth of this hearsay statement. After the incident at the bayou the students went back to Mr. Guzalak's home. The 1990-1991 School Year Senior Prom. The day of the 1990-1991 school year senior prom, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy had a fight and broke off their relationship. They did, however, go to the prom together that night. The prom was held at a local motel. Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy rented a room at the motel. At some time before the prom was over, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy went to the room they had rented. Mr. Guzalak came to the room to visit. Mr. Peavy had invited Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak left after Ms. Stimac gave Mr. Peavy an ultimatum that either Mr. Guzalak leave or she would, and Mr. Peavy asked Mr. Guzalak to leave. Mr. Guzalak stayed approximately five to fifteen minutes. Although there was alcohol in Ms. Stimac's and Mr. Peavy's room, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was aware of the alcohol or that anyone was drinking while Mr. Guzalak was there. The 1990-1991 Spring Break Canoe Trip. During the spring break of April, 1991, a student party was organized. The party consisted of a canoe trip down a local river. The party was not a school-sponsored event. Mr. Guzalak was invited to come on the 1991 canoe trip. Although Mr. Guzalak remembered that he was invited by one or more students, Mr. Guzalak, who had an excellent memory for most details, could not remember the names of any student that invited him. Mr. Guzalak spent most of the trip with Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock. There were about 120 students who participated in the canoe trip. They met at the Choctaw parking lot the morning of the trip. During the canoe trip, underage students were drinking beer. They did so openly and in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Mr. Guzalak was offered beer at least ten times by underage students. Kevin Mock admitted that he drank beer in front of Mr. Guzalak during the trip. Mr. Guzalak did not make any effort to stop any of the underage students from drinking alcoholic beverages. Mr. Guzalak's testimony that there was nothing he could do about students drink beer on the trip is not credible. Mr. Guzalak had a duty and responsibility to attempt to stop underage students from drinking beer. Even if Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not attempt to stop the drinking because of the number of students involved was credible (which it is not), his testimony did not explain why he did not say something to those students who were bold enough to offer him a beer and then students who he came into contact with that were drinking beer By allowing the consumption of alcohol in his presence by students who were under the legal drinking age, Mr. Guzalak condoned their illegal behavior. When a teacher allows the violation of one law, it becomes difficult for the teacher to enforce other laws and rules governing student conduct. Mr. Guzalak failed to report the incident to Mr. Bounds or any other administrative employees at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak should not have just ignored the fact that students, some of whom were his students, had blatantly violated the law in his presence. The 1991-1992 School Year--Mr. Bounds Second Warning. In approximately August of 1991, Patrick Peavy's father spoke to Mr. Bounds about his belief that his son was drinking alcohol and using drugs at Mr. Guzalak's home. The evidence failed to prove what basis, if any, Mr. Peavy had for his suspicions at the time he made his complaint. As a result of the concerns raised by Patrick Peavy's father, Mr. Bounds spoke to Mr. Guzalak. The conversation took place on approximately September 19, 1991. Among other things, Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that a parent had reported that students were frequenting Mr. Guzalak's home and that alcohol and drugs were being used there. Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that the parent had followed his child to Mr. Guzalak's home. While Mr. Guzalak admitted to Mr. Bounds that students were frequenting his home, he denied that alcohol was being consumed or that drugs were being used. Mr. Bounds explained to Mr. Guzalak why it was not a good idea to allow students to come to his home. Mr. Guzalak, however, did not agree with Mr. Bounds' concerns over the possible pitfalls of forming personal, social relationships with his students. On September 24, 1991, Mr. Bounds wrote a memorandum to Mr. Guzalak "to reiterate my position regarding our conversation in my office on Thursday, September 19, 1991." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also stated the following in the memorandum: During our conversation you related to me that students from our school were invited and allowed to visit your home for non-academic reasons. Furthermore, you related to me that students from our school are not discouraged by you to establish a personal friendship with you. These personal friendships are encouraged by your participating in non-school related activities. You are hereby notified that all future contact with students from our school should be exclusively of a professional and academic nature. Moreover, meetings with our students should be held on our school property exclusively unless express permission is obtained from me. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also arranged for Mr. Guzalak to meet with Annette Lee (formerly, Annette Francis), Personnel Director of the School Board. Ms. Lee, who was Assistant Superintendent, Human Resource Division, at the time, met with Mr. Guzalak. On October 9, 1991, Ms. Lee wrote Mr. Guzalak a letter memorializing this meeting and provided him with a copy of a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching," a form containing some School Board expectations for teacher conduct. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Ms. Lee also discussed the inappropriateness of Mr. Guzalak's behavior and stressed to him the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with students. Mr. Guzalak again admitted that he had developed friendships with some of his students and that he had seen them on occasion socially. Among other things, Ms. Lee stressed the following portions of the "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching" form she had provided to Mr. Guzalak: Interaction with Students: Maintain a professional barrier between you and students. You are the adult, teacher and the professional; act like the expert not like another one of the "kids." . . . . 3. Refer students to the appropriate resource person for counseling and/or discussions about personal matters. . . . . 5. Do NOT discuss your personal life or personal matters with students. Do NOT discuss your husband, boyfriend, dates or controversial issues with students. . . . . 10. Chaperone only school sponsored functions. Do NOT socialize with students. If you chaperone a field trip, put in writing what your responsibilities will be. Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages in front of students. Do NOT take children home with you. . . . . C. Reputation in the Community. . . . . Communicate with parents and document your communications. Dress and act appropriately but professionally. You are a role model in the community as well as in the school; be a good example for students. Use common sense and good judgement. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain, or justify your behavior or actions. Avoid putting yourself in a position where it's your word against another person's word. . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Continued Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak was very concerned about what Mr. Bounds had told him about students coming to his home. Mr. Guzalak thought that he was being watched (by a parent) and he was concerned because some of the allegations about alcohol and drug use were true. Initially, Mr. Guzalak told students who dropped by or who asked if they could come by, not to come or that they could not stay. For example, Mr. Guzalak told Thomas Ignas and David Hodgson they should not come to his home. On at least one occasion, however, Mr. Guzalak allowed students to visit him at his home during the 1991-1992 school year after Mr. Bounds had instructed Mr. Guzalak to stop such visits. The incident took place during the first three months of 1992. Aaron Utley was told to come to Mr. Guzalak's home by either David Hodges or Thomas Ignas. When Mr. Utley arrived at Mr. Guzalak's home, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ignas were there with Mr. Guzalak. There were empty beer cans on the coffee table. Mr. Hodges was drunk. Mr. Guzalak did not request that any of the students leave. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that alcohol was consumed by Mr. Guzalak in front of the students or that the students consumed alcohol in front of Mr. Guzalak. The Florida State University Trip--September, 1991. At some time after Mr. Guzalak spoke to Mr. Bounds in September 1991, Mr. Guzalak took a group of students who were participating in the forensic program to Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, for a forensic competition. Among others on the trip were Chris Hutcherson, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey. These Choctaw students stayed in the same motel room while on the trip. One evening, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey came into the motel room where they were staying and smelled marijuana smoke. Mr. Hutcherson was in the room. Mr. Hutcherson had smoked marijuana just before the other students came into the room. Mr. Guzalak came into the motel room shortly after the students arrived and he smelled the marijuana smoke also. Mr. Guzalak asked what was going on, but no one admitted anything at that time. At some point during the trip, Chris Hutcherson admitted to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana in the motel room. At no time did Mr. Guzalak report Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Hutcherson's family, Mr. Bounds or any other administrative official. Nor did Mr. Guzalak take any disciplinary action against Mr. Hutcherson. Failing to report the use of illicit drugs was against school policy. Mr. Guzalak did not even explain to Chris Hutcherson why he should not have been using marijuana. Instead, Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Hutcherson that he had put Mr. Guzalak in an untenable position by his actions. Because Mr. Bounds had spoken to Mr. Guzalak only a few days before this incident, Mr. Guzalak's concern was not for Mr. Hutcherson or even the forensic team--"[i]t was for myself." See line 11, page 595, Transcript of the Final Hearing. Mr. Guzalak, by his use of marijuana and alcohol with students prior to this incidental, had placed himself in a position of action in a manner similar to that of Mr. Hutcherson. Therefore, it became difficult for Mr. Guzalak to carry out his responsibility as a teacher to report Mr. Hutcherson's admission. The Pensacola Trip--November, 1991. In November, 1991, the Choctaw forensic team went to Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, to participate in a competition. Since the competition was out of Okaloosa County, students were prohibited by School Board policy from driving their own vehicles. Students who participated in the competition were required to have their parents sign a form granting permission for their child to travel on the trip. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. On the permission form it indicated that "students' may not drive themselves to out of county school-sponsored activities . . . ." The students who were going on the Pensacola trip were told to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. They were scheduled to leave at 6:30 a.m. Chris Hutcherson, who was to participate in the Pensacola competition, did not want to get up as early as he would have to arise to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. Therefore, Mr. Hutcherson asked his mother, Sharon Philbrook, if he could drive his automobile to Pensacola. She told him no. She also spoke to Mr. Guzalak who confirmed the School Board policy that students were not allowed to drive their own vehicles on the trip and that transportation would be provided for students for the trip. The morning of the Pensacola trip, Ms. Philbrook found a note from Chris Hutcherson indicating he had taken his stepbrother's automobile despite her instructions to the contrary. Ms. Philbrook reported the incident to Mr. Bounds who suggested that she go to Pensacola and get Mr. Hutcherson. She did so. Upon arriving at the competition site, Ms. Philbrook introduced herself to Mr. Guzalak and explained what had happened. She also told him that she had reported the incident to Mr. Bounds and that Mr. Bounds wanted Mr. Guzalak to telephone him. Mr. Guzalak was very upset about what Ms. Philbrook told him and told her he wished she had not telephoned Mr. Bounds. In light of Mr. Bounds' admonishment of Mr. Guzalak in September and Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana on the Florida State University trip (which Mr. Guzalak had not reported), Mr. Guzalak's reaction is understandable. Mr. Guzalak's reaction and the other evidence presented by the EPC concerning this incident, however, failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was responsible for Chris Hutcherson's violation of School Board policy against students driving their own vehicles out of the county. As a result of Mr. Hutcherson's actions, Mr. Guzalak informed Mr. Hutcherson that he could no longer travel with the forensic team. Mr. Hutcherson's testimony concerning whether Mr. Guzalak told him that it was okay to drive his own automobile to Pensacola was not credible and is rejected. The Rush Concert--February, 1992. In February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak was responsible for the production of a play at Choctaw. During the week before the play was to begin, Mr. Guzalak cancelled a rehearsal. The rehearsal was cancelled because Mr. Guzalak and several students involved in the play wanted to attend a concert by a musical group, Rush, in Pensacola. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak went to the concert with any students from Choctaw, although he did see and speak to at least one student at the concert. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak acted improperly or violated School Board policy in cancelling the rehearsal. Matt Schoditsch's Party--February, 1992. On a Friday evening in February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak spoke to Matt Schoditsch on the telephone. Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak to come to his home. Mr. Schoditsch told Mr. Guzalak that there would be other students at his home, students that Mr. Guzalak knew, and that they would be grilling food. Mr. Guzalak knew that Mr. Schoditsch was having a student get-together. Mr. Guzalak's and Mr. Schoditsch's testimony that Mr. Guzalak was invited and came to Mr. Schoditsch's home only to discuss his participation in a play is not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak for social reasons, and that Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation and went to a student's house contrary to Mr. Bounds' directive to him and contrary to Ms. Lee's advice. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had assumed that Mr. Schoditsch's parents would be there. Mr. Guzalak also testified that it was not until after students starting showing up with beer that he realized that Mr. Schoditsch's parents were not there. This testimony is not credible. In light of Mr. Bounds' directive, which Mr. Guzalak indicated he was very concerned about, a reasonable person would have inquired. Additionally, a reasonable person, especially a teacher and one who had previously been accused of being too friendly with students, would seek out a student's parents soon after arriving at their home to introduce himself or to say hello if the teacher thought the parents were home. Even if Mr. Guzalak did not know that Mr. Schoditsch's parent would not be home before he arrived, he should have realized soon after arriving that they were not there and left. Shortly after arriving at Mr. Schoditsch's home, Mr. Guzalak saw students start to arrive with beer which they began drinking. According to Mr. Guzalak and Mr. Schoditsch, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Schoditsch about students drinking in front of him. They also testified that Mr. Schoditsch attempted to stop the drinking, but too many students started coming, and there was too much beer. This testimony is not credible. According to Mr. Barron, who also attended the party, there were only fifteen to twenty people at the party. If Mr. Schoditsch had really wanted to, he could have stopped the drinking. Mr. Schoditsch had no intention of stopping the beer drinking. And Mr. Guzalak did not expect him to. Even after Mr. Guzalak saw students drinking beer he did not leave immediately. According to his own testimony, he stayed another twenty-five to thirty minutes after he saw students drinking and even took time to go speak to a student, Jodie Brooks, before leaving. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Guzalak drank alcohol while at Mr. Schoditsch's home. Although Mr. Barron thought Mr. Guzalak was drinking a mixed drink because he was drinking out of Mr. Schoditsch's cup or glass, Mr. Barron did not testify about how he knew that Mr. Schoditsch was drinking a mixed drink. Use of Profanity. It is against the policy of the School Board for a teacher to use profanity in the presence of students. Mr. Guzalak used the term "fucking" in front of several students when he became angry about their use of squirt guns on a forensic competition trip. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak used profanity in the classroom. Supervision of Students on Trips. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak failed to provide adequate or required supervision of students while on school trips. Mr. Guzalak's Resignation from the School Board. Ultimately, several teachers became aware of various rumors about Mr. Guzalak and some of his inappropriate behavior with students. Those comments were reported to Mr. Bounds, who spoke to a few students and then reported the problem to Ms. Lee. The Superintendent of Okaloosa County Schools met with Mr. Guzalak in March 1992, and discussed the various allegations against him. Mr. Guzalak subsequently resigned, effective at the end of the 1991-1992 school year. Credibility of the Witnesses. Mr. Guzalak and the students who were most involved in the incidents at issue in this proceeding denied that most of the more serious accusations against Mr. Guzalak are true. In addition to denying the accusations against him, Mr. Guzalak also suggested that he is the victim of unfounded rumors. Finally, Mr. Guzalak questioned the credibility and motives of some of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding. The denials of Mr. Guzalak and those students who supported his version of events have been rejected. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Guzalak's testimony was not convincing. The denial of the accusations by several (but not all) of the witnesses called by Mr. Guzalak was also not credible and has been rejected. Many of those witnesses are young men who have developed a close relationship to Mr. Guzalak. They consider Mr. Guzalak to be their "friend." Their testimony reflected their desire not to betray their "friend" and has been rejected in large part based upon the weight of all of the evidence. The efforts to suggest that Mr. Guzalak is merely a victim of rumors also failed. Rumors were caused, in part, because of the perception that Mr. Guzalak was different or eccentric, and, in part, because of the incidents described in this Recommended Order. While there were no doubt rumors concerning this matter and Mr. Guzalak, the incidents which have been found to have occurred in this Recommended Order are based upon the specific knowledge of those witnesses found to be credible. Many of those incidents were confirmed or substantiated by more than one witness. Finally, the efforts of Mr. Guzalak to discredit some of the witnesses also failed. Most of those efforts were directed at Sarah Stimac, Chris Hutcherson and Aaron Utley. The testimony of Ms. Stimac, Mr. Utley and most of the other witnesses called by the Petitioner was credible. It is true, however, that Mr. Hutcherson's testimony contained inconsistencies and that Mr. Hutcherson evidenced an extremely bitter and judgemental attitude against Mr. Guzalak. Consequently, Mr. Hutcherson's testimony has not been accepted except to the extent that it has been corroborated by other evidence. Attacks on Ms. Stimac's credibility are rejected. The suggestion that Sarah Stimac was not credible fails to consider, among other things, the fact that Ms. Stimac's actions in this matter were taken at some personal expense and aggravation. Mr. Guzalak, during the investigation of this matter by the EPC, allowed several students to read confidential statements that Ms. Stimac and other students had given during the investigation. He did so without regard to the consequences to Ms. Stimac or the other students. As a result, Ms. Stimac has faced hostility and ridicule from those misguided students who believe that not telling, or "ratting," on a friend is admirable. Despite such hostility, Ms. Stimac refused to compromise her integrity. The weight of the evidence proved that other students, such as Aaron Utley and David Barron made the same choice that Sarah Stimac made. Rather than lacking credibility, Ms. Stimac's testimony, Mr. Barron's testimony, and the testimony of most of the other students who spoke out about Mr. Guzalak's inappropriate conduct is admirable. The Impact of Mr. Guzalak's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. There was no direct evidence to prove that Mr. Guzalak was not effective in the classroom. Most of the witnesses agreed that Mr. Guzalak was very effective in the classroom. Several of the witnesses spoke of Mr. Guzalak's intelligence and ability with some admiration. Unfortunately, Mr. Guzalak, by his own admission and based upon the facts presented in this case, has evidenced a lack of the judgement necessary for him to be entrusted with the education of young people. This fact is based upon the nature of the improper acts which Mr. Guzalak has been found to have committed in this case and by his attitude about the warnings he received from Mr. Smith, Mr. Bounds, Ms. Lee and even Mr. Guzalak's coworkers. A teacher that drinks alcohol in the presence of students and provides alcohol to, or condones the use of, alcoholic beverages by students has lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher because of the high standard of conduct expected of teachers. A teacher that uses marijuana in the presence of students or allows students to use marijuana in his or her presence has also lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's conduct was, therefore, contrary to the conduct expected of him by the School Board and the community. Mr. Guzalak's conduct is sufficiently notorious in the community that he has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's inability to follow the directions of his supervisors has also reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak probably has begun to take too much stock in the praise he has received concerning his intelligence and abilities. He has begun to believe his "reviews." As a result, Mr. Guzalak believes that he knows more about how to be an effective teacher than his supervisors and fellow teachers. Mr. Guzalak was asked during the hearing why he had a problem with Mr. Bounds' directive concerning his student friendships. Mr. Guzalak's response, which evidences his attitude about the appropriate role of a teacher with his or her students, was as follows: Because I was used to the idea at that point of having some social contact with students. It was important to me. I was, basically, disturbed because I felt that Richard Bounds was asking me to suddenly make some sort of major capitulation, not in my life-style, but in my mode of thought, in the way I viewed my relationship with students. He wanted me to be an authoritarian clone, if I must. Lines 18-25, Page 627 and Lines 1-2, Page 628, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Additionally, Mr. Guzalak answered the following questions: Q. [Mr. Bounds is] your principal. Shouldn't he be allowed to tell you how you should behave with your students? A. No. Q. He shouldn't be able to tell you how you conduct yourself with your students? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I'm an adult and because I'm a professional. And I'm capable of making those decisions on my own. . . . . Lines 17-25, Page 628 and Lines 1-2, Page 629, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Rather than being an "authoritarian clone," Mr. Guzalak attempted to reach some of his students by being their friend on their level. To some extent, he was influenced by Ms. Yeager, who developed friendships with her students. Ms. Yeager, however, was more mature, married, had a family and had been teaching for some time. As Ms. Yeager put it: . . . . Of course, I have an advantage, being an old, married woman. I mean, I had a husband. I had a family. I had a track record when I came here, Ms. O'Sullivan. I taught seven years junior high and two more years in high school. So I think age -- Not all people are respected because they're older, as you know. But, I'm saying I sort of had an edge there on John [Guzalak], plus experience. Lines 19-25, Page 375 and Lines 1-2, Page 376, Vol. III of Transcript. More importantly, Ms. Yeager, by her actions, her character and her good judgement, was able to develop a certain level of friendship with her students while maintaining her distance and her professionalism. Mr. Guzalak has not evidenced the ability to do the same because of his lack of judgement and his inability to heed the advice and experience of his supervisors and peers.
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 17th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the specific notice of charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Eric Farber, was employed as a psychologist by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida. At the time of his suspension on December 6, 1989, Petitioner served under a continuing contract. In the Summer of 1989, while at Booker T. Washington Middle School in Miami, Florida, Respondent requested, at least, five female students to remove portions of their clothing while he gave them physical examinations. The proof did not indicate that Respondent was qualified to perform physical examinations of the students or that Petitioner had authorized the examinations. In the Summer of 1989, L.B., was a student at Booker T. Washington. L.B. is a fifteen year old female. According to L.B., she was called to Respondent's office by another student for examination by Respondent. When she arrived, Respondent told her to remove her blouse and brassiere. He told L.B. that he was checking her for breast cancer. L.B. was pregnant at the time. Respondent touched both breasts and then asked her to pull up her skirt that he could examine her vagina. He inserted his finger into her vagina. L.B. then dressed herself and left the room. L.B. thought Respondent was a medical doctor and that his examination was appropriate. M.C. was also a student at Booker T. Washington in the Summer of 1989. M.C. is a fifteen year old female. L.B. told M.C. that Respondent was a doctor who was there to see her. M.C., then, went to Respondent's office. L.B. and M.C. had been friends for over two years. According to M.C., Respondent asked her to fill out some forms. He then asked her to go into the part of the room where he could examine her. The room was separated by a divider which prevented the person seated on one side from seeing the activity on the other side. He asked her to take off her underpants. After a short discussion about problems with her menstrual flow, Respondent touched her vagina and asked her to remove her blouse while he also touched her breasts. Although M.C. did not think Respondent's actions were normal or appropriate, she allowed him to touch both her vagina and her breasts. She, then, told him to stop, and she left the room. Another student at Booker T. Washington that same Summer was T.S. She is a thirteen year old female. According to T.S., she was called to Respondent's office by an office aide. When she arrived, Respondent asked her to wait on one side of the room and draw pictures. L.B. was on the other side of the room being examined while T.S. was waiting. T.S. thought,she heard L.B. scream and did see her leave, appearing to be nervous. When T.S. went into the room for her examination, Respondent asked her to take off her blouse and brassiere, told her he was going to check her for breast cancer and questioned her about the onset of her menses. T.S. removed her clothing as requested, and Respondent, then, touched her breast and her anus. He then remarked that he had mistaken her for another male and sent her back to class. The fourth female student of the group is D.E. She is fourteen years old. According to D.E., Respondent visited D.E.'s classroom in the Summer of 1989 and picked D.E. out of a group of students identified as being from a neighborhood called Riverside. Respondent took D.E. to his office. D.E. understood that Respondent was examining the female students from the Riverside area because of some problem there. Respondent asked her to take off her blouse and brassiere for a breast examination. She refused to do so and returned to her class where she informed her teacher what Respondent was asking. Another female student at Booker T. Washington during the Summer of 1989 was J.N. who is fifteen years old. She was approached by Respondent while she was lying on a cot in the attendance office. According to J.N., Respondent asked if he could see her, that he had something for her. He escorted her into a small office and introduced himself as the school doctor. He then asked her to go into the next room and take off her blouse. When he entered the room, he touched both of her breasts and began explaining parts of the vaginal area to her. He told her to turn around and bend over while he examined her vagina. He placed his finger in her vagina and touched her anus. When she put her pants back on, he told her that he had been checking all the girls from Riverside. He found her vagina to be too narrow and suggested that she rub it to enlarge the opening. J.N. allowed Respondent to touch her because she believed that he had been sent by Petitioner to perform the examinations. J.N. was too embarrassed by the incident to tell her parents. Members of the news media came to the school and tried to interview members of the faculty about Respondent's actions, and the news media of the Miami area carried coverage of the incidents. As a result of his action and the notoriety resulting from it, Respondent, the school and the education profession suffered public disgrace. Respondent's colleagues lost respect for him and his abilities as an education professional, impairing his service to the community. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation was acceptable. He received several notable professional awards during his tenure in education, including being selected as a finalist for the teacher of the year award offered by the Dade County PTA in the South Central Area. At the hearing, Respondent did not testify, and the testimony of the students about the events at issue is deemed credible. Although Respondent may in the past have been an outstanding teacher, his actions, during the Summer of 1989 were intentional, unethical and inconsistent with the standards of public conscience. They resulted in creating such public disgrace for the education profession that his effectiveness in the school system was impaired and caused unnecessary embarrassment to the students involved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order dismissing Respondent, Eric D. Farber, as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida without back pay or benefits. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6945 The following represents the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. The ruling reflects the number of the paragraph which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if applicable. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire School Board of Dade County, Florida Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Don S. Cohn, Esquire 1504 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, against teachers holding Florida educator's certificates. Respondent, who has no prior disciplinary history, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 709850, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2014. The Events The incident that gives rise to this proceeding occurred during the morning of April 8, 2011, at Dillard High School ("Dillard"), where Respondent has taught mathematics since 2004. At that time, Respondent was lecturing to his Algebra I honors class, which comprised approximately 15 students. During the lecture, one of the male students, 15-year- old D.P., took out his cell phone and viewed it, contrary to one of Respondent's classroom rules. Respondent immediately directed D.P. to put the phone away, and the student complied; a few moments later, however, D.P. again took out his phone, which resulted in the same reaction from Respondent. For reasons known only to D.P., he took out his phone a third time——conduct that prompted Respondent to confiscate the item. Later, during the same class period, D.P. inquired of Respondent as to when his phone would be returned. Respondent replied that the phone could be retrieved at the end of the day from Mr. Levinsky, one of Dillard's assistant principals. None too happy with this turn of events, D.P. stewed for several minutes, at which point he got up from his table and approached the front of the room, where Respondent was seated behind his desk. Suspecting that D.P. might attempt to recover the phone (which lay on Respondent's desk), Respondent picked it up. At that point, and in an audacious move, D.P. grabbed Respondent's cell phone off the desk and stated, in an angry tone, that he would return Respondent's phone when Respondent relinquished possession of his (D.P.'s). Understandably disinclined to negotiate, Respondent calmly directed D.P. to return his property. D.P. refused. Respondent again asked, to no avail, that D.P. place the phone on the desk. After a third request, which, like the others, went entirely unheeded, Respondent stood up, walked around his desk, positioned himself near D.P., and instructed D.P.——for the fourth time——to put down the phone. D.P. complied, only to pick up the phone once again just seconds later. (While doing so, D.P. remarked that he was not going to return Respondent's "mother-fucking phone.") It is at this point that the witness' accounts diverge: D.P. and student S.H. contend that Respondent reached out with one hand and, in an unprovoked act of violence, grabbed D.P. by the throat and pushed him backwards, which resulted in D.P. falling over several desks that had been placed together; students A.A., R.B., and A.P. claim that Respondent, without provocation, slammed D.P. onto the desks after taking hold of the student's throat; finally, Respondent asserts——as corroborated by student T.F.——that D.P. moved toward him in a threatening manner and that he (Respondent) simply defended himself5/ by extending his arm, which made contact with D.P.'s upper chest or neck area. Respondent and T.F. further testified that, as a result of the defensive contact, D.P. moved backward and either tripped or fell over the desks. Before the undersigned resolves the question of how D.P. wound up on the floor, a brief rehearsal of the relevant subsequent events is in order. Moments after the physical encounter, Respondent informed D.P., who was uninjured, that he intended to escort him to one of Dillard's administrators. Enraged, D.P. removed his shirt and followed Respondent into the hallway; as D.P. did so, he directed several vulgar threats toward Respondent, such as, "I'm going to fuck you up" and "I'm going to kill you." Moments later, Respondent encountered one of Dillard's security guards, Noel Buhagiar, from whom Respondent requested assistance. Mr. Buhagiar proceeded to restrain D.P., at which point Respondent made his way to school administration. Once in the front office, Respondent provided a brief description to Mr. Levinsky (as noted previously, an assistant principal) concerning his incident with D.P. Mr. Levinsky instructed Respondent to return to class and issue D.P. a referral. While en route to his classroom, Respondent walked by D.P., who, still restrained, repeated his earlier crude threats. From what can be gleaned from the record, D.P.'s behavior ultimately earned him a five-day suspension from school. Shortly after the incident, Respondent was questioned by Edward Jackson, a school resource officer assigned to Dillard. During the interview, Respondent explained that D.P. had approached him in a "fighter's stance" and that, as a result of this aggressive behavior, he feared for his safety and used an open hand (which made contact with D.P.'s neck) to ward D.P. away. Subsequently, Officer Jackson conducted an interview of D.P. in the presence of Mr. Levinsky and the student's father, during which D.P. provided a description of the incident that largely coincided with Respondent's version of events. These statements were credibly recounted during the final hearing by Officer Jackson, who testified: The child told me, in front of his father, and A.P. [Levinsky], that there was a conversation about a cell phone. He went to get his cell phone back, in an aggressive manner, and that's when [Respondent], fearing for his safety, extended his arms out, and I guess in such force, that he caused the student to fall over some chairs. I then asked, well, Mr. [Levinsky] asked the student, did at any time, did [Respondent] use his hand to choke, choke you. And D.P. answered, to the question, indicating that [Respondent] did not use his hands to choke him. And that was said in front of his father, and in front of Mr. Levinsky, so, there was no choke at all. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 173 (emphasis added). Upon the conclusion of his investigation, Officer Jackson charged D.P. with misdemeanor assault,6/ at which time the matter was forwarded to the State Attorney's Office.7/ Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner has failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of the Amended Administrative Complaint's principal allegation—— namely, that Respondent grabbed D.P. in a "choking manner and pushed him onto [a] desk." In so finding, the undersigned rejects the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses on this issue, which, for several reasons, is less persuasive than that of Respondent and T.F. First, had Respondent committed the act alleged, it is reasonable to expect that D.P. would have suffered some form of harm, particularly since Respondent, a football coach, outweighed D.P. by at least 608/ pounds. Yet, and as D.P. conceded during the final hearing, he sustained no marks, bruises, or injuries of any kind.9/ In addition, D.P.'s present description of the event is highly dubious in light of Officer Jackson's credible testimony, which establishes D.P.'s admission during the police interview that he (D.P.) had moved toward Respondent aggressively and that Respondent had merely extended his arm for protection. Finally, D.P.'s wholly outrageous conduct, both before and after the incident——taking Respondent's property and refusing to return it, removing his shirt, and threatening to "kill" Respondent——is far more suggestive of his culpability as the aggressor. Owing to the undersigned's crediting of Respondent's final-hearing testimony, it necessarily follows that Respondent's report of the incident to law enforcement, in which he claimed self-defense, was in no manner false or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michael B. Smith (Smith), has been continuously employed as a teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1977. During the 1985-86 school year, Smith was employed under a continuing contract as a work experience teacher at Miami Norland Senior High School. The Assault and Loan Among the students in Smith's second period work experience class was Colleen Ann Dougherty (Colleen); a 15 year old female and 10th grade student. Colleen had been a student of Smith's since September 1985, and they enjoyed a good student- teacher relationship until the events which gave rise to these proceedings. 1/ On February 10, 1986, Smith asked Colleen to remain after class. Once the other students had left the classroom, and Colleen and he were alone, Smith engaged Colleen in a brief conversation concerning the progress of her outside employment. Gauging the conversation at an end, Colleen picked up her purse and book bag preparatory to moving to her next class, but was distracted when Smith asked her what was in her purse. As Colleen looked into her purse, which was hanging from her right shoulder, Smith placed his left hand on her right hip and his right hand on her left shoulder. When Colleen looked up, Smith pulled her toward him, and kissed her on the lips. Smith's conduct was uninvited and unexpected; Colleen, disconcerted, left the classroom. On February 11, 1986, Smith was covering Colleen's first period class for her regular teacher. After the class had started, Smith asked Colleen into the hall and, exhibiting his divorce papers and a sense of urgency, asked to borrow $50.00 by the end of third period. Colleen informed Smith that she did not know if she could get the money by then since she would need to go to her boy friend's house for the bank book. Thereupon, Smith gave Colleen a pass to visit her friend Jessica to see about transportation. After arranging for transportation with Jessica, Colleen returned to Smith, who was still standing in the hall outside the classroom, and informed him that Jessica and she could get the money. At this time, Smith told Colleen that he liked her and suggested that they meet at school one night so he could repay the money. When Colleen expressed a lack of understanding concerning Smith's comments, he told her to look down and said, "even standing next to you excites me." On looking down, Colleen observed that Smith had an erection. Colleen quickly changed the subject and left with Jessica to get the requested $50.00 from the bank, which she later gave to Smith. Colleen was troubled by what had transpired and was afraid that if she reported the incident the administration would not credit her statements over those of a teacher. However, on Wednesday, February 12, 1986, Colleen told her boss what had transpired between Smith and her, and on the evening of February 12, 1986, she informed her grandmother. On February 13, 1986 Colleen, together with her boss and grandmother, informed the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School concerning the events of February 10-11, 1986. Smith was subsequently suspended from his teaching position, and this administrative proceeding duly followed. In choosing to credit Colleen's recollection of the events of February 10-11, 1986, as opposed to Smith's, I am not unmindful of minor discrepancies in the proof. However, the candor and demeanor of Colleen, coupled with the corroborating proof, compels the conclusion that Smith did commit, without invitation or provocation, the acts set forth in paragraphs 3-5, supra. Smith's conduct was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious to bring himself and his profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Due to the notoriety of his conduct, Smith's service in the community, as well as his effectiveness in the school system, has been severely impaired. The Excessive Absences The proof establishes that Smith was absent from his employment on 26 days during the 1985-86 school year. Five of those days, and possibly six, were for personal reasons, rather than illness. While teachers are generally allowed only 4 personal days each school year, the School Board offered no evidence to rebut the proof that the additional 1-2 days were authorized by Smith's supervisor, or that all time off was duly approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent, Michael B. Smith, from his employment, and dismissing Respondent, Michael B. Smith, from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 21st day of November, 1986.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in a three count Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of assertions that the Respondent used various forms of corporal punishment on her students and that she also engaged in verbal abuse of her students.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 151121, covering the area of elementary education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. During the 1990-1991 school year and during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Elementary School in the Dade County School District. In January of 1992, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler at A. S., who was a minor male student in her class. The ruler hit A. S. in the face and left a scratch on his face. This incident took place in class in the presence of other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched A. S., a minor male student, on the ear in front of the other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck L. W., a minor female student, with a ruler on her hands and on her legs. The ruler left marks on L. W.'s hands. Student L. W. cried as a result of being struck with the ruler and she felt sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent on several occasions used offensive and indecent language in the classroom, sometimes directing such language towards her students. The offensive and indecent language included such words as "fuck," "damn," "bitch," and "ass." During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape to restrain M. S., a minor male student. Specifically, the Respondent taped student M. S.'s mouth closed, taped his arms to the arm rests of his chair, and taped his feet to the legs of his chair. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, P. B., to keep his mouth closed. Student P. B. was taped up in front of the class, which caused him to feel sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, A. S., to keep his mouth closed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, T. L., to keep his mouth closed and to prevent him from talking. The Respondent also used tape to restrain T. L. Specifically, the Respondent taped T. L. to his chair. On several occasions during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler, and other similar objects, at students in her class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, M. S., with a wooden ruler. This incident was observed by the other students in the class and made M. S. feel sad and embarrassed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, P. B., on the buttocks with a wooden ruler. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor female student, D. H., on the buttocks with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent stuck minor male student, T. L., on his left arm with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched the ear of minor male student, T. L. in class. On numerous occasions prior to the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent, and all other teachers at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, had been made aware of the policies of the Dade County School District prohibiting corporal punishment. The Respondent had also been made aware of what was encompassed by the term "corporal punishment." In a memorandum dated February 12, 1991, concerning the use of corporal punishment, the Respondent was specifically instructed not to throw rulers at students.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years and providing that any recertification of the Respondent shall be pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of September 1993. 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 28th day of September 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6896 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, although the language used is more accurately described as indecent or offensive than as profanity. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13: Accepted in substance, with some repetitious information omitted. Paragraph 14: Admitted Paragraph 15: Rejected because not charged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, many of which are also irrelevant. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5: These paragraphs are accurate summaries of a portion of the allegations and of a portion of the evidence, but there was other evidence which supports a finding that Audric Sands was struck on the chin by a ruler thrown at him by the Respondent. Paragraph 6: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20: These paragraphs are all essentially correct summaries of the testimony described in each paragraph. Although there are differences in the details reported by the several child-witnesses, such differences are not unusual when several young children describe an event. There was a great deal of consistency on several relevant matters. Paragraphs 21 and 22: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the testimony of the witness referred to. Although the witness Mr. Jim Smith testified he never heard or saw any misconduct by the Respondent, I still find the testimony of the child-witnesses to be persuasive. The child-witnesses were with the Respondent on many occasions when Mr. Smith was not present. Also, Mr. Smith worked as an aide to the Respondent only from some time in November or December until sometime in late January. Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the Respondent's testimony. To the extent the testimony summarized here conflicts with the testimony of the child-witnesses, I have generally accepted as more persuasive the testimony of the child-witnesses. Paragraphs 26 and 27: I have resolved the conflicts in the evidence other than as suggested here. I have found most of the child-witnesses' testimony to be credible. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Chaires, 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 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 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 General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Jean- Baptiste Guerrier, made inappropriate comments to, or engaged in inappropriate conduct with, female students, or inappropriately discussed the topic of sex with his class, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals holding Florida educator's certificates. Mr. Guerrier held Florida Educator's Certificate 596926, covering the areas of English and middle grades, which was valid through June 30, 2015. At all times pertinent hereto, Mr. Guerrier was employed as a vocational education teacher at D.A. Dorsey Education Center School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Guerrier primarily taught English to students who had dropped out of school earlier and were returning for vocational education. Some of his students were adults, and some were still minors. On August 2, 2012, Ms. Ana Sanchez, an investigator for the Miami-Dade County School Board, received a case alleging that Mr. Guerrier had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to his students and had inappropriately touched female students. Ms. Sanchez interviewed students and prepared an investigative report detailing what each student told her regarding Mr. Guerrier's conduct in class. She did not personally observe Mr. Guerrier's conduct in the classroom. On September 6, 2012, Mr. Guerrier wrote a letter to Ms. Anne-Marie DuBoulay, the district director of the Office of Professional Standards. In the letter, Mr. Guerrier indicated that he had read the allegations and that he denied them. On or about October 5, 2012, the Miami-Dade County School District notified Mr. Guerrier that he would be recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal. On or about October 8, 2012, Mr. Guerrier submitted his resignation from his position at the Miami-Dade County School District. On October 10, 2012, Ms. DuBoulay prepared a memorandum for the file indicating that Mr. Guerrier had resigned and that the investigative information had been transmitted to Professional Practices Services of the Florida Department of Education. On August 12, 2013, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Mr. Guerrier by the Commissioner. It was subsequently sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At hearing, Ms. Sanchez testified that she interviewed several students from Mr. Guerrier's classes. She testified that some students told her that Mr. Guerrier often made inappropriate comments about sex and female anatomy to his students. She testified that students told her that he inappropriately touched students. She testified that students told her that he had asked female students, "What would you do for a grade?" She testified that Elijah Del'Valle, a 21-year-old student, told her that he saw Mr. Guerrier pulling a female student's G-string, confirming the female student's statement to her. The investigative report prepared by Ms. Sanchez indicated that D.W., a 25-year-old female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would make sexual comments to his female students on a daily basis. The report indicates that D.W. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier asked her in class if he could see her private parts and asked "what she would do for the grade." The report indicates that K.L., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier rubbed her stomach and asked her to kiss him. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that he told his class that the student was mad because he would not have sexual relations with her. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told K.L. that her boyfriend "could not handle her." The report says that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that she witnessed Mr. Guerrier pull G.C.'s underwear in class. The report indicates that J.S., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier always used inappropriate slang terms for female anatomy in class and that she heard Mr. Guerrier ask K.L. to show him her private parts. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier touching K.L.'s stomach. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told one female student, "What if I turn off the lights and tell you to undress?" The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she did not recall which student Mr. Guerrier made this comment to. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle, an adult male student, told Ms. Sanchez that he observed Mr. Guerrier flirting with female students and making sexual remarks in class. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would ask his female students what they would do for a grade. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that he saw Mr. Guerrier pull a student's pants from behind during class and then ask the young lady where she was going. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier was always looking at the female students when they walked by and would rub his shoulder and arm against them. The report indicates that G.C., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier rub K.L.'s belly area and say, "let me lick that belly ring of yours." The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier is always brushing himself up against the female students. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that that student was mad because he had not had sexual relations with her. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that she once asked Mr. Guerrier for help with a lesson and that he pulled her G-string when she was getting up from the chair and pulled her back down. Mr. Guerrier testified at hearing that he did not do any of the things he was accused of. Mr. Guerrier said that his accusers had a motive to fabricate their stories because they were very poor students. He said that some of them slept in class, others texted throughout class, and others did not show up at all. He stated that some of them had no grades in his grading book and that he had no basis to give them a grade. He stated the students went to a counselor and fabricated the stories.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2007)1/, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate, numbered 1003139, covering the area of athletics coaching. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2008. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the certification and regulation of teachers, pursuant to Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as an in-school suspension teacher and a track coach at Hernando High School in the Hernando County School District. The allegations in this proceeding involve events that occurred during the 2007-2008 school year, and deal with three separate incidents: Respondent's conduct in connection to the prom; his actions toward M.G.; and his actions toward A.H. The Prom The prom for Hernando High School was held on or about April 5, 2008, at the Glen Lakes Country Club in Hernando County. Joy Nagy was a coordinator for the prom, and Vicelia Azzarelli was the administrator on duty. Teachers who desired to chaperone the prom signed up in advance. They were given specific responsibilities, including a schedule for monitoring students' behavior. Volunteers' duties did not include dancing with the students. Those teachers who were not volunteering but wanted to stop by and see the students dressed up in their prom attire were also expected to get prior authorization. According to Joy Nagy, Respondent neither signed up to volunteer nor sought permission to attend the prom. Respondent came to the prom with Mr. Mobley, a long-time substitute teacher. Both men were present for a short time, approximately twenty minutes. During their appearance at the prom, they were seen on the dance floor dancing with the students. Assistant Principal Azzarelli observed Respondent while he was at the prom, and he appeared to her to be under the influence of alcohol. He had the smell of alcohol on his person and on his breath, his eyes were dilated and his gait was unsteady. She and another administrator requested that Respondent and Mr. Mobley leave the dance, and they did so. After the prom, a group of students chose to continue celebrating, and rented rooms at a hotel in Clearwater Beach. Respondent and Mr. Mobley went to the hotel where the students were staying, and socialized with the students. The students were drinking alcohol at the hotel, and the presence of alcoholic beverages was evident. The next week, some students came forward asserting that Respondent and Mr. Mobley were partying with students in Clearwater Beach following the prom. During a subsequent investigation into the partying, Respondent admitted to Ms. Azzarelli that he went to Clearwater Beach after the prom, and had a couple of drinks at a club there. He also admitted that he went to the hotel room of some of the students. As a result of the investigation into the events surrounding the prom, school officials also received information regarding possible conduct by Respondent with respect to two female students at Hernando High School. M.G. M.G. is currently a student at Valencia Community College. At the time of the events in this case, she was a senior at Hernando High School, and was, along with a few other students, a manager for the track team. At some point during the 2007-2008 school year, M.G. was sent to the in-room suspension room for a dress code violation, because she was wearing a skirt that was too short. She was the last student to leave the room. As she was leaving the classroom, Respondent came up behind her and reached around, putting his hand underneath her skirt, over her underpants. M.G. immediately left the room. She did not report the incident to anyone initially, because there were no witnesses to the conduct and she did not think anyone would believe her. She thought that by staying out of in-school suspension and working with the other track managers, she would not be in a position where the situation could be repeated. However, there was a subsequent occasion where M.G. was taking inventory of the uniforms for the track team. She was again alone with Respondent, and he again came up behind her and touched her in the crotch area, over her clothes. On this occasion, M.G. was wearing capris pants. She left the room and, as before, did not tell anyone because she did not want to be in a position where she reported the behavior and no one believed her. She only came forward after hearing about another incident involving Respondent's alleged conduct with a female student.3/ A.H. A.H. was also a student at Hernando High School at the time of the events in question. She graduated in 2009, and is now a student at Pasco-Hernando Community College. There was an occasion during the 2007-2008 school year when A.H. was alone with Respondent in the portable where he taught. Respondent kissed her, and she tried to walk out. He grabbed her arm, pulled her back to him and kissed her again. Respondent also sent A.H. inappropriate text messages. For example, he would text her that he did not want to have sex with her because he knew she was a virgin, but that "I'll go down on you and show you a good time." Like M.G., A.H. did not want to tell anyone about the incident with Respondent because she did not want anyone to know about it. When questioned initially by school officials, she denied it for the same reason. Both girls were interviewed by Detective Morrell of the Hernando County Sheriff's Office during her investigation stemming from the conduct related to prom. The information given during the investigation by Detective Morrell and the information provided during the hearing was consistent. Unfortunately for both girls, after the conduct was investigated, there was significant publicity regarding the incidents. Information was published in both the print and electronic media. Consistent with her fears, M.G. was subjected to ridicule and the publicity related to the investigation made it difficult for her to finish her senior year. Neither girl wanted to press charges as a result of Respondent's conduct, because they did not want to have to deal with the publicity associated with criminal charges. Neither girl wanted to testify in this proceeding. However, both girls were candid and credible, despite their obvious reluctance to appear. On or about May 5, 2008, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his position with the school district.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and permanently revoking his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
