Findings Of Fact During the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was a student in the eighth grade at Southwood Middle School a/k/a Southwood Junior High School. Respondent was a student in the Industrial Arts class of Richard C. Altman during the 1987-1988 school year. While in that class Respondent repeatedly engaged in conduct which defied the authority of Mr. Altman, interfered with other students learning, and compromised the safety of the other students in the class. On several occasions he turned on dangerous machinery without authorization, without wearing goggles as required, and in defiance of Mr. Altman's instructions. Frequently he engaged in conduct that would call attention to himself and distract other students from their work. Some of Respondent's conduct included throwing objects in class, thereby posing a danger to other students. On many occasions Mr. Altman discussed Respondent's behavior with him; however, Respondent would continue demonstrating a "nasty" temper, defiance, and lack of respect. In addition, Respondent was often late to class and simply refused to participate in productive class work. Consequently, he was unable to derive any benefit from the learning experience available to him in Mr. Altman's class. Because of his frequent disruptions, he also precluded other students from learning. Mrs. Isabelle Norton had Respondent as a student in her history class during the 1988/1989 school year. In that class he did not turn in any of his homework assignments, never brought material to class, and was never prepared when he came to class which was infrequent. He did very little class work and usually engaged in talking and distracting the class from the normal class work. When his talking became a problem, Mrs. Norton moved Respondent to the back of the class where he then would place his head on a table and sleep. In one instance when Mrs. Norton confronted Respondent about his disruptive behavior, he indicated that he was going to "punch her." As a result of Respondent's defiance, poor performance, and disruptive conduct, he received an "F3F," which constitutes a failing academic and conduct grade and the lowest rating for effort. Ultimately, Respondent was removed from Mrs. Norton's class with the result that the educational process in her class improved. It is the practice at Southwood Junior High School for teachers and school administrators to submit reports relative to troublesome student behavior. Such reports are prepared on forms called Student Case Management Referral Forms and are generally reserved for serious behavior problems. Mr. Altman and Mrs. Norton each issued Student Case Management Referral Forms on Respondent regarding his disruptive behavior in the classroom, tardiness, excessive talking, safety violations and teacher defiance. Respondent also received Student Case Management Referral Forms from other teachers relating similar disruptive conduct. In one of these incidents Respondent and another student were throwing rocks at a school bus. As a result of this activity, a female student passenger was struck on the head, causing a laceration and requiring her to receive surgical stitches. Respondent faced expulsion from school for that conduct. In an attempt to focus Respondent's attention on his need to improve his behavior, Kenneth S. Cooper, the assistant principal, together with other teachers and counselors, tried numerous techniques to help Respondent. One technique tried with Respondent was to get him to enroll in a crime prevention program at the Optimist School. Notwithstanding all these efforts, including many student and parent conferences, warnings and suspensions, a positive change in Respondent's behavior was not achieved. At Southwood Junior High School, like other schools within the regular school program, the average number of students in a classroom is about thirty- five. Such schools are not geared to address peculiar student needs nor provide individual students with continuous special attention. On the other hand, opportunity schools have a ratio of teachers to students of about 9 to 1. At opportunity schools, students are the subject of individualized educational plans, and there are more counselors on staff, including a psychologist. The opinion of the teachers and administrators who dealt with and had conferences regarding Respondent is that the more structured environment of an opportunity school would be better for him and that permitting Respondent to remain in a regular school program would be of no benefit to him inasmuch as he is not making any progress. Due to Respondent's poor grades and unacceptable conduct, a child study team conference between teachers and an administrator was held to discuss Respondent's lack of progress. At that conference it was decided to administratively assign Respondent to an opportunity school.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Erik Wilson to the Youth Opportunity School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Frank A. Howard, Jr., Esquire Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Jamie C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Mrs. Willie Mae Wilson 17520 Homestead Avenue Perrine, FL 33157
The Issue Whether Respondent, Stephen Lauster (Mr. Lauster or Respondent), violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and (2)(a)5.; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher in the School District and has been since 1990. He holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 664969, covering the areas of educational leadership and music, which is valid through June 30, 2021. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education. The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. During the period relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a music teacher at the Middle School in the School District. Respondent’s annual professional evaluations for the relevant periods show scores considered “effective” and “highly effective.” Despite this, Respondent has an extensive disciplinary history with the School District, which is set forth below. On or about March 17, 2006, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from his then-principal, Frank Zencuch. On or about March 27, 2009, Respondent received a warning of unsatisfactory behavior from Principal Zencuch. On or about April 2, 2009, Respondent submitted a rebuttal to the March 27, 2009, written warning. On or about May 13, 2009, a Grievance Procedure Level II hearing was held to determine whether the letter of reprimand should be removed from Respondent’s personnel file. The grievance was denied by a School District representative and the letter of reprimand remained in Respondent’s file. On or about December 12, 2013, Respondent’s then-principal, Margaret Jackson, completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning his language/conduct toward students. On or about February 7, 2014, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning insubordination. On or about April 24, 2014, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning his language/conduct toward students. On or about March 30, 2018, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent, concerning his language/conduct toward students. On or about April 5, 2018, Respondent submitted a rebuttal to the March 30, 2018, conference summary. The Bus Incident on May 28, 2018 On May 28, 2018, Respondent was on his way home from school and was driving behind a school bus, which had left the Middle School ahead of him. Respondent was driving a large sports utility vehicle which allowed him to see into the rear window of the bus he followed. Respondent noticed students on the bus leaving their seats and moving around. Respondent contacted the School District’s transportation center to report the actions of the students on the bus. Respondent testified that after making his complaint to the transportation center, he saw no change in the actions of the students on the bus, who continued to leave their seats. Respondent continued to follow the bus until it made its first stop in a private gated community. Student M.O. lived in the gated community and got off at this stop to go home. At the time of the incident, M.O. was eleven years old. Her mother, K.O., waited in the community parking lot to pick M.O. up from school. When the bus stopped, Respondent pulled his car alongside the bus, exited his vehicle, and hurriedly approached the bus. M.O. disembarked the bus and walked towards her mother’s car. Respondent stood in front of the opened door of the bus and began to yell at the bus driver. Respondent then beckoned M.O. back to the bus. Respondent angrily yelled at M.O., telling her that the next day, “you come to the band room straight to the band office. If I have to come and find you it’ll be worse than what you are going to already get.” Seeing this transpire, K.O. approached Respondent to inquire about what was happening and why he was yelling at her daughter. K.O. asked Respondent who he was. Respondent told K.O. that the bus and M.O. were “in violation” and that M.O. was required to report to him in the morning. Respondent then continued to yell at the bus driver. He demanded the driver send another student to him—a student he claimed he witnessed standing in the bus’s aisles while it was being driven. K.O. touched Respondent’s arm from behind, to gain his attention. Respondent yelled at K.O. that she should not touch him. They engaged in a verbal exchange that was transcribed by a court reporter during K.O.’s. deposition: Respondent: Get your hands off me. Don’t ever touch me. I am doing what I’m supposed to do. K.O.: (Unintelligible.) Respondent: Lady, it’s fixing to get a lot worse. K.O.: What did you say to me? Respondent: I said, “Lady, it’s going to get worse.” Respondent scolded the bus driver for what he considered to be the driver’s inaction. He threatened all of the students on the bus with a “referral.” K.O. remained at the bus stop until the bus left. M.O. was upset and embarrassed by the incident. She did not know Respondent personally; she only knew that he was the school’s band director. The other students witnessed Respondent yelling at M.O. and K.O., which added to M.O.’s embarrassment. Later that evening, when K.O. arrived at home, she emailed Edward Laudise, the assistant principal of the Middle School, regarding the incident. The next day, Respondent reported to the Middle School, where he was told by Principal Jackson that he was not allowed to have any contact with M.O. On or about July 31, 2018, the School District’s Director of Human Resources recommended that Respondent be terminated based on the bus incident. The School District’s Superintendent joined in the recommendation for termination. However, on or about August 21, 2018, the School District suspended Respondent for a period of five days, without pay, instead. Thereafter, Respondent was the subject of several other disciplinary actions, unrelated to the bus incident. On or about August 27, 2018, Principal Jackson completed a conference summary regarding Respondent’s language/conduct toward students, co-workers, and parents, and his poor attendance and tardiness. On or about May 7, 2019, Principal Jackson held a meeting with Respondent to discuss allegations that Respondent told students, among other things, that “they would be the first generation of young people to die before their parents,” and that they “sound like they have stage 4 cancer.” On or about May 28, 2019, Respondent received a letter of reprimand and recommendation for a four-day suspension from the School District Director of Human Resources. On or about May 29, 2019, Respondent received a letter of reprimand and four-day suspension from the School District Superintendent. In September 2019, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the School District, through which the four-day suspension was reduced to two days. The P.E. Incident on January 30, 2020 A.H. and L.H. are students who attend the Middle School. On the date of the hearing, which was held approximately six months after the incident, A.H. and L.H. were 13 years old. On or about January 30, 2020, A.H. and L.H. were participating in physical education (PE) class. Melea Morgan was the PE teacher. A.H. and L.H. left PE class to go to the restroom. There is conflicting testimony as to the amount of time A.H. and L.H. spent in the bathroom, but the amount of time is irrelevant. After leaving the restroom, the students walked towards a water fountain. Respondent contacted Ms. Morgan to let her know that A.H. and L.H. were in the bathroom for a long time. He asked if she approved of him going to get them and Ms. Morgan agreed. Respondent approached A.H. and L.H. as they walked towards the water fountain. Respondent admonished A.H. and L.H. for being in the bathroom for an extended amount of time. He told them that they should be participating more in PE class and that he would be referring them to in-school suspension (ISS). Both A.H. and L.H. distinctly and explicitly recalled the events that took place that day. A.H. credibly testified about her interactions with Respondent, stating: And then Mr. Lauster – and then I started telling Mr. Lauster, so we will participate more, can we please not go to ISS. And he said, well, you’re on the soccer team, you shouldn’t be hanging out with a loser. She’s a do-nothing. You can’t -- you shouldn’t be hanging. And then I was just, like, we will participate more and I’m sorry. He was like, I expect more from you because you’re on the soccer team. And I was just -- and L said nothing. And I was just, I will do more. And then he just kept calling L a loser. A.H. distinctly recalled that Respondent referred to L.H. as a “do- nothing” and a “loser.” L.H.’s testimony was the same. She recalled that Respondent referred to her as both a “loser” and a “do-nothing” and that he asked A.H. why she was hanging out with “this loser,” referring to L.H. Respondent threatened to send A.H. and L.H. to ISS, but then told them he would give them another chance. The School District initiated an investigation into the matter. On or about March 6, 2020, Respondent received a letter of termination from the School District’s Superintendent. On or about April 22, 2020, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the School District. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the School District did not terminate Respondent. Rather, the settlement agreement operated as a “last chance agreement,” which provided for an automatic termination should any future infractions occur. Respondent was neither apologetic nor remorseful for how he handled A.H. and L.H. Instead, in testimony that was wholly unconvincing, he maintained that he did not call L.H. a “do-nothing” or a “loser,” but, rather, that he told the students that they “made a loser decision” and “chose to be do-nothings in the bathroom.” At only 12 or 13 years old at the time of the incident, L.H. was impressionable. By all accounts, she is a very shy girl. L.H.’s mother testified that L.H. struggles with anxiety and that in the past she has felt like she is a loser and does not have friends. She was “shook up” by Respondent’s comments. Similarly, Respondent was unremorseful and unapologetic about his actions during the bus incident. Respondent attempted to justify his behavior towards M.O., her mother, and the bus driver. He testified that he needed to stop the bus because he saw inappropriate activity on the bus that could have been dangerous to everyone onboard. Respondent is correct that the students on the bus were engaging in inappropriate behavior—they were getting in and out of their seats, walking in the aisles, and playfully fighting with each other. However, Respondent handled it poorly. Principal Jackson testified that the appropriate reaction would have been for Respondent to contact the School District’s transportation department (which he did) and then report the inappropriate behavior to school administration the next day. He should not have approached the bus or condemned the students or the bus driver. Respondent was clearly angry when he spoke to M.O. He lost his composure. Worse still, he directed his anger to K.O. Ultimate Findings of Fact The undersigned finds that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent inappropriately yelled at and intimidated M.O. who had changed seats on the bus while it was moving. Respondent also became confrontational with M.O.’s mother and threatened the remaining students on the bus with referrals, regardless of whether they were misbehaving or not. Petitioner also proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent told L.H., in front of A.H., that she was a “loser” and a “do nothing.” The undersigned finds that based on the findings of fact above, Respondent’s conduct during the bus incident and the PE incident have been proven by clear and convincing evidence and that Respondent, through his actions, violated the statutes and rules as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. None of the other factual allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint were proven by clear and convincing evidence.1
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 finding that Respondent, Stephen Lauster, violated section 1012.795(1)(j) by violating rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and (2)(a)5.; and as sanctions for such violations, suspending his educator’s certificate for one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE 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 3rd day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 303 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, a middle school teacher, violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., (2)(a)8., (2)(c)1., (2)(c)8., and (2)(c)9., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint (AAC); and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number 1299379, covering the area of music. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a Music Teacher at LMS in the Manatee County School District. The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Background On April 28, 2017, Respondent submitted a resignation letter to MCSD, and later that same day rescinded this resignation letter. Based on a prior investigation, on May 17, 2017, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the LMS principal for poor judgement and poor classroom management. MCSD Office of Professional Standards started another investigation of Respondent in May 2017. In June 2017, PPD served a subpoena on Respondent, and seized his electronic devices. On August 4, 2017, Respondent was temporarily reassigned to MCSD transportation office. On August 17, 2017, MCSD placed Respondent on paid administrative leave. In August 2017, Investigator Nelson completed an investigation report that went to MCSD senior administrators, including the superintendent and its legal counsel. A practice of MCSD is that once an investigation is opened involving a union member, that union member is represented by a union paid counsel. MCSD communicates solely through the employee’s counsel. At the time, Respondent was a union member, and was represented by counsel during the pertinent MCSD’s investigations. On August 30, 2017, Respondent was not present when his counsel met with Investigator Nelson and MCSD general counsel. They advised Respondent’s counsel of the evidence found regarding Respondent, and that MCSD was going to move forward with the termination of Respondent’s employment. Respondent’s counsel was informed that Respondent could resign his teaching position in lieu of termination. Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the Manatee County School Board (Board), dated September 1, 2017, providing for his resignation to become effective on September 12, 2017. Further, this letter provided that Respondent would not seek “reemployment” with MCSD. The Board was scheduled to meet on September 12, 2017, and would have considered any termination requests. Once Respondent resigned, MCSD did not have any further jurisdiction over Respondent. Dr. Breslin served as an assistant principal at SCSD’s Booker High School (Booker) when Respondent applied for a position there shortly after he resigned from MCSD. She was on the committee that interviewed the various candidates, including Respondent, and decided to hire Respondent. Respondent was hired by SCSD and taught at Booker. During his probationary period, Respondent was released from his SCSD employment. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the charged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with K.A., a sixteen year old female student, as evidenced by a picture of Respondent and K.A. kissing. On or about September 5, 2017, in the midst of a district investigation into inappropriate relationships between Respondent and female students, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his teaching position with the district, to be effective September 12, 2017. On or about September 22, 2017, Respondent submitted an application for a teaching position with Sarasota County Public Schools. Respondent fraudulently answered 'no' to the following questions: Have you ever: failed to fulfill a teaching or administrative contract? had any disciplinary action taken against you by any Board of Education? been removed or dismissed from any position? resigned in lieu of termination? On the last page of Respondent’s SCSD application, he certified that his answers were true and to the best of his knowledge. Pictures In June 2017, pursuant to a search warrant, the PPD seized Respondent’s laptop computer and two cell phones, and sent them to FDLE for analysis. FDLE Analyst Carson was assigned to retrieve any pictures and/or text messages from Respondent’s devices. FDLE Analyst Carson issued the results via a report to the PPD. The FDLE report was not admitted into evidence. Mr. Oyler (and other PPD officers) reviewed the FDLE report, including the pictures4/ taken from Respondent’s devices, and found no evidence of an inappropriate relationship as alleged by a female LMS student. However, Mr. Oyler observed pictures of Respondent with another young (female) person. Mr. Oyler contacted LMS Resource Officer Moore to determine the identity of this other young female. Officer Moore, a 17-year employee of PPD, has been a resource officer assigned and stationed at LMS since 2013. In early 2016, Respondent was investigated for “some allegations,” and Officer Moore had a conversation with Respondent about his interactions with female students. Officer Moore advised Respondent to: So you just protect yourself. Make sure you’re keeping the door [to his classroom] open if you can between classes with view so the other [band/orchestra] teacher has observation. Don’t be alone with students, especially female students. Make sure you’re protecting yourself and making smart choices about it. Officer Moore knows N.A., the mother of K.A.5/ During the 2016-2017 school year, Officer Moore and N.A. both worked at LMS. Officer Moore would see K.A., a MCSD student, when she came to LMS to wait for her mother. Additionally, Officer Moore socialized with the A. family at various parties, including K.A.’s graduation from high school in May 2018. At the hearing, Officer Moore was shown a picture retrieved from Respondent’s devices of two people kissing, specifically Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, page 39 (hereafter referred to as the “kissing photograph”). When shown the kissing photograph, Officer Moore expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying the two persons kissing: Respondent and K.A. Further, Officer Moore identified Respondent and K.A., individually or together, in the remaining pictures of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 40-47. Officer Moore’s testimony is found credible. Investigator Nelson conducted two investigations of Respondent, and met with him five or six times. When shown the pictures retrieved from Respondent’s devices, Investigator Nelson expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying Respondent in all of the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, including the kissing photograph. Investigator Nelson’s testimony is found credible. Respondent’s counsel, through questioning of Mr. Oyler intimated that K.A. manipulated and uploaded multiple altered images to Respondent’s electronic devices. Mr. Oyler provided that he had heard K.A. “saying that she modified the images,” or that she had “doctored the photos.” K.A. did not testify in this hearing, nor did any other students. However, Mr. Oyler interviewed K.A. during the course of the PPD investigation. Initially K.A. denied having any relationship with Respondent. However, when Mr. Oyler presented K.A. with all the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, her reaction left Mr. Oyler with the impression that K.A. and Respondent had “more of a romantic, physical relationship.” Mr. Oyler’s testimony is found credible. Pastor Mazon was asked the following question: “Do you recognize the male in that photograph [the kissing photograph]?” He answered “Not really, not from that angle . . . no, not really.” He was then asked specifically: “Does that appear to be Mr. Peterson [Respondent] in that photograph?” Pastor Mazon responded: “It would be hard for me to tell from the side view like that. I would have to see it from the front.” And when shown the same kissing photograph in color and asked if the male was Respondent, Pastor Mazon replied: “That’s still a hard call for me. You know, skin tone. But then I see a scar from – on behind the ear, which I never saw, which I never - - that’s kind of hard for me, yeah. . . . I wouldn’t be able to identify him in that fashion.” Pastor Mazon was unable to confirm or deny that Respondent was in the kissing photograph, yet he positively identified Respondent in each remaining picture of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18. Pastor Mazon’s testimony lacks clarity and credibility as he waffled on identifying Respondent in the first picture, but had no hesitation in the remaining pictures. Ms. Bellamy, Respondent’s aunt, testified that she did not recognize the male in the kissing photograph. In the remaining pictures, Ms. Bellamy confirmed Respondent was in the pictures on pages 40 and 42 of Exhibit 18, but was not in the pictures on pages 41 or 43 through 47. Ms. Bellamy did confirm that Respondent was in the picture in Petitioner’s Exhibit 20. As Respondent’s relative, Ms. Bellamy’s testimony appears to be selective and is not found credible. Sarasota County School District Petitioner’s Exhibit 17, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent was under contract with MCSD to serve as an instructional employee for the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, Respondent’s resignation letter, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent resigned his MCSD position for the 2017-2018 school year, effective September 12, 2017. Further, Respondent agreed to not seek reemployment with MCSD. Dr. Breslin was an assistant principal at Booker in Sarasota, Florida, for the 2017-2018 school year. She served on the committee that interviewed candidates for a teaching position at Booker. Dr. Breslin reviewed and relied upon Respondent’s SCSD application, and interviewed Respondent (with the other committee members) for the Booker teaching position. Further, Dr. Breslin performed the reference checks regarding Respondent’s application. Dr. Breslin was instrumental in the decision to hire Respondent for the position at Booker. Dr. Breslin was never provided a copy of Respondent’s letter of reprimand or his MCSD resignation letter. Further, during SCSD’s interview process, Dr. Breslin was not told that Respondent had been under investigation by MCSD. Dr. Breslin confirmed that by Respondent’s failure to tell her (or the committee) of these (the letter of reprimand, his resignation letter from MCSD, and/or the investigation), Respondent gave a false presentation. Had Dr. Breslin known of any of these, Respondent would not have been brought in for an interview and would not have been hired. Dr. Bowden testified that Respondent was released from his SCSD teaching contract during his probationary period. Typically, SCSD does not provide a reason for an employee’s release. However in this case, Respondent’s employment was terminated based on his arrest. Dr. Bowden also testified that Respondent’s failure to advise SCSD of his resignation from MCSD, his letter of reprimand, and that he was under investigation was tantamount to falsification of his application to work for SCSD. Respondent was represented by competent counsel, during MCSD’s investigation and his ultimate resignation from MCSD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty on Counts 1, 2, and 5 through 8, and permanently revoking his Educator Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 24th day of October, 2019.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Claudia Walker, was employed as a continuing contract teacher by Petitioner Broward County School Board. The Respondent taught from January 1979 through November 1, 1984 at Bright Horizons School. In November 1984, she transferred to South Florida State Exceptional Student Center and thereafter taught elementary school age children with behavioral problems. Among those assigned to her Self-contained classroom were some homicidal and suicidal students with low impulse control. During the time Respondent has worked for the Broward County School Board, her teaching evaluations have been good, to outstanding, to exceptional. She has never previously been cited or disciplined. Doris Seitner was employed by Petitioner as a teaching assistant from approximately September 3, 1985 to December 3, 1985 and was assigned to Respondent's class. On Thursday, November 7, 1985, Respondent and Seitner took the class of about 25 students on a field trip to the Metro Zoo. Prior to their departure on the bus, Ms. Seitner noticed Respondent entering the staff restroom. When Respondent emerged, a student immediately entered the restroom. Upon the student exiting the restroom, Ms. Seitner also entered the restroom where she found a small pink glasses case. Believing the case belonged to the student, the aide opened the purse and saw a plastic baggie containing a white powder, a small vial, a razor blade, and several cut up straws. Upon leaving the restroom, Ms. Seitner encountered the Respondent, who identified the case as hers and took it. At this point, the state of events was that Doris Seitner had seen a substance she thought was cocaine. Doris Seitner is not an expert on drug identification. She admits never previously having seen cocaine up close. Although she had seen some drug abuse classes at the school, she had no courses in cocaine and had never smelled or tasted it. She did not open the plastic baggie or examine its contents on November 7, 1985. However, believing that the case contained cocaine and drug related paraphernalia, Ms. Seitner confided what she had found, together with her suspicions to a number of people and sought their advice on how to proceed. Shawn Joseph, another teacher's aide, suggested Ms. Seitner inform the school officials of what she had found. Later in the evening, Ms. Seitner contacted Pam Tepsic, a teacher on task assignment, who suggested she advise the principal immediately. The acting principal, Kathryn Mangan, upon learning of the discovery, contacted Howard Stearns, Petitioner's Director of Internal Affairs, who referred her to William Bohan. At all times material, William Bohan was employed by Petitioner as an investigator for Internal Affairs and has been a certified law enforcement officer. On November 12, 1985, Mangan told Bohan about Ms. Seitner's belief that she had seen cocaine in Respondent's glasses case. Bohan instructed Mangan to take no action but to call him in case the glasses case was seen again. Bohan interviewed Ms. Seitner and instructed her to watch out for the case. On the morning of Monday, November 25, 1985, while Respondent was in her classroom, Ms. Seitner came in and asked if she could fetch lunch for Respondent. Respondent retrieved her purse from the back room of the self- contained classroom, a location called "the teacher planning area", wherein she normally isolates her purse from the students, and gave Ms. Seitner money to pay for her lunch. Doris Seitner sat at the desk, and looking down into the Respondent's unzipped purse, spotted the pink glasses case. Seitner notified Tepsic, who notified John Smith, acting principal, who notified Bohan, who came to the school. Bohan and Tepsic walked to Respondent's classroom. When they arrived there, Tepsic approached Respondent in the classroom; Bohan stationed himself at the door. Tepsic told Respondent that a man wanted to see her in the principal's office. Tepsic avoided responding to Respondent's repeated requests to know what was going on or answered Respondent that she did not know what was going on. Respondent walked with Tepsic to the door. Bohan asked Respondent if the purse by her classroom desk was hers. The Respondent answered, "yes" whereupon Bohan walked over, picked up the purse, and, retaining the purse, began walking with Respondent and Pam Tepsic to John Smith's office. On the way to Smith's office, Respondent told Bohan she could carry her own purse but Bohan responded that he could carry it. She repeated her questions to Pam Tepsic, asking what was going on and received the same evasions. In making the immediately preceding finding of fact, the testimony of Pam Tepsic, Investigator Bohan, and Respondent have been considered and weighed. While Investigator Bohan testified that Respondent said and did nothing to claim her purse after he seized it and Pam Tepsic initially related that Respondent said nothing about her purse at any time in the classroom or while walking over to the principal's office, Pam Tepsic's testimony as a whole reveals that she was particularly nervous during all these incidents and that at a point in time closer to the actual events, she had believed some such conversation took place between Bohan and Respondent, but that on the date of formal hearing she simply could not recall any conversation between Bohan and the Respondent, including Bohan's asking Respondent if the purse were hers and Respondent's reply, "yes", statements Bohan and Respondent each testified had been made. The Respondent's account of her request to carry her own purse is highly credible. It is simply not credible that any adult woman would not request return of such an intimate item as her purse, containing all her personal effects, including valuables and money, from a man whom she had never seen before in the absence of any explanation of what was going on. Bohan, Tepsic, and Respondent entered John Smith's office. Bohan placed Respondent's purse on Smith's desk in front of himself. Bohan told Respondent he had been informed she was in possession of an illegal drug and asked if she would consent to Bohan's searching her purse. Pam Tepsic's recollection of what happened next was that either Respondent said she would consent to the search or that someone else said Respondent had consented or said something like, "Well, then you consent," to Respondent. Respondent denies ever being asked to consent to a search of her purse. John Smith understood Bohan to ask permission to search the purse and understood that Respondent said "yes" to Bohan's request. Bohan relates an affirmative answer from Respondent. Before he started searching her purse, but after the question concerning consent/permission, Bohan asked Respondent did she have anything in her purse that might be a problem that she might want to tell him about before he searched her purse. Tepsic, Bohan, Smith, and Respondent are in agreement that Respondent replied, "yes" that she did want to tell Bohan what was in the purse. The explanation given at that time was that early that morning she had taken cocaine and other items from her estranged husband who had a drug problem. Bohan removed from Respondent's purse the pink glasses case; some other unrelated items; four small plastic bags containing a white powdery residue; four straws cut 2-1/4 inches to 2-3/4 inches long; one GEM single edge razor blade; one small, 3/4 inch empty vial; one piece of aluminum foil 2-1/2 inches by 3-1/4 inches; eight straws in Wendy's wrappers; one wooden toothpick; and one nickel. When Respondent persisted in her explanation that the drugs and paraphernalia were her husband's property and that she had taken them to protect him but in response to further questioning by Bohan, Respondent was unable to flesh out an explanation she had begun concerning the husband's drug counselling and treatment and her participation therein, Bohan told Respondent that her options were either jail in Fort Lauderdale via the Broward County Sheriff's Department or discussing the matter at Petitioner's Internal Affairs Office. Although Bohan asserted that he made no "threats," Bohan, Tepsic, Smith, and Respondent concur that these were the only alternatives Bohan provided Respondent during their confrontation in Smith's office. A subsequent laboratory analysis conducted on the items seized November 25, 1985 revealed the presence of cocaine only in the small plastic bag containing the white powder. The property in the purse was taken into the Internal Affairs Office for inventory. These items, including the cocaine, were described by Ms. Seitner as "similar" to the items she saw in the pink case on November 7, 1985. Respondent customarily keeps a razor blade in her purse to use for arts and crafts projects in her class. Other teachers at the center also use razor blades to perform art projects. The Respondent customarily keeps drinking straws in her purse to give to her three small children to drink with while they are riding in her car. Article XVIII, Section K, of the current collective bargaining agreement between the Broward Teachers Union and Petitioner provides: "No investigation of an em- ployee, beyond preliminary inquiry, by the Internal Affairs Department may be undertaken without written notice to the employee, such notice to include a statement of the cause giving rise to the investigation." No written notice was given to Respondent by Petitioner. A sign posted on the grounds of the school at the front gate notifies anyone entering that they are subject to being searched while on the grounds. (TR 149-150) Respondent accompanied Bohan to Internal Affairs where Bohan and Stearns interrogated her. Respondent again told them the drugs inventoried belonged to her husband. She further revealed to Stearns, apparently in hopes of receiving counselling instead of dismissal, that she had been clean of cocaine during the nine months of her recent pregnancy and clean recently until the immediately preceding Saturday night. (TR-205) After Internal Affairs finished questioning Respondent, Bohan took her to the Employee Assistance Program and then later to the Broward Alcohol and Rehabilitation Center. Respondent claims she was denied use of a phone to contact anyone until she reached the Employee Assistance Program, but she concedes there were public phones available at the school and she did not insist on using any. At hearing, Respondent testified that she had never used cocaine and would not have used it in November, 1985 because she was breastfeeding her new daughter. She also testified that the contraband items were taken from her husband the morning of November 25, however, rather than corroborating this story, the testimony of Wilton Johnson, her estranged husband, is contrary to Respondent's account of the incident in so many details as to adversely affect Respondent's credibility that the incident occurred. Respondent was suspended with pay November 26-28, 1985, the remainder of the school week. On Monday, December 2, 1985, she was permitted to resume her classroom duties until she was notified of suspension with pay, December 6, 1985. On December 19, 1985, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Counts I and II, finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts III and IV, and dismissing her from employment. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 5th day of September, 1986.
The Issue Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case the reassignment of Petitioner Richard Hodgkins from the position of Director of Business and Finance to the position of Supervisor of Transportation was a demotion rather than a transfer and thereby entitling Petitioner to relief.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At the time of the hearing, Petitioner Richard Hodgkins (Hodgkins) had been employed by the St. Johns County School Board (Board) for approximately 13 years. In the beginning, Hodgkins worked for the St. Augustine Technical Center in several different capacities and was appointed to the position of Supervisor of Operations by the Board for the 1984-1985 school year (SY). Hodgkins was appointed Finance Officer (the title was later changed to Director of Business and Finance) for the 1985-1986 SY by the Board on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools in St. Johns County, Otis A. Mason (Mason) who had just won his first 4 year term as superintendent in the elections held in 1984 after previously working for the school system in various capacities for over 30 years. Subsequently, the Board appointed Hodgkins to the position of Director of Business and Finance on the recommendation of Mason for each of the next three SYs; 1986-1987, 1987-1988 and 1988-1989. The position of Director of Business and Finance is a non-tenured, non- instructional, administrative position in the St. Johns County School System which reports directly to the Superintendent of Schools and is subject to annual appointment for the school year by the Board on the recommendation of the Superintendent. Hodgkins is not a continuing contract employee. Hodgkins does not have a written contract with the Board and is not a member of any bargaining unit. During his 13 years of employment with the Board, Hodgkins has always received favorable ("at expectation") performance evaluations, was consistently promoted and had received raises each year. While Hodgkins served as Director of Business and Finance his immediate supervisor and performance evaluator was Mason. All of Mason's written performance evaluations of Hodgkins were satisfactory or "at expectation", including his midyear and year-end performance evaluation of Hodgkins during the 1987-1988 SY which were completed in March and July 1, 1988 respectively. Mason has not given Hodgkins a written performance evaluation for the 1988-1989 SY in the position of Director of Business and Finance. While satisfactory job performance may be necessary for continued employment during the period of appointment for the position of Director of Business and Finance, satisfactory job performance does not necessarily determine reappointment. Recommendation by the superintendent is determinative of reappointment unless the Board finds "good cause" under the law to reject the superintendent's recommendation. The Board implemented a Performance Management System which required semiannual written assessments of an employee's performance at midyear (February) and year-end (May), effective with the 1987-1988 SY and continuing into the 1988-1989 SY, along with notice to any employee regarding performance deficiencies, and assistance with respect to improvement of job performance. As Director of Business and Finance, Hodgkins' primary responsibility was the annual preparation of the District School System's (System) budget and budget control for the System. At present, as Supervisor of Transportation, Hodgkins' primary responsibility is the hiring and direction of all bus drivers. Although the System's Total Fund Balance decreased from $2 million plus in 1985 to $1 million plus in 1987, there was no evidence that Hodgkins was responsible for the approximate $1 million reduction in the Total Fund Balance or that Hodgkins failed to timely make the Board or Mason aware of such reduction during 1985 through 1987. From Mason's performance evaluation of Hodgkins in 1988, it is clear that Mason did not have any serious problems or concerns about Hodgkins' ability to perform his duties as Director of Business and Finance, notwithstanding the concerns of Bill Mignon, Principal of Allen Nease Jr./Sr. High School, and Gary P. Blount, Principal of St. Augustine High School, expressed in their memoranda to Hodgkins in March and July, 1988 respectively, since Mason was aware of their concerns prior to his performance evaluation of Hodgkins. Although Mason expressed some concern about Hodgkins' ability to perform his duties as Director of Business and Finance, specifically the preparation of the System's 1988-1989 budget, as early as August, 1988, Mason's concern, along with several of the Directors and Principals within the System as expressed in their respective memorandums, intensified after Mason's election on September 6, 1988. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that this was a result of Hodgkins' refusal to publicly support Mason for superintendent of schools. On September 15, 1988, when Hodgkins' efforts had failed to timely produce a balanced budget, Mason appointed David Toner, Director of Facilities Planning/Operations, "to coordinate efforts of the directors and staff in preparing the final budget information" for presentation to the Board on the evening of September 19, 1988. This joint effort by the directors (including Hodgkins) and the staff working over the weekend resulted in the budget information being finalized and presented to Mason on Monday morning, September 19, 1988 and presented to the Board by Hodgkins as Director of Business and Finance on the evening of September 19, 1988. Although Hodgkins was required by Mason to present the budget to the Board on September 19, 1988, it is clear that Mason, by appointing Toner and subsequent actions, had lost confidence in Hodgkins and intended to remove Hodgkins from a position of authority in the budget process. Toner expressed certain concerns about the budget by memorandum to Mason at this time; however, these same concerns had been expressed previously by Toner and other directors and principals. Several of the directors and principals continued to express their concern about Hodgkins' handling of the budget to both Mason and Hodgkins after the budget was presented to the Board and continuing after Hodgkins' reassignment was presented to the Board on October 11, 1988. The memoranda from the directors, principals and some Board members, including those prior to Hodgkins' performance evaluation, mainly expressed concern about failure of Hodgkins to furnish printouts of certain data relating to a particular school or failure to furnish information requested by a Board member or concerning cuts in a director's or principal's budget. Hodgkins responded to these concerns as he became aware of them but not always to everyone's satisfaction. In those instances where Hodgkins was not made aware of the concerns simultaneously with Mason, it was not shown that Mason deliberately withheld those concerns from Hodgkins. Sometime, during or after July, 1988, Mason began to keep a personal file on Hodgkins in his office, made up of the memoranda discussed above which eventually found its way into Hodgkins' personnel file. Hodgkins was not aware of all of the memoranda in this personal file of Mason's. Additionally, Hodgkins was not aware of them being made a part of his personnel file or that Board members were being allowed to review his personnel file, specifically the memoranda discussed above, without his knowledge and in some instances before Hodgkins had reviewed them or had an opportunity to respond. By memorandum dated October 4, 1988, Mason advised Hodgkins that he would recommend to the Board at its next regular session on October 11, 1988 to reassign Hodgkins from the position of Director of Business and Finance to the position of Supervisor of Transportation for the remainder of the 1988-1989 SY at his current salary. Mason's stated purpose for the reassignment was three fold: (a) to offer new challenges to staff members; (b) to fulfill immediate needs of the school system; and (c) to continue improving efficiency, coordination and accountability. At its regular session on October 11, 1988, the Board considered Mason's reassignment of Hodgkins but the matter was tabled because of some concerns expressed by members of the Board. At its regular session on November 8, 1988, the matter of Hodgkins' reassignment was removed from the table and after discussion a motion to approve Mason's recommendation died for lack of a second. At a special meeting of the Board on December 16, 1988, the matter of Hodgkins' reassignment was again discussed and the recommendation by Mason to reassign Hodgkins to the position of Supervisor of Transportation was approved by the Board on a 3/2 vote. The date of reassignment was not made clear at this meeting but was clarified by the Board at its regular meeting on January 10, 1989 to be effective December 16, 1988. Additionally, at its regular meeting on January 10, 1989, the Board granted Hodgkins' request for a formal hearing without waiving its right to raise the issue of whether Hodgkins' substantial interest had been affected. After reassignment to the position of Supervisor of Transportation, Hodgkins continued to receive the same salary he was receiving as Director of Business and Finance, including the salary supplements for serving on the Board's negotiating team. Although the position of Director of Business and Finance is a pay grade 8, while the position of Supervisor of Transportation is a pay grade 7, a review of the qualifications and responsibilities set out in the Position Description of each position adopted by the Board contained in Petitioner's Composite exhibit 4 shows the positions to be similar in that: (a) both are administrative positions; (b) both require a college degree; (c) both have reporting requirements to the state; (d) both require direction of personnel, albeit different type personnel; (e) both involve budget preparation, with the Supervisor of Transportation involved only in his budget whereas the Director of Business and Finance has the responsibility for the entire System's budget; (f) both require interaction and cooperation with other Board personnel; (g) while the Director of Business and Finance can serve as a regular team member and a revolving team member on the negotiating teams, the Supervisor of Transportation is eligible only as a revolving team member which could result in the Supervisor of Transportation receiving a lower salary supplement; and (h) both involve supervisory duties and accountability for their respective areas. There is insufficient evidence to establish that Hodgkins was unable to secure alternate comparable employment. There is insufficient evidence to show that Hodgkins' professional reputation has been publicly disparaged. There is insufficient evidence to establish that Hodgkins' reassignment from the position of Director of Business and Finance to the position of Supervisor or Transportation was a result of Hodgkins' exercise of his First Amendment rights or Hodgkins' refusal to publicly support Mason or that the reassignment was "politically" motivated. Because of a loss of confidence in Hodgkins' ability to "handle the job", perceived or real, that some directors, some principals, some Board members and Mason was experiencing there was a lack of harmony within the System.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED the Respondent, School Board of St. Johns County, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner, Richard Hodgkins, the relief sought and upholding the Board's transfer of Richard Hodgkins to the position of Supervisor of Transportation for the remainder of the 1988-1989 school year at the salary being paid Hodgkins at the time of the transfer on December 16, 1988, including any salary supplements for serving on the negotiating team. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0464 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner, Richard Hodgkins Each of the following Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the Proposed Finding of Fact: 1(1,3); 2(3); 3(4); 4(6); 5(7); 6(8); 7(4); 8(9); 9-10(10); 11-12(15); 14(16,17); 15(17,18,20); 17(24); 18(11); 19(12); 20(30); 21(25); 23(25); 24(26); 25-26(23); 27-28(27). Proposed Findings of Fact 16, 22, 29 & 30 are rejected as not being material or relevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 13 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent, St. Johns County School Board Each of the following proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the Proposed Finding of Fact: 1(3); 2(3); 3(3); 4(5); 5(3); 6(8); 7(11); 8(14); 9(15); 10(20,21); 11(11); 12(13); 13(14); 14-18(20,21); 19-20(16); 21(17); 22(19); 23,25,26(20,21); 27,28(24); 29(15,18); 30(34); 31(24); 32,33,35(29); 40-41(30); 42,43(27,28). Proposed Findings of Fact 24, 34, & 36-39 are rejected as not being material or relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Otis A. Mason Superintendent St. Johns County Schools 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Chairman St. Johns County School Board Orange Street School Board Center St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Linda Logan Bryan, Esquire MILLER, SHINE & BRYAN, P.A. 97 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Joann M. Bricker, Esquire COFFMAN, COLEMAN, ANDREWS & GROGAN Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp (Sapp), was nonrenewed for his annual teaching contract for constitutionally permissible reasons.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by the Escambia County School Board for the 1984-85 school year in the compensatory education program at Bellview Middle School and later that school year he took the place of an eighth grade math teacher who was out on maternity leave. Sapp holds a Florida Teaching Certificate in elementary education and is not certified to teach in middle school. He has a bachelors degree. Sapp was asked by the School Board to take the courses necessary to become certified in middle school math, but did not do so because he was working at another job at the time. Petitioner was hired on annual contract by the principal of Bellview Middle School to teach seventh grade math during the 1985-86 school year and to teach sixth grade for the 1986-87 school year. For the most part, Sapp received excellent performance evaluations from the Bellview principal. In September, 1986, a mother of a Bellview Middle School student complained to the principal regarding what she believed to be unacceptable contact between Sapp and her son. The principal told Sapp to stay away from the student, but the parent's complaints continued. The student had been in Sapp's seventh grade math class the prior school year. On November 7, 1986, Sapp was arrested for lewd and lascivious assault on that student. As a result of these charges the Superintendent of the Escambia County School District recommended to the School Board that Sapp be suspended without pay. The School Board voted to disapprove the Superintendent's recommendation. Instead, Sapp was reassigned to administrative duties at the Hall Center. In the fall of 1986, Sapp was also notified by the Department of Education, Professional Practices Services (PPS), that an investigation of the allegations involved in the criminal charge had been instituted. On April 1, 1987, Sapp received the standard memo from the School Board, signed by the Bellview principal, indicating that his annual contract was going to expire at the end of the 1986-87 school year. The memo also indicated that the school district would move as rapidly as possible on the reappointment of the annual contract teachers recommended to the Superintendent for reappointment for the 1987-88 school year, but "personnel assignments resulting from the closing of the Beggs Center and the redistricting of all middle school boundaries greatly obscures the timeline for such reappointments." During the summer of 1987, Sapp talked to Dr. Roger Mott, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services of the school district, and others in his office regarding appointment to an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year. Sapp claims he was told by Mott that he would not be rehired until after his criminal trial. Mott denies telling this to Sapp. Because Sapp's testimony was very confused and contradictory regarding these alleged statements by Mott, Sapp's version is given little weight. Instead, it is found that Mott did not tell Sapp that he would be rehired after the criminal trial. During the discussions between Sapp and Mott in the summer of 1987, Mott did tell Sapp that he was free to interview with any principals in the district for open annual contract positions, however those principals who inquired would be told that there was a Professional Practices Services investigation. Sapp expressed interest only in employment at Bellview. During 1987 the middle schools of Escambia County were redistricted. As a result of redistricting, Bellview Middle School anticipated losing approximately 300 students and 10 teaching positions for the 1987-88 school year. After the jury found him not guilty on August 12, 1987, Sapp again inquired regarding employment. According to Charles McCurley, principal of Bellview Middle School, there were no positions available at Bellview. By letter dated August 21, 1987, Sapp was advised that the Professional Practices Services was investigating two complaints. The first related to the charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The second complaint was that Sapp had received his teaching certificate by fraudulent means because he failed to disclose two criminal convictions on his applications. Mott became aware of the PPS investigation and he discovered that Sapp had apparently falsified the applications for his teaching certificate and the applications for employment with the Escambia County School District. Mott then informed Sapp that the chances of reemployment were not good and that he could not be considered for employment until the PPS investigation was complete. Mott also testified that Sapp was not reemployed because of the information that formed the basis of the second PPS investigation. While this is not the place to determine whether or not Sapp falsified these applications, it is necessary to determine what facts the Respondent acted on in not renewing Sapp's annual contract. Sapp's applications to both the school district and the state showed that he answered "no" when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor or other criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Sapp has, in fact, been convicted of at least two such violations which were not disclosed. Sapp approached Robert Husbands, Executive Director of the Escambia Education Association, for assistance in getting employment. Husbands talked to Mott. Mott informed him that Sapp could not be rehired until the PPS investigation was resolved. Husbands found that there were seven teaching positions in the whole county which were vacant at the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. Two of those positions were located some distance from Pensacola. Only one of those positions was known to have been filled by an annual contract teacher. There were 37 annual contract teachers in the school district who were not renewed for the 1987-88 school year. Eight others who were not renewed at the beginning of the school year were rehired during the year. Because of redistricting, Bellview had only one opening for an annual contract teacher after it placed its continuing contract teachers. That one opening was for reading and was filled by a reading teacher with a masters degree. Sapp was not qualified for that position. After the 1987-88 school year had begun, Bellview experienced increased enrollment and a resulting increase in teaching positions. Those positions were filled by teachers who were teaching in their field of certification and who were at least as qualified as Sapp. It was very important that Bellview have teachers working in their area of certification because the school was to be audited for accreditation in the 1987-88 school year. Sapp's former position at Bellview was filled by a continuing contract teacher who had previously taught seventh grade and who was certified to teach in both middle and elementary school. The teacher who took over Sapp's class in the 1986-87 school year was not rehired. During the first week of the 1987-88 school year, Sapp sought employment at Bellview and the principal correctly told him there were no jobs. Later, in October, 1987, a position opened up at Bellview and a continuing contract teacher with a masters degree in reading and 18 years of experience was transferred in at her request. Sapp believes he was not renewed as retaliation for the School Board's rejection of the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension on January 27, 1987. This allegation is based only on Sapp's personal feeling and no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. Sapp also believes he was not renewed because of the arrest itself. Again, no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. By letter of September 18, 1987, the School District, through counsel, advised Sapp's attorney that Sapp would not be considered for reemployment until the PPS investigation was concluded and the District was advised of the results. The PPS has not filed any complaint against Sapp based on either of its investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp, be DENIED relief from the nonrenewal of his annual contract and that his request for relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5059 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Finding's of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(10); 3(12); 4(14); 5(2); 6(2); 8(3); 9(3); 11(4); 12(5); 13(8); 15(6); 16(7); 18(23); 20(20); 21(24); 22(26); 23(26); and 25(27). Proposed findings of fact 7, 17, 28 and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Propose findings of fact 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Escambia County Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(9); 2(1 and 10); 3(11); 4(25); 5(25); 6(13); 7(14 and 16); 8(15 and 22); 9(18); 10(22 and 23); 11(6); 12(19); 13(29); 14(30 and 31); 15(32); 16(33); 18(19); 19(27); 20(28); 21(33); 22(34); and 23(35). Proposed finding of fact 17 is rejected as being unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 24 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: G. James Roark, III, Esquire 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mike Holloway Superintendent of School Board Escambia County 215 West Garden Street Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s Equivalency of Training Out-of-State/Federal Officer Form (CJSTC-76) should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Benvenuti is seeking eligibility for an equivalency of training exemption from basic recruit training. Mr. Benvenuti has approximately 18 years of experience in law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service. Mr. Benvenuti was employed as a firefighter in the State of Connecticut, with the City of New London, from January 1971 to July 1979. He was also employed as a police officer in the State of Connecticut, with the Town of Waterford, from June 1977 through December 1998, when he was not on shifts with the City of New London as a firefighter. Additionally, Mr. Benvenuti was the certified Fire Marshall for the City of New London and the Acting Deputy Fire Marshall for the Town of Waterford. On January 7, 1985, Mr. Benvenuti was certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida and became a law enforcement officer with the Oakland Park Public Safety Department in Oakland Park, Florida. He voluntarily left the Oakland Park Public Safety Department on August 20, 1987, to return to Connecticut. When Mr. Benvenuti returned to Connecticut in 1987, he was re-employed by the New London Fire Department. In 1989, because of a lower back injury, he retired. Mr. Benvenuti was subsequently licensed by the State of Florida as a private investigator. He worked as a private investigator from 1991 to 2001, with a company performing investigations and surveillance. During his tenure with the company, Mr. Benvenuti received training from the United States Customs Office and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and performed airport security in Costa Rica. Mr. Benvenuti is presently the general manager of a towing company in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Among other things, he has constant contact with law enforcement officers. Mr. Benvenuti has impressive letters of recommendation. The letters of recommendation include recommendations from the Chief of Police of the Waterford Police Department and of the Oakland Park Public Safety Department, and the Fire Chief of the City of New London. During the summer of 2003, Mr. Benvenuti decided to get re-certified, as a law enforcement officer in Florida, since he had a "love" for law enforcement and after becoming aware that a friend of his had returned to school in the spring of 2003 for re-certification. Mr. Benvenuti inquired about re- certification at Broward Community College (College). The College offers the Pre-Exam Qualification Course for the Equivalency Training exam. Mr. Benvenuti was informed by the College that the class offered in July 2003 was already full and that he had to wait until the next available class was offered, which was in September 2003. In August 2003, Mr. Benvenuti forwarded his information to the College to register for the class, together with the required registration fee. The class was scheduled for September 29 through October 21, 2003. Notification of his acceptance into the class was forwarded to Mr. Benvenuti on September 2, 2003, by the College. On August 23, 2003, Mr. Benvenuti filed a completed Equivalency of Training Form with the CJSTC. On the Equivalency of Training Form, he indicated, among other things, that he was seeking certification as a law enforcement officer; that he was an inactive Florida officer; and that his prior criminal justice employment was with the Oakland Park Police Department, as a law enforcement officer from January 17, 1985 to August 20, 1987. CJSTC reviewed Mr. Benvenuti's Equivalency Training Form. By letter dated August 25, 2003, CJSTC informed Mr. Benvenuti that, due to a recent change in the law for eligibility, which took effect July 11, 2003, his eight-year break in employment made him ineligible for equivalency training and that, therefore, his Equivalency Training Form was denied. The College was not aware of the change in the law until it was re-contacted by Mr. Benvenuti regarding the denial by CJSTC. Mr. Benvenuti's qualifications are not at issue in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order denying approval of Richard A. Benvenuti's Equivalency of Training Out-of-State/Federal Officer Form (CJSTC-76). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, First Coast Technical College (Respondent) retaliated against Petitioner, Gregory R. Lulkoski (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), section 760.01-760.11, Florida Statutes?1/ Secondary issues raised by Respondent are whether the St. Johns County School Board (School Board) is immune from Petitioner’s allegations, and, if not, whether the School Board was Petitioner’s employer during the relevant period.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner worked for FCTC for several years in several different positions, including as a career pathways supervisor, and most recently as a grant writer. FCTC was, for all times relevant to Petitioner’s allegations, a conversion charter technical center in St. Johns County, Florida, operating pursuant to a charter contract with the School Board by a privately organized 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, the First Coast Technical Institute (FCTI). A charter technical school is a creature of Florida statute, distinct from school boards and districts, including those school districts in which they are located, which act as the sponsor of the school. FCTI and the School Board entered into a charter which governed the operating relationship between them. The last operative charter between FCTI and the School Board became effective July 1, 2013. The School Board was the sponsoring entity of FCTC under the charter. The School Board had no involvement in the day to day operations of FCTC when it was operated by FCTI. FCTI had its own management team and board of directors. FCTI had its own articles of incorporation, employment handbook, organizational structure, management plan, human relations (HR) director and department, and its own legal counsel. FCTC’s president, Sandra Raburn-Fortner, entered into a contract of employment with FCTI. No one from the School District is on FCTI’s organizational chart. FCTI and FCTC management, and not the School Board, were responsible for the daily operations of FCTC and all personnel matters of FCTC employees. FCTI had its own procedure in its employee handbook for reporting discrimination and harassment. FCTC employees were designated as School Board employees solely for wage payments, benefits, and collective bargaining purposes under the charter. For this reason, FCTC employees received checks and tax documents from the School Board and the School Board remitted contributions to the Florida Retirement system on their behalf. FCTI reimbursed the School Board for these pass-through expenditures, and the School Board charged FCTI a fee for this service. The School Board’s only involvement in personnel- related decisions of FCTC was the ministerial act of the School Board superintendent signing off on employment decisions made by FCTI officials, which were then placed on the consent agenda of the School Board to be approved at its next meeting. This process--which was necessary given the fact that FCTC employees were designated as School Board employees under the charter for wage payment, benefits, and collective bargaining purposes-- involved ensuring the statutory requirements to take an employment action were met, but did not involve second-guessing the merits of the personnel decisions made by FCTI. Indeed, the charter expressly provides that the School Board assigns and FCTI assumes and retains all responsibility for FCTC employees, including responsibility for the selection and discipline of employees, and all other aspects of the terms and conditions of employment at FCTC. Petitioner submitted his application for employment to FCTC. Petitioner had an FCTC e-mail address and not a school district e-mail address. The School Board was the signatory to some grant applications for funding to be expended at FCTC, however, FCTI was responsible for fulfilling the obligations relating to the grant awards, and appropriately utilizing those funds at FCTC. The School Board was not involved in the day to day administration of programs funded by those grants at FCTC. During the spring of 2016, district personnel became aware of financial irregularities at FCTC through its monitoring of FCTI’s unaudited financial statements. Under state statute, the School Board was required to take certain actions as the sponsor of FCTC when put on notice that FCTC might be in a deteriorating financial condition. The School Board investigated those irregularities and found significant financial mismanagement and budgetary shortfalls at FCTC under FCTI’s administration. On May 3, 2016, the School Board declared that the school was in a deteriorating financial condition. This declaration triggered statutory obligations on the part of the School Board and FCTC to develop a corrective action plan to address these issues. On May 26, 2016, the School Board served a notice of financial emergency stating that it had reason to believe that there was a financial emergency at FCTC and that there was no way to save FCTC other than to terminate the charter and begin operating the programs at FCTC itself. The School Board Superintendent sent a letter to FCTI’s board on June 8, 2016, detailing the findings of the School Board’s investigation into FCTC and the financial issues plaguing the school. On June 14, 2016, FCTI’s board voted to terminate the charter with the School Board and cease operating the programs at FCTC, effective June 31, 2016. On June 15, 2016, the School Board voted to approve an agreement to terminate the charter with FCTI and to take over the programs at FCTC effective July 1, 2016. As part of this transition of the responsibility for operating FCTC, the School Board and FCTI entered into an agreement specifically stating that any liabilities of FCTC arising prior to July 1, 2016, would not be assumed by the School Board. Just before the School Board began operating the programs at FCTC, and specifically on June 27, 2016, Petitioner filed his Complaint with FCHR. In that Complaint he alleges that he was retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. Petitioner specifically listed two discrete instances of alleged protected activity in his Complaint: I am being discriminated against on the basis of retaliation by my employer. I began employment with Respondent on 11/7/2007, as a Case Manager and most recently as a Grant Writer. On 5/21/2015, I filed a formal grievance due to harassment and nepotism; creating a hostile work environment. This grievance was investigated internally but I never received a response. On 6/30/2015, I filed a second grievance after experiencing retaliation by my Supervisor, Renee Stauffacher. Up to date, both grievances remain unanswered and I continue to experience harassment and retaliation. Petitioner’s claim of discrimination was based solely upon a charge of retaliation. Petitioner did not allege that he was discriminated against based upon race, religion, age, marital status, or any other protected class. Petitioner filed the first grievance referenced in the FCHR Complaint on May 21, 2015, alleging that FCTC’s then- president, Sandra Raburn-Fortner, engaged in nepotism by hiring her friends and family, and that he experienced a hostile work environment because a co-worker, William Waterman, was rude to him in meetings and over e-mail. Petitioner does not allege in this grievance that he was being discriminated against on the basis of a protected class or that he believed anyone else was being discriminated against or adversely affected because of their protected class. Petitioner does not allege in this grievance that he was mistreated by any School Board employee, and he did not direct the grievance to anyone at the School Board. Petitioner filed this grievance with FCTC’s human resources office. In his second grievance, filed June 26, 2015, Petitioner alleges that Renee Stauffacher, his supervisor at the time, retaliated against him for naming her in his May 21, 2015, grievance by giving him an evaluation on June 26, 2015, that contained some information or statements with which he disagreed, even though he thought the evaluation itself was good and that he was given high numbers. No one from the School Board was involved in this evaluation. When Ms. Stauffacher gave Petitioner this evaluation, she was an employee of FCTC and not the School Board. Petitioner alleges that Sandra Raburn-Fortner retaliated against him for his first two grievances by giving him another position. That change, from “Career Pathways Supervisor” to “Grant Writer” occurred on or about August 4, 2015. Petitioner’s salary did not change. At this time, Ms. Raburn-Fortner, who had a contract with FCTI, was an FCTC employee, and not an employee of the School Board. Later, in the Spring of 2016, Petitioner submitted numerous other grievances, a total of nine more, to FCTC officials and FCTI’s board. Petitioner only introduced his ninth and tenth grievances into evidence at the final hearing. Both are similar. Those grievances, both filed on June 13, 2016, allege that Ms. Raburn-Fortner engaged in nepotism by hiring her associates, and that Stephanie Thomas, FCTC’s human resources director, and Ms. Stauffacher, were complicit in that nepotism. Both grievances state that Petitioner believed he was disclosing violations of equal employment opportunity law. During the time that Petitioner submitted these additional grievances, the School Board was in the process of investigating the financial irregularities at FCTC. Petitioner submitted some of these grievances to School Board officials, who told him he needed to take his concerns to the FCTI Board who was still operating FCTC at the time pursuant to the charter. None of Petitioner’s complaints, including those relayed to the School Board and its officials, concerned complaints of discrimination based on a protected class, or retaliation for complaining about discrimination based on a protected class. Petitioner stated he believed he was reporting equal employment opportunity violations in alleging Ms. Raburn-Fortner was hiring or favoring friends and family, because this action prohibited members of many different protected classes from getting a fair shot at positions that would go to family, friends, or associates of Ms. Raburn-Fortner. Petitioner admits all protected classes were treated similarly in this regard and that all protected classes lacked equal access to positions if they were not friends or family of Ms. Raburn-Fortner. While Petitioner does not allege any discrete instances of retaliation that occurred after his title change, Petitioner also contends that he was harassed, including that he felt harassed about how data at the school was handled, the pressure put on him by financial difficulties brought about by the administration of FCTI, and that he was given the cold shoulder by peers. By May 2016, Ms. Raburn-Fortner was no longer working at FCTC.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Gregory R. Lulkoski in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 5th day of September, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: During the 1984-85 and 1985-86 academic years, Respondent attended Highland Oaks Junior High School. During the 1985-86 academic year, Respondent was absent thirty-six (36) times, tardy thirty (30) times, and under suspension for twenty-eight (28) days. The Respondent did not receive a final grade for the 1985-86 academic year because he was transferred to Jan Mann Opportunity School on May 29, 1986. The last grading period for which Respondent received grades for the 1985-86 academic year was the third grading period which covered February 3, 1986 through March 27, 1986. For that grading period, the Respondent received five "F's" and one "D" for academic performance. When a teacher or other staff member at Highland Oaks Junior High School has difficulty with a student's behavior, the teacher may submit a report of the incident to the front office, The reports are called Student Case Management Referral Forms and are reserved for serious behavior problems. During the 1985-86 academic year, nine Student Case Management Referral Forms were written regarding Respondent's behavior. On December 2, 1985, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because Respondent was rude and disruptive in class and did not serve detention as requested. On December 10, 1985, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because Respondent was disruptive in class and was so out of control that while swinging his arms, he struck one of his teachers in the mouth (apparently unintentional). The Respondent was suspended for five days. On January 9, 1986, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because the Respondent used provocative language to one of his teachers. On February 7, 1986, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because Respondent repeatedly talked back and was very disrespectful and defiant to one of his teachers. The Respondent was suspended for three days. On March 7, 1986, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because Respondent cut class and was returned to the school by police. On April 21, 1986, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because Respondent was found in the hallway cutting class by administrators at approximately 9:00 a.m. The Assistant Principal told the Respondent to report to the office. The Respondent did not report to the office as requested, and at 3:00 p.m., a second Student Case Management Referral Form was written on April 21, 1986, because of Respondent's failure to obey the Assistant Principal's directives to report to the office. On May 5, 1986, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because Respondent used profanity in class. The Respondent was suspended for five days. On May 12, 1986, a Student Case Management Referral Form was written because Respondent cut class and was with a group of boys who set off a fire alarm. The Respondent was suspended for five days. Ms. Van Dam is the building substitute teacher at Highland Oaks Junior High School and substituted in many classes where the Respondent was present. The Respondent was very defiant and resisted authority in all Ms. Van Dam's classes. The Respondent failed to obey simple requests and stated that he did not have to do certain things and that no one could force him to do certain things. On one occasion, Ms. Van Dam asked the Respondent to change seats. The Respondent replied, "F--- you, I will not change seats". During one class period, the Respondent went under an art table and refused to come out. Respondent's conduct consistently caused Ms. Van Dam to interrupt her normal classroom lessons. Ms. Emma Garcia-Mendoza is an art teacher at Highland Oaks Junior High School and had Respondent as a student during the 1984-85 and 1985-86 academic years. In all classes, the Respondent was disruptive and defiant. On one occasion, the Respondent was out of his seat, and Ms. Garcia-Mendoza told the Respondent to sit down two or three times. Respondent refused to sit down and walked out of class without permission. During class, Respondent had a habit of blurting comments out, not directed to anyone in particular. On one occasion, the Respondent returned to class after a suspension and was annoying a female student in the back of the room. Ms. Garcia-Mendoza told the Respondent not to bother the other student and told Respondent to move. The Respondent shouted to Ms. Garcia-Mendoza, "F--- you, you f---ing b----, I hate you", and walked out of the door. On another occasion, Respondent got into an altercation with another student, and when Ms. Garcia-Mendoza attempted to break-up the altercation, the Respondent pulled his fist back as if to strike Ms. Garcia- Mendoza, but stopped. The Respondent's conduct consistently caused Ms. Garcia- Mendoza to interrupt her regular classroom instruction and routine. Mr. Arnold Golditch teaches manufacturing or "shop" at Highland Oaks Junior High School. Golditch had Respondent as a student for the 1984-85 academic year and part of the 1985-86 academic year. The Respondent had a habit of blurting out comments in class and getting up and walking around during the lesson. The Respondent was consistently defiant during the 1985-86 academic year. Mr. Golditch was required to move the Respondent's seat on several occasions. The Respondent's conduct consistently required Mr. Golditch to interrupt his prepared classroom lesson. Ms. Margaret Stanley is a guidance counselor at Highland Oaks Junior High School. During the 1984-85 academic year, each of Respondent's teachers complained to Ms. Stanley about Respondent's disruptive behavior and work performance. Particularly, the teachers complained that the Respondent would talk out in class. During the 1984-85 and 1985-86 academic years, Ms. Stanley held many conferences with the Respondent and his mother. The conferences did not result in any changed behavior on the Respondent's part. Mr. Fontana, the assistant principal at Highland Oaks Junior High School, held a conference with Respondent's mother during the 1985-86 academic year but her reaction was mainly one of hostility. For the 1984-85 academic year, the Respondent received three "F's", one "C" and one "Incomplete" as final academic grades.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2398 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case: Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact IS, 16 and 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 James C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Ms. Eldie Samuels 2529 N.E. 191st Street, Apt. 4 North Miami Beach, Florida 33100 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Judith Brechner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d) or (1)(f), Florida Statutes (2019), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.1 1 Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Florida Statutes herein are to the 2019 version, which was in effect when the actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the chief educational officer of the state, who recommends members for appointment to the Education Practices Commission—the statewide commission with the authority to discipline Florida educators. See §§ 1001.10(1), 1012.79(1), and 1012.795(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). Respondent, Calvin Chin, holds State of Florida Educator’s Certificate 737639, covering the areas of Educational Leadership and Mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2026. Respondent has served as an educator for 27 years, primarily with the Marion County School District (“District”). He was first employed by the District as a math teacher at Dunnellon High School (“Dunnellon”) in 1994, where he continued for 12 years. Respondent was promoted to dean of students at Dunnellon in 2002 and served in that capacity through 2012. During that time-frame, Respondent was also a part-time math instructor at a local community college. Respondent served as dean of students for College Park Elementary School from 2012 through 2016, when he returned to Dunnellon to continue teaching math for college readiness and dual enrollment math for students enrolled for college-level credit math instruction. Respondent also had a 19-year career with the U.S. Marine Corps. He originally enlisted in 1978 after graduating from high school, then joined the Marine Reserves while he pursued his college education. Respondent graduated from the University of Florida in 1983 and became a commissioned officer through the Reserve Officer Training Corps (“ROTC”) program in December of that year. Respondent served in the Marine Corps through 1994. In 1996, Respondent established the Young Marines at Dunnellon, a program similar to ROTC that teaches discipline and military structure to youth. Respondent is passionate about teaching and shaping the lives of young people. Respondent has never had any disciplinary action taken against his license or against him by either the District or any school at which he has taught. Relationship with Joanne Mandic Respondent and Joanne Mandic are not married, but have been in a relationship for 19 years. Respondent and Ms. Mandic have lived together as a couple for over 18 years. The couple has one child together, C.C., who lives with her parents. C.C. was 13 years old and home-schooled by Ms. Mandic at all times relevant hereto. Ms. Mandic has another child, Nyasha Mandic-Mandaza, from a prior relationship. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza was 22 years old at all times relevant hereto. She does not live with her mother and Respondent; however, on the date of the incident, Ms. Mandic-Mandaza was staying at their home. October 25, 2019, Incident On Friday, October 25, 2019, Respondent came home from Dunnellon and prepared himself an alcoholic drink. At some point during the evening, he asked Ms. Mandic what she was preparing for dinner and she responded that she was too tired to cook. Respondent became upset that Ms. Mandic was not preparing dinner. By this time, Respondent had consumed several alcoholic drinks, and he and Ms. Mandic got into a verbal altercation about dinner. During the verbal altercation, Respondent came out of his bedroom holding his handgun. He said to Ms. Mandic, “Don’t piss me off. I am a Marine and I know how to shoot,” or similar words. Respondent “racked” the gun, which made a distinctive sound audible to Ms. Mandic. Afterward, Respondent returned to his bedroom. Ms. Mandic is familiar with the gun and familiar with Respondent’s habit of storing the gun and ammunition separately. According to Ms. Mandic, the gun was unloaded when Respondent brought it out of the bedroom. Ms. Mandic testified that she knew the gun was unloaded and that she was not in fear of Respondent. Ms. Mandic testified that this incident was not indicative of her relationship with Respondent and that he has never been violent toward either her or the children. She further testified that there has been no similar incident since that date. C.C. was home in her bedroom and heard, but did not see, the altercation between her parents. No evidence was introduced regarding C.C.’s reaction to the incident or its effect on her. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza both heard and saw the altercation between Respondent and her mother. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza had come to the house after work and was preparing to leave for the evening, when she stepped into the hallway in response to the verbal altercation. She saw Respondent walking down the hallway with his handgun. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza was in fear as Respondent appeared to be approaching her in the hallway; however, Respondent passed by her and moved towards her mother, who was in the kitchen. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza retreated to a bedroom where she called the police to report the incident, then left the house shortly thereafter. Respondent’s Arrest In response to the 911 call, Marion County Deputy Sheriffs Joseph Diaz and Christopher White, as well as Sergeant Moore, were dispatched to the Chin home. Both Respondent and Ms. Mandic were interviewed by the officers. During his interview with the officers, Respondent was forthcoming about his actions. He demonstrated to the officers how he held and racked the gun, and repeated the statements he made as he held the gun. Ms. Mandic downplayed the incident when she was interviewed, describing Respondent’s actions as simply “showing us his handgun.” Deputy White also contacted Ms. Mandic-Mandaza via telephone and interviewed her, as well as meeting with her to take her statement. She was reticent to discuss the incident with Deputy White and expressed that she did not want to get Respondent in trouble. Respondent was arrested for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon Without the Intent to Kill and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and was incarcerated from October 25 to November 2, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit filed an “Announcement of No Information” on the allegation of Use of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and charged Respondent solely with Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon (without Intent to Kill). On March 11, 2020, Respondent plead nolo contendere to the lesser charge of Improper Exhibition of a Firearm, which is a misdemeanor defined in section 790.10, Florida Statutes, and adjudication was withheld. Respondent received credit for eight days served, was placed on a year of probation, assessed court and prosecution costs of $350, and was required to submit to random alcohol screens at least two times per month during probation. Subsequent Events Following his incarceration, Respondent voluntarily participated in mental health counseling and alcohol evaluation. Respondent testified that he “talked about drinking” with the counselor. Respondent further testified that, since the incident, he has “not been drunk like that.” The District placed Respondent on administrative leave with pay through December 2020. Respondent was placed on administrative leave without pay in December 2020, but returned to teach at Dunnellon in March 2021 just before spring break. Following spring break, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the school moved classes to an online format and Respondent continued teaching in that format throughout the remainder of the 2020-2021 school year. Respondent remains employed by the District and is currently teaching at Dunnellon. Neither Dunnellon nor the District imposed any disciplinary action against Respondent due to the incident and his subsequent arrest. Respondent testified that neither any student nor any fellow teacher has questioned him or made any remark about the incident or his arrest. Petitioner introduced no evidence of any press coverage or community concern regarding the incident. Character Witnesses Stephen Ayers is the director of student assignment and school choice for the District. Mr. Ayers has worked in various educational capacities with the District for 27 years, including as a math teacher, dean, assistant principal, principal, and coordinator for the District. Mr. Ayers met Respondent in 1994 when they were both pursuing their graduate degrees. Mr. Ayers later worked at Dunnellon as assistant principal, then principal, while Respondent served as dean of students. In those capacities, Mr. Ayers was Respondent’s supervisor at Dunnellon. Mr. Ayers described Respondent as “an exemplary dean” and “a mentor with … youngsters.” Mr. Ayers was aware of Respondent’s October 25, 2019 arrest and “the basis and reason for that arrest.” Mr. Ayers testified that he has no doubt Respondent can continue to perform his duties effectively and does not consider Respondent’s effectiveness in the community to be diminished by that arrest. Bobby James retired from the District in 2018 after serving the District for 47 years as a teacher, coach, principal, school board member, and school board chairman for three terms. Mr. James was the principal at Dunnellon in 1994 and hired Respondent as a math teacher. Mr. James remained principal for 12 years and moved Respondent into the dean of student’s position. Mr. James initiated the Young Marines program at Dunnellon and chose Respondent as the first instructor in the program. After leaving Dunnellon for a position with the school board, Dunnellon remained a school in which Mr. James, as a school board member, exercised oversight authority. Mr. James frequently visited Dunnellon and met Respondent and administrative leaders there. Mr. James described Respondent’s performance as an educator and leader of young people as “exceptional,” especially in working with youth who have difficult life challenges. Mr. James was familiar with Respondent’s arrest and “had heard” that a firearm was involved in the October 25, 2019 incident. He was not aware of the specific statements alleged to have been made by Respondent to Ms. Mandic. During cross-examination, Mr. James admitted that, if Respondent had said, “Don’t piss me off, I have a gun and I know how to use it,” that would not be appropriate conduct for an educator, or for that matter, “for any person.” However, Mr. James testified that, given his 25 years of experience with Respondent in service to the District, even knowing the specifics of the incident, he believes Respondent can remain an effective educator. Mr. James testified that Respondent’s character with students and District employees is proven, and indicated that, if he were in a position to do so, Mr. James would rehire Respondent. Ryan Malloy met Respondent through the Young Marines program in middle school when Respondent was the commanding officer of the program (for both high school and middle school). Mr. Malloy left the Young Marines program before high school but has maintained a mentoring relationship with Respondent through his recent graduation from the University of Florida. Respondent taught Mr. Malloy the game of golf and the two play golf regularly. Mr. Malloy testified that Respondent has served as a constant mentor in his life; that when he is really struggling with something, he talks to Respondent. He related that Respondent encourages him to consider both sides of a situation and avoid quick judgments. Mr. Malloy was generally familiar with Respondent’s arrest and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Mr. Malloy testified that Respondent’s effectiveness as a mentor has not been diminished by the incident. He testified that Respondent has helped him acknowledge his own mistakes and learn from them. Mr. Malloy stated that Respondent taught Mr. Malloy that true character is built by taking ownership of one’s mistakes and using them for self-improvement. Mr. Malloy believes that is an important trait for all teachers to be effective role models. Linda Malloy, Mr. Malloy’s mother, retired from the District in May 2019, was a fellow teacher with Respondent at Dunnellon for 24 years, and second in command of the Young Marines with Respondent for 10 years. She described Respondent as strict, honest, and fair. She admired his ability to reach students through Young Marines and help them turn their lives around when they were headed “down the wrong path.” Ms. Malloy was familiar with Respondent’s arrest and the fact that a gun was involved in the October 25, 2019 incident. Ms. Malloy testified that Respondent can remain an effective educator because she “believe[s] in his core values.” She trusted him with her own child and still would to this day. Ms. Malloy has not heard anyone in the education community suggest that Respondent should not continue to teach. Sharon Lambert has taught at Dunnellon for 22 years and currently teaches business technology and serves as the teachers’ union representative. Respondent was in charge of the Young Marines when Ms. Lambert began teaching at Dunnellon. Her impressions of Respondent as an educator are that he cares about his students, wants to help them succeed, and “would do anything to help them learn what he’s supposed to teach.” Ms. Lambert was familiar with Respondent’s arrest. She testified that the incident has not had any negative affect on his ability to teach his students. To her knowledge, since Respondent returned to the classroom, there has been “no talk amongst the students or the teachers” concerning the incident or Respondent’s ability to teach. Respondent also introduced a letter from Jay Easom, who served as president of the Dunnellon School Advisory Council (“SAC”) from 2007-2010 and is familiar with Respondent in that capacity, as well personal conversations with him. The letter relates as follows: I am writing on behalf of “Captain Chin.” I am acquainted with him for more than ten (10) years. I’ve had the opportunity to know him in his capacity of leadership at our local high school as well as our personal conversations detailing his desire to be responsible to his family. He always plans well and stands firmly in his commitment to reach his personal goals for the benefit of his family. I can’t tell you how surprised I was when [Respondent] shared with me the events of October 25, 2019 that resulted in him being charged. I instantly detected his regret and disappointment. The idea of [Respondent] bringing harm to anyone escapes my consideration especially in the handling of a firearm. My children attended and graduated from [Dunnellon]. I know [Respondent] in this period during my participation as president of the [SAC] from 2007-10. I learned more about [Respondent] when as a part of our meetings, he introduced proud young men and women to share their outlook for the future that had joined Young Marines. He provided a path of personal development for them and I am sure that his peers will tell you that his hard work, dedication, and friends in the community supported the program because of his commitment. I expect that [Respondent] has a plan to be sure that there will never again be such an event in his life as this. I hope that you may have the opportunity to give him further consideration as his employer, students, peers, and friends have over a very difficult year and a half. Thank you. Respondent also introduced the following letter from Jeffery Daniel Ratliff: To whom it may concern, Captain Calvin Chin has been, and still is, one of my largest influences throughout my life. I still remember the very first time I met him, and that was over 20 years ago. It was my first day in a new school, an entirely new state, at [Dunnellon]. While waiting with my parents in the front office to get registered for classes, in walks this Marine wearing freshly starched cammies with flickering silver and gold on his uniform, and it was at that moment that I decided to become a Marine. Over my high school career Captain Chin shaped and guided me in a way that only a true leader can. When my temper or overzealousness got the best of me, he did not hesitate to punish me but always ensured that a lesson was learned. When I was unable to understand the mathematic teachings of Mr. Gaitanis’ overeducated ramblings, Captain Chin would break it down simply for me and insist that I already knew how to do it. And he was right! When I left for Marine Corps bootcamp, he gave me some last-minute advice, but insisted that I would do fine … as long as I didn’t ask too many questions. He was right about that too. When I got back from Iraq and needed another Marine to vent to about what I saw, he was there for me. He wasn’t judgmental at all. After the Young Marines program was removed from the high school, he chose to keep it active and open it up for all ages from 8 to eighteen. He even encouraged me to come volunteer after I had gotten out of the Marines. I did not have the patience or understanding to deal with such young children at the time, but Captain Chin did. Even though I have two loving parents who are still together, and love me very much, I still refer to Captain Chin as my Adopted Asian Dad. I have seen this man motivate, influence and inspire so many young minds over the years that I lose count. As Dean at the high school, the kids who he had to punish still respected him and find him years later to tell him that they are doing so much better now, because he showed them respect first. It is impossible to fit everything that Captain Chin has done to help me, influence me on one page. Just know that this is one of the most selfless human beings I have ever met, that has committed his entire life to serving and helping others, and will continue to do so until he is no longer physically able. Respondent also introduced his final evaluation from the District for the 2020-2021 school year on which he received the rating of “Effective” on all four instructional practice domains in which he was assessed. Respondent became emotional during his testimony at the final hearing. Petitioner introduced, and played for the undersigned, body-camera footage from the responding officers on October 25, 2019. Respondent was ashamed and remorseful of his behavior on the night of the incident. Respondent was dismayed by his own behavior and it obviously pained him to watch the video footage.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(f), but, based on the Findings of Fact herein, including substantial factors in mitigation, take no action against Respondent’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2021. Lisa M. Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
