Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Florida State University during the 1979- 1980 academic year as a tenured professor of chemistry at an annual salary of $22,819.00. Petitioner submitted an Application for Service Retirement Benefits dated May 2, 1980, to Respondent, which application reflected Petitioner's intention to terminate his employment at Florida State University effective May 30, 1980. Previously, Petitioner had advised the Chairman of the Chemistry Department of Petitioner's intention to retire effective June 5, 1980. However, in submitting the aforesaid application dated May 2, 1980, Petitioner determined to relinquish four days of employment salary in June in order to become eligible for retirement benefits begin to accrue on the first day of the first month following termination of employment. Petitioner's request to terminate his employment effective May 30, 1980, was approved by both his department chairman and by the Retirement Coordinator at Florida State University. As a result of his notification of intent to terminate his employment effective May 30, 1980, Petitioner was removed from the payroll of Florida State University effective May 30, 1980. However, Petitioner continued to perform his duties as a professor of chemistry at Florida State University until the end of the academic school year on June 16, 1980. Petitioner continued actual classroom and laboratory instruction until the end of classes on June 6, 1980. Petitioner continued actual classroom and laboratory instruction until the end of classes on June 6, 1980, and, following the end of classes, he conducted final exams, graded examinations, issued grades and, on June 16, 1980, briefly attended a faculty meeting. Although Petitioner's contract of employment provides for a faculty appointment from September 7, 1979 through June 5, 1980, these dates relate only to pay periods, since a faculty member's contractual duties and responsibilities, unless specifically altered by mutual agreement between the contracting parties, extend through the end of the academic school year in this case, June 16, 1980. The academic school year at Florida State University is nine months long and is comprised of three academic quarters, during which approximately one-third of a faculty member's annual salary is paid in each of the three academic quarters. Petitioner was paid through May 30, 1980, by Florida State University, and received no payment for services rendered during the month of June, 1980. However, when Florida State University officials were advised by respondent's personnel that Petitioner's request to establish May 30, 1980 as his termination date for retirement purposes would not be honored, Petitioner was advised that the University stood ready to pay him the $468.08 which he would have received for his work in June, 1980, had he not chosen the May 30, 1980 employment termination date. The record reflects that Petitioner made the decision to choose May 30, 1980, as his employment termination date, rather than the later date of June 5, 1980, during counseling sessions with representatives of Respondent, when it became apparent to them that he could receive $1,554.64 in retirement benefits for the month of June, as opposed to the $468.08 he would receive in June in salary had he chosen to continue to receive his salary for services performed at Florida State University. Petitioner was correctly advised by Respondent's personnel that by working through June 5, 1980, and earning salary for that time period, he would be ineligible to begin accruing retirement benefits until the end of June, 1980.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 711503, covering the areas of elementary education, varying exceptionalities, and pre-kindergarten handicapped. Respondent's certificate was valid at all times material to this proceeding. Respondent began teaching in 1995. There have been no complaints against Respondent prior to the allegations in this case. Over the years, Respondent has attempted to help students over and beyond her classroom duties. On at least two occasions, she temporarily has taken students into her home in time of need. Flagler County School Board employed Respondent as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher at Flagler Palm Coast High School (FPC) in the Flagler County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. That school term was her first year on the faculty at FPC. J.E. was a 17 year-old male student who attended FPC during the 2000-2001 school year. J.E. was classified as an 11th-grade ESE student because he suffered from attention deficit disorder. J.E. also worked as a part-time firefighter with the Flagler Beach Fire Department. J.E.'s employment as a firefighter was sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America Explorer Program. At some point during the month of October 2000, J.E. transferred into Respondent's math class. Initially, J.E. was unable to make a passing grade in math due to his learning disability. J.E.'s academic problems were aggravated by several in-school and out-of-school disciplinary suspensions, which caused him to miss class. Toward the end of November or the beginning of December 2000, J.E. was arrested for fighting with his sister. He was in the custody of the juvenile authorities for several days before being placed on juvenile home detention. When J.E. returned to school, Respondent contacted J.E.'s mother, D.B. Respondent requested permission to tutor J.E. after school to help him make up missed assignments. After receiving the approval of the juvenile authority staff, D.B. agreed that Respondent could tutor J.E. Respondent and D.B. agreed that, after each tutoring session, Respondent would transport J.E. to the place where D.B. was employed. Respondent then informed the assistant principal that she would be assisting J.E. after school in her classroom. The tutoring sessions began on December 12, 2000, and lasted for almost two weeks. The sessions terminated when FPC recessed for the holidays. During the tutoring sessions, Respondent and J.E. spent time working on J.E.'s math assignments. However, as time passed, they progressively spent more time discussing personal issues. These conversations included discussions regarding J.E.'s problems and history of abuse, as well as the physical abuse that Respondent experienced during her marriage to her ex-husband. Respondent revealed that she had been molested as a child, a fact that Respondent had shared only with her long-term boyfriend, her sister, and her closest friends. Respondent told J.E. about her two children and her relationship with her boyfriend. At times, Respondent spoke negatively about her boyfriend, referring to him as an "asshole." Respondent and J.E.'s student-teacher relationship became more personal as they spent more time together. J.E. began visiting Respondent during her planning period, during which they would discuss personal issues. Occasionally, J.E. would visit Respondent during her science class even though he was scheduled to be in another class. The personal conversations continued during the time that J.E. waited in Respondent's car for his mother at the school bus compound, sometimes for 20 to 30 minutes. Prior to one tutoring session, Respondent allowed J.E. to ride with her to a fast-food restaurant. She then took J.E. by the fire station before returning to the school. Respondent did not have anyone's permission to transport J.E. off campus. Sometime before the holiday break, J.E. told Respondent that he liked the music of a certain rap artist. The last day of school before the holiday break, Respondent gave J.E. a gift bag containing a compact disk (CD) of the artist's music. The gift bags that Respondent presented to other students contained only cookies and trinkets. On the afternoon of December 27 or 28, 2000, J.E. invited Respondent to visit the fire station with her children, a 9-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. Respondent and her children spent approximately one hour at the station while J.E. showed them the facility and firefighting equipment. Next, J.E. told Assistant Fire Chief Shane Wood (Chief Wood), that he was going to a nearby park with Respondent and her children. He advised Chief Wood that he would return to the station if it received a call. J.E. rode to the park in Respondent's vehicle. Francis Abramczyk, another student firefighter and J.E.'s friend, rode a bike to the park at J.E.'s request. When the group arrived at the park, Respondent asked Mr. Abramczyk to watch her children so she and J.E. could talk in a nearby gazebo. About 45 minutes after Respondent and J.E. left to go to the park, Chief Wood got off from work. Chief Wood then rode his motorcycle to his parent's house near the park. Chief Wood visited his parents for 10-15 minutes before riding his motorcycle to the park where he spoke briefly to J.E. Respondent and J.E. were sitting in the gazebo when Chief Wood came by on his motorcycle Once in the gazebo, Respondent and J.E. spent at least 30 minutes talking about Respondent's recent trip to North Carolina, among other things. During this time, Respondent and J.E. sat side-by-side. At one point in time, Mr. Abramczyk saw Respondent's hand resting on J.E.'s hand, which was resting on his leg. Respondent jerked her hand back when she made eye contact with Mr. Abramczyk, who was retrieving a ball from the far side of the gazebo. While sitting in the gazebo, Respondent asked J.E. if he was willing to baby-sit for her that evening while she went out with a girlfriend. Respondent told J.E. that she would not be returning home until late and suggested that he spend the night at her residence. J.E. did not think his mother would approve of Respondent's suggestion. In the meantime, Mr. Abramczyk decided to walk to a nearby store to get some ice cream. Respondent's son tagged along with Mr. Abramczyk. When Mr. Abramczyk returned to the park, Respondent and J.E. were sitting in Respondent's vehicle. While J.E. was sitting in Respondent's vehicle, two or three girls came to the park in a car. One of the girls was J.E.'s former girlfriend. At first J.E. did not want the girls to see him, but eventually he got out of Respondent's vehicle and talked to Mr. Abramczyk and the girls. During this conversation, J.E. was teased about hanging out with his teacher. Mr. Abramczyk rode the bike back to the fire station after this conversation. At approximately 5:00 p.m., J.E., Respondent, and Respondent's children went back to the fire station. J.E. then called his mother to ask permission to baby-sit for Respondent. D.B. told him that he could baby-sit. In a later conversation between Respondent and D.B., Respondent stated that she would not be home that evening until approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent asked D.B. if J.E. could spend the night at her residence. D.B. responded negatively, telling Respondent to take J.E. home or to the fire station where there was adult supervision at all times. After leaving the fire station, J.E. rode with Respondent and her children to a convenience store where Respondent purchased soft drinks and snacks for her children. She also purchased several wine coolers for herself. At approximately 6:00 p.m., Respondent, her children, and J.E. arrived at Respondent's residence. J.E. changed out of his work uniform before walking to a nearby beach with Respondent and her children. The children played on the beach and in the clubhouse area while Respondent talked to J.E. During this time, Respondent consumed one of her wine coolers. J.E., Respondent, and her children returned to Respondent's home after spending about an hour at the beach. Next, Respondent prepared dinner for J.E. and her children. She then got dressed to go out while J.E. played video games with the kids in the living room. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent walked out of her bedroom into the living room wearing only a skirt and bra during this time. Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent left her residence to meet her girlfriend, taking her wine coolers with her. The girlfriend was not at home, so after waiting for a while, Respondent returned to her home between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was heavily intoxicated when she returned. Respondent's long-term boyfriend was spending time that evening with one of his male friends. The boyfriend usually stayed with Respondent but decided that evening to stay at his separate residence in St. Augustine, Florida, because he had consumed some beer and did not want to risk driving back to Respondent's residence. However, Respondent did not know that the boyfriend would not come to her house later that evening. When Respondent returned to her residence, her children were asleep and J.E. did not want to go home. Without checking with J.E.'s mother, Respondent decided to let J.E. stay. J.E. listened to music in Respondent's bedroom while she straightened up the house and did the laundry. Respondent took time to talk to J.E. and to listen to some music with him. Sometime during the evening, Respondent spoke to her boyfriend on the telephone. During this call, Respondent learned for the first time that her boyfriend probably would not be returning to her home that night. Respondent talked to her boyfriend a second time that night from her garage. When she went back into the house, J.E. pretended to be asleep but when Respondent approached him, he sat up and appeared to have been crying. Respondent assumed that J.E. was upset because he was jealous of her boyfriend. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent provided J.E. with alcohol or engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with him while he was in her home. However, Respondent admitted during the hearing that J.E. might have consumed beer kept in her refrigerator while she was gone because she found one beer can in her closet weeks later. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Respondent drove J.E. to the fire station. The lights were off in the station. After waiting a few minutes to see if any of the adult firemen were going to return to the fire station, Respondent drove J.E. home, arriving there between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. On the way to J.E.'s house, Respondent made J.E. promise not to tell anyone that he baby-sat at her residence. She paid J.E. $20 for baby-sitting. When J.E. got home, his mother was asleep on the couch. D.B. woke up as J.E. entered the house. She did not smell any alcohol on him or see any signs of intoxication. Respondent went with her children to the fire station two days later on December 29, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to return one of J.E.'s CDs that he had left at her house. Respondent visited with J.E. for about 15 minutes. During the visit on December 29, 2000, J.E. appeared upset. He told Respondent that he was worried because a man from his past was about to be released from jail. He also stated that he had been fighting with his mother. J.E. told Respondent that he was afraid the fire chief would not like him having visitors. He wanted Respondent to leave, telling her that he would talk to her later. By the end of December, Respondent knew that the other students were teasing J.E. about their close relationship and that he was embarrassed about the situation. J.E. and Respondent had agreed that they would not continue with the after-school tutoring and that they would not socialize at school or at the fire station. Despite this agreement, Respondent returned to the fire station on December 31, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to give J.E. a six-page handwritten letter that included references to Respondent's personal experiences. Several of J.E.'s friends from FPC were at the fire station when Respondent arrived. When J.E.'s friends told him that Respondent was in the lobby area, he told them he did not want to see her and hid in a back room in an effort to avoid her. Two of J.E.'s friends then told Respondent that J.E. was not at the fire station. Respondent started to leave when she realized that her son, who had been waiting in the car, had probably gone into the fire station through the open bay doors. Respondent then went into the station through the bay doors to look for her son. Upon entering the bay, Respondent noticed that J.E. was at work. Instead of asking about her son, Respondent approached J.E. holding the letter. As Respondent walked toward J.E., his friends began to tease him again. J.E. was visibly upset and demanded to know what Respondent was doing at the station. Respondent knew or should have known that she was giving the other students reason to pick on J.E. J.E. was angry and embarrassed by Respondent's presence. He told Respondent to come back later just to hasten her departure. He shredded the letter as soon as she left the station. Notwithstanding J.E.'s extreme displeasure during Respondent's visit, Respondent returned to the fire station later that day about 5:00 p.m. J.E. was not there when Respondent arrived. At that time, Chief Wood told Respondent that J.E. was gone and that she needed to stop visiting him at the station because it did not look right for her to be there "hanging all over J.E." The relationship between J.E. and Respondent dropped off beginning in early January 2001. Shortly after the holidays, J.E. became angry with Respondent. He told her to go screw her boyfriend. Respondent just ignored this comment. On another day during the first week of January, J.E. attempted to leave Respondent's class on a pretext that he was required to go to the school attendance office. J.E. became angry when Respondent would not let him leave the classroom. A short time later, during the same class period, two of J.E.'s friends walked by and looked into the classroom through the window in the door. J.E. noticed his friends, went to the door to speak with them, and asked them to help get him out of class. Respondent again refused to let him leave, causing him to be even more angry. Respondent told J.E. that if he left the class without permission, she would write him up. He then said, "You're gonna write me up? Well, I could do something about that." The first semester ended on January 8, 2001. Although J.E. was failing math in early December, he received a grade of B in Respondent's class for the semester. He then transferred to another teacher's math class for the second semester. After the transfer, J.E.'s grades began to decline again. The other students continued to tease J.E. about Respondent. On or about January 19, 2001, a rumor surfaced that Respondent was pregnant with J.E.'s child. Respondent first learned about the rumor during her science class. The class discussion involved the harmful effect of fumes from spray bottles on the environment and humans. Someone in the class stated that fumes could harm a fetus like Respondent's fetus. Another student said, "Oh, I wonder who the father is." A third student responded, "Oh, it's J.E." The class then began laughing. Respondent made no effort to report the incident to FPC's administrators. Instead, on a day when Respondent was extremely depressed and disillusioned with her career, and when she was feeling "emotionally cheated" and/or "manipulated" by J.E., Respondent wrote J.E. an e-mail message that states as follows: Hi I hope your Term 2 classes are going well so far, and life in general. I heard you're in Mr. Krenichen's class for Algebra now. If you need any help or need a place to escape to you know where to go. I still have 3rd period planning, except for lunch duty 3rd lunch. Even if you still are or stay mad at me forever, I'm still rooting for you to make it. I hope you're staying out of trouble. Well, I just wanted to say hi. I was thinking about you and my kids have been asking about you too. They think you're so cool! Yeah, I guess you're all right most of the time. Ha Ha. I miss you. I miss you talking to me every day most of all. Well, see you around. K. p.s. I also wanted to thank you for keeping your word. Means a lot. Gives me a little bit of hope the whole thing wasn't a lie all along. That helps even if that's all I'll ever have. Well, there's other things I need to talk to you about but don't want to say in an e-mail, so will just let you go now. Bye. Respondent's statement in the e-mail that she hoped J.E. was not still mad at her referred to her refusal to let J.E. leave class. She thanked him for keeping his word about not dropping out of school, not telling anyone that he baby-sat at her home, and not revealing her personal confidences. The e-mail was not specifically romantic in nature but clearly and convincingly evidences an inappropriate personal relationship between Respondent and J.E. After receiving this e-mail, J.E. asked Chief Wood to help him draft a reply that would break off his relationship with Respondent. Chief Wood declined to help but told J.E. he would proofread the message after J.E. wrote it. After reading the e-mail, Chief Wood decided that J.E. had adequately communicated his message to Respondent and did not make any changes. On or about January 24, 2001, a fellow student told J.E. that Respondent had said she was pregnant with J.E.'s child. J.E. became frightened by the false rumor. That same day, J.E. lied to his mother, stating that Respondent had given him alcohol and that, while he was in an intoxicated state, Respondent had forced him to have sexual intercourse on the night that he visited her home. D.B. immediately contacted the sheriff's office. On January 26, 2001, the principal of FPC confronted Respondent with J.E.'s allegations regarding the alcohol and sexual misconduct. During this conversation, Respondent stated that she wished she had never had J.E. baby-sit in her home. She admitted that her relationship with J.E. was inappropriate. Respondent immediately drafted and submitted her resignation effective February 6, 2001, the day of the next scheduled school board meeting. Following Respondent's resignation, J.E. continued to endure severe teasing at the hands of his classmates. Some students referred to J.E. as a "teacher fucker." Understandably, such comments caused J.E. a great deal of stress. J.E. eventually dropped out of FPC and entered the adult education program, where he admitted to one student that he did not have sex with Respondent. He told the student that he wished he could take it all back. Respondent is now employed in a real estate office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That EPE enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for two years followed by five years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should receive an exemption from employment disqualification pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking this exemption from dis- qualification because she desires to work at Arnette House, a DJJ contract provider. Myra Burks is the manager of DJJ’s background screening unit. Ms. Burks reviewed all of the background screening information received regarding Petitioner, including her criminal history. Petitioner’s criminal history included two disqualifying offenses. In 1982, Petitioner was charged with Grand Larceny. She pled guilty and was placed on probation for two years and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Also in 1982, Petitioner was charged with Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer with Violence. She was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Petitioner served six months in prison and then worked in a work release program in Gainesville, Florida. Initially, Ms. Burks considered two other offenses to be disqualifying: a 1985 charge of Parole Violation-Aggravated Assault, and a 1992 charge of grand larceny. At hearing, Ms. Burke acknowledged that neither of these offenses was disqualifying as there was no documentation of conviction as to the 1985 parole violation-aggravated assault charge, and the 1992 grand larceny charge was reduced to petit theft. After being released from prison, Petitioner moved to Alabama where she worked as a 911 dispatcher for the Lowndes County Sheriff’s Department. She returned to Florida in 1991. Petitioner was arrested in 2002 for False Report of Child Abuse or Neglect. She pled guilty and adjudication of guilt was withheld. She was placed on probation for two years, which she completed in one year. At hearing, Petitioner offered some explanation as to the two disqualifying offenses, which occurred 27 years ago. Petitioner explained that she was only 19 at the time of those offenses. The resisting arrest incident happened at her parents’ home where an officer came to arrest her. Petitioner and her sister resisted Petitioner's being arrested and taken from the home. As to the 2002 incident, Petitioner explained that while working at a doctor’s office, a child patient told her things which others ignored. She maintains that she did not falsify the report, believed the child was in trouble, and was trying to help the child when she made the report. Despite her having entered a plea of guilty, her testimony regarding this incident is deemed credible and is accepted. In 2003, Petitioner obtained employment at the Centers, Inc., and worked there for six years until she resigned. She has also worked for Timbrook of Ocala and Genesis House of Ocala. These facilities assist youth who are homeless or their parents cannot handle on their own. Petitioner has taken classes and has obtained certification as a NAPPI trainer, completed child care training and certification through Central Florida Community College in working with angry and resistant youth, and holds various certificates from other entities. She also completed various training classes while working at the Centers. The Program Manager at the Centers wrote a letter of recommendation for Petitioner stating that she was dependable, punctual, detailed, and helpful. Petitioner has received exemptions from employment disqualification from the Agency for Persons With Disabilities to work with children and persons with developmental disabilities; the Department of Children and Family Services making her eligible to be considered for employment/licensing in a caretaker position; and the Agency for Health Care Administration for patient care employment. On September 14, 2007, her civil rights were restored by the Office of Executive Clemency. Petitioner is a mother and grandmother. She volunteers to work with “kids” in the community including being involved with Sunday school with the youth in her church. Petitioner is a member of the choir in her church. Based upon her review of Petitioner's file, Ms. Burks recommended that Petitioner be disqualified. Ms. Burks’ recommendation, however, was based on her initial belief that Petitioner had four disqualifying offenses. As noted above, Ms. Burks acknowledged at hearing that Petitioner only had two disqualifying offenses, both of which occurred 27 years ago. Petitioner presented meaningful evidence of rehabilitation. She has attended many classes to receive training in areas of caring for others and in troubled youth. She is active in her community as a volunteer and at church, and she genuinely likes to work with youth.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 15th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Flora Osborne 1425 Northwest 109th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34482 Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner meets the qualifications prescribed by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes for licensure as a real estate salesman?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a 1986 graduate of Florida State University. He has a degree in urban politics and real estate. In November, 1989, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to two counts of burglary of a dwelling, one count of petty larceny, and one count of dealing in stolen property. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on five years probation, which, the court specified, was not subject to "early termination." In addition, Petitioner was ordered to pay $360.00 in restitution and $265.00 in court costs. These crimes were all committed in June, 1989, after Petitioner had returned to Palm Beach County from a two or three-month vacation in Colorado. The two counts of burglary involved the same dwelling: the townhouse that Petitioner had lived in, with others, prior to his Colorado vacation. The lease to the townhouse, which was in the name of one of his roommates, had expired before his return from vacation. Contrary to the instructions of the landlord, Petitioner entered the dwelling on at least two separate occasions after coming back from Colorado in order to retrieve personal belongings that remained in the townhouse. The stolen property involved in the dealing in stolen property charge was a stereo that belonged to Petitioner's friend. Petitioner tried to pawn the stereo for $45.00. The petty theft charge involved the taking of ten CD's that were on top of a CD player located in a bar in the vicinity of the townhouse. Since these incidents, Petitioner has not run afoul of the law. Petitioner presently owns and operates the South Florida Adventure Club, a business which plans and organizes social activities for single professionals. In his spare time, he serves as an advisor to two youth groups. Petitioner is still on probation. He has paid in full the restitution ordered by the court. His court costs, however, have not yet been paid in full. He still owes $50.00.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding that Petitioner is not qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman because of his criminal record and denying his application for licensure based upon such a finding, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application supported by a showing that, "because of the lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient, it appears . . . that the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered by granting" the application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Respondent: 1. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 2-4. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 5. First sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer; Remaining sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. 6-10. Rejected because they are more in the nature of summaries of testimony than findings of fact based upon such testimony. 11. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the case than a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg Allen Hinds 2016 Broward Avenue # 3 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407-6112 Joselyn M. Price, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street Suite 107, South Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing filed in this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Karen 0. Emmanuel Emmanuel, Sheppard and Condon 30 South Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32596 Carl B. Morstadt Chief Counsel of Medicaid 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 233 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The petitioners herein are all professors employed by the respondent Florida State University (FSU) as faculty members in the School of Music. Pursuant to a "petition for an administrative determination" filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, petitioners seek a declaration that the written documents appended to the petition are rules within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and, because they were not promulgated in accordance with the APA, they constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The respondent contends that the petitioners herein are not substantially affected persons within the meaning of F.S.120.56(I) and thus they lack standing to challenge said documents. By a motion to dismiss, respondent further contends that the instant proceeding constitutes a collateral attack upon final agency action and therefore the Division of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to entertain a rule challenge petition. Finally, respondent urges that the documents in question do not fall within the definition of a rule and are, in fact, specifically exempted from said definition. It is claimed that said documents constitute either internal management memoranda or the preparation or modification of either agency budgets or contractual provisions reached as a result of collective bargaining. The five documents attached to the petition will be described in more detail below. Briefly, these documents are as follows: The "Florida State University procedures" for the award of merit salary and other increases; A portion of the School of Music bylaws; A faculty roster form listing each faculty member of the School of Music with a space provided for an evaluation; A form entitled faculty evaluation summary; and The student instructional rating system (SIRS) interpretation manual. Each of these documents (Exhibits 1 through 5) were utilized by the respondent to determine merit pay increases for each of the petitioners for the 1978-79 school year. Unless amended prior to the evaluation process for the 1979-80 school year, each document will be utilized again in determining merit increases for faculty members of the School of Music. Having been evaluated for merit salary increases under these documents in the past, with a more than reasonable likelihood of future use of the documents for future evaluations, petitioners have adequately demonstrated that they are substantially affected persons within the meaning of F.S.120.56. Not only has their present remuneration for their services been determined pursuant to these documents, their future annual salaries will be affected by the determination reached as a result of the original use of these documents. Unlike the case of Fla. Dept. of Offender Rehabilitation v. Jerry, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. App. 1st, 1978), petitioners have illustrated that the impact of the challenged documents are continual, having both present and prospective impact. Faculty members of a university have a substantial interest in the emoluments of their employment. Written documents which substantially affect that interest, if otherwise falling within the APA's definition of rule, can be challenged if a proper petition is filed pursuant to Section 120.56. The respondent contends that the case of HRS v. Barr, 359 So.2d 503 (Fla. App. 1st 1978) bars the instant proceeding. That case held that Hearing Officers had no collateral review power over final agency action taken after regular proceedings under other provisions of the APA. The undersigned finds, and so concludes, that the Barr case, which dealt with a declaratory statement, has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The present petition is not a collateral attack upon an adjudication of petitioners' rights by the agency. The documents in question do not constitute final agency action and the petitioners herein are not challenging the actual determinations of their merit pay. The petition challenges the documents which govern the procedure by which the merit pay increases are made, and the Hearing Officer limited all testimony to that issue. Testimony regarding the results of the evaluation process which occurred in May of 1978 and the manner in which that particular evaluation was conducted was not permitted. The petition alleged that the documents in question constituted rules within the meaning and intent of the APA and that they were substantially affected by said rules. Thus, the petition properly alleged a cause of action under Section 120.56. Having found that the petitioners are substantially affected by the documents utilized by FSU to determine merit increases for faculty members, it now must be determined whether said documents constitute rules within the meaning and intent of the APA. The controlling statutory provision is F.S. 120.52(14), which reads in relevant part as follows: 'Rule' means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of a rule. The term does not include: (a) internal management memoranda which do not affect either the private interest of a person or any plan or procedure important to the public and which have no application outside the agency issuing the memorandum; (c) the preparation or modification of: agency budgets. contractual provisions reached as a result of collective bargaining. The first document challenged herein is entitled "Florida State University Procedures" and it contains procedures and guidelines for merit increases, equity increases, and other increases. It divides merit increases into two levels, defines the levels and prescribes, in general form, the procedures to be utilized in evaluating all members of the faculty for merit raises. A "Note" at the end of this document describes the document as FSU "internal procedures for implementing the Statement Concerning Merit and Other Salary Increases." This "Statement" is contained in the collective bargaining agreement between the Florida Board of Regents, State University System of Florida and the United Faculty of Florida. The document in question was created by a committee appointed by President Sliger of FSU. The task of the committee was to devise procedures for the distribution of discretionary funds. The procedures apply generally and equally to each segment of the University and to each faculty member. Other than the "Statement" referred to above, which simply sets forth the criteria by which to evaluate faculty members for merit salary increases, the only other reference in the collective bargaining agreement to salaries is contained in Article 23. Section 23.1(b)(2) simply refers to "discretionary increases in recognition of merit." The document entitled "FSU Procedures" is an agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets and prescribes law or policy. It sets forth the procedure to be utilized in the discretionary award of merit pay increases. Contrary to the assertions of respondent, this document does not fall within any of the relevant exceptions to the term "rule." Although the procedure is for use internally within the University, it affects the private interest of each faculty member in the compensation he or she receives for services performed for the University. Thus, it is not an "internal management memoranda" exception. While the Procedures do provide the method by which allocated and budgeted funds will be distributed, the document itself does not "budget" any of the funds. The testimony at the hearing was to the effect that these Procedures were created and posted prior to the University's budget submissions and that the budget division of FSU had no role in the creation of the document. Thus, this document cannot be considered as preparation or modification of an agency budget. Finally, the "FSU Procedures" do not fall within the exception for the preparation or modification of "contractual provisions reached as a result of collective bargaining." The document is not a "contractual provision." Although its contents refer to the collective bargaining agreement, the agreement itself only provides that the award of merit salary increases are to be discretionary with the University. Indeed, the testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing illustrates that the Procedures were created and put into operation prior to the time that the collective bargaining agreement became effective. In and of itself, this agency statement purports to create certain rights and adversely affect other rights with regard to funds available for merit increases. See State Dept. of Administration v. Stevens, 344 So.2d 290 (Fla. App. 1st, 1977). This agency statement having general applicability that implements, prescribes and interprets the University's policy regarding award of discretionary merit increases is a rule within the meaning of the APA. The University having failed to properly promulgate said rule in accordance with F.S. 120.54, the document entitled "Florida State University Procedures" constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The next document for consideration is a portion of the bylaws of the School of Music at FSU. This consists of a set of directives which define the organization of a peer evaluation committee and prescribe the criteria and procedures under which that committee will evaluate faculty members of the School of Music and make recommendations to the Dean regarding merit raises. The criteria to be considered are identical to the criteria already contained in either existing rules of the Board of Regents and FSU (F.A.C. Ch. 6C-5.05 and 6C2-4.33) or in the "statement" contained in the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the criteria in the bylaws simply constitute a restatement of either existing rules or the contractual provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The only relevant remaining portion of the bylaws is that portion which directs that the School of Music faculty advisory committee shall also sit as the peer evaluation committee for merit salary increases. This does not constitute an "agency statement of general applicability" within the definition of a rule. It is simply the statement of the School of Music, which is not an agency within the meaning of the APA. The FSU School of Music bylaws do not fall within the APA's definition of a rule. The third document is a form or a worksheet consisting of a School of Music faculty roster with five spaces provided for the peer evaluation committee to rank each faculty member. Each committee member is directed to review the personnel file for each faculty member and, consistent with the established procedures and criteria, complete the worksheet which is then tabulated with the results being communicated to the Dean in the form of a recommendation. A form may fall within the definition of a rule if it otherwise fits the definition and if it "imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule." F.S. 120.52(14). This form is not an agency statement of general applicability and it does not impose requirements or solicit information not already required by existing rule or statute. It is simply a data collection device utilized by the School of Music to arrive at an evaluation of its faculty members' effectiveness in the traditional areas of professional activity as required by existing rules and the "Statement" contained in the collective bargaining agreement. It is not an "agency statement" within the definition of a rule. The same rationale applies to the fourth and fifth documents under review herein. Both of these documents -- the "faculty evaluation summary" and the "SIRS interpretation manual" -- have been utilized by FSU for over five years to evaluate the overall performance and the teaching effectiveness of its faculty. They are not agency statements and the forms do not impose requirements or solicit information not already required by existing rule or statute. The areas of performance to be evaluated in the "faculty evaluation summary" are described in detail in existing Rules 6C-5.05(2) and 6C2-4.33, as well as in the collective bargaining agreement. The SIRS evaluation is specifically referred to in FSU Rule 6C2-4.33(1)(d) and is simply another tool to be utilized in the total evaluation process. These forms are not "rules" within the meaning and intent of the APA. The undersigned Hearing Officer has carefully considered the legal arguments raised by the parties, both at the hearing and in written memoranda submitted subsequent to the hearing. To the extent that the legal arguments of the parties were deemed meritorious, they have been addressed herein. One final matter deserves treatment. At the close of the hearing, petitioners sought to publish and introduce into evidence certain answers to interrogatories, and the University sought to publish others completed by Dean Wiley Housewright. Dean Housewright was present throughout the hearing and was twice called as a witness. His testimony included a discussion concerning the subject of each interrogatory sought to be published. The proper time to delineate inconsistencies between his testimony and the answers to interrogatories, if any, was during the examination of this witness. Therefore, the requests of both parties to publish these responses to interrogatories are denied.
The Issue An amended administrative complaint dated February 22, 1992 alleges that Respondent violated several provisions of Section 231.28(1), F.S. and Rule 6B- 1.006(5), F.A.C. Those alleged violations are based on incidents of criminal conduct in 1978 and 1989, and Respondent's failure to disclose the incidents on various employment or teaching certificate applications. The issue in this proceeding is whether the alleged violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donny R. McCoy (McCoy) currently holds teaching certificate number 431066, in the areas of childhood education, mental retardation, elementary education and English as a second or other language. His recently- renewed certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. McCoy submitted applications for extension of his Florida teacher's certificate, signed and notarized October 1, 1982 and December 8, 1987. He also submitted an application for addition to his Florida teacher's certificate signed and notarized July 30, 1985. McCoy's application for a professional position with the Brevard County School District was dated September 1, 1990. In each of these applications, he responded "no" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" McCoy was hired as a kindergarten teacher at Gardendale Elementary School in the Brevard County School District from July 15, 1991 until September 20, 1991. As a result of his employment, the school district ran a background check and through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) learned that McCoy had been involved in two criminal proceedings, one involving illegally importing parrots and the other involving charges of indecent exposure. McCoy resigned from his position effective September 20, 1991, and the Department of Education, Office of Professional Practice Services was notified. That office commenced an investigation consisting primarily of gathering court documents regarding the criminal cases. The investigation addressed three issues: the arrest and conviction for importing parrots, the arrest for indecent exposure, and McCoy's failure to acknowledge the incidents on his applications described above. McCoy was twenty-three years old on January 29, 1978 when he and a friend were arrested and charged with illegally shipping two parrots from Mexico to the United States. The Judgement Order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, reflects that McCoy had counsel, pled guilty and was adjudged guilty. A fine of $100.00 was imposed. McCoy was scared and remembers only going to court and leaving. Discussions were held between the attorney and the magistrate and McCoy has no recollection of the guilty plea. He felt the case was dismissed; someone else, his friend or the friend's father must have paid the fine. From 1979 until 1991, McCoy worked as a teacher in various places, including Broward County, Florida; Tokyo, Japan, for the Department of Defense; Alachua County, Florida; and St. Louis, Missouri. He claims he has been fingerprinted and had background investigations for these positions and never before has he been informed of the smuggling conviction on his record. He has told people about the parrot incident, but never put it on his application forms because he believed the case was dismissed. The application forms clearly inquire about convictions or adjudications withheld, not arrests. After the Brevard County background check, McCoy's attorney obtained an F.B.I. identification record on Donny McCoy. That record, dated 9/3/91, and provided to McCoy after he resigned from his Brevard County teaching position, reflects that the parrot charge was dismissed. On January 25, 1989 in Tazewell County, Illinois, McCoy was charged by information with three counts of "public indecency" in that he publicly "exposed his sex organ in a lewd manner." (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Two of the counts were dismissed and the third was reduced to disorderly conduct. McCoy pled guilty to the count of disorderly conduct and adjudication was deferred on February 27, 1990. He was placed on twelve months supervision, was required to attend counselling, and was fined $100.00, plus $80.00 in court costs. After he complied with all the conditions of supervision, the case was dismissed on February 5, 1991. The case had not been dismissed as of September 1, 1990, the date of McCoy's Brevard County School District application. As of that date, he was still under supervision and adjudication was deferred. His "no" response described in paragraph 2, above, was untruthful. At some time prior to the hearing in this proceeding, McCoy, or his attorney sent to the Department of Education an affidavit that he had executed on February 7, 1992 and the copy of a polygraph report dated April 3, 1989. The polygraph report is referenced in the affidavit. The substance of these documents is an admission by McCoy that he had exposed his underwear and, at most, his pubic hair, but not his penis, to a high school youth he encountered on the street. He had done this on more than one occasion for the purpose of determining whether the individual might be gay. He did this because someone had done it to him. He participated in counselling and understood the reason for his behavior. He disavowed any desire to repeat the behavior. Throughout his teaching career, McCoy has received a series of excellent recommendations and commendations. He admits that none of the authors of those letters is aware of the Illinois incident. A criminal record does not automatically reduce a teacher's effectiveness or make him ineligible for licensure. The Department of Education, Office of Professional Practices Services looks beyond the criminal charge and disposition to the underlying incident and circumstances. In this case, it had McCoy's own explanation of the Illinois incident and it had the applications which he had submitted. These documents and the agency's long- standing policy of taking very seriously any sexual charges involving teachers, a policy reasonably based on the expectations of the public that children should be safe with people employed in schools, resulted in the agency's determination that McCoy is unfit to hold a teaching certificate in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that a final order be entered finding that Respondent, Donny McCoy violated Sections 231.28(1)(c), (f) and (h), F.S., and Rules 6B-1.006(5)(a), (g) and (h), F.A.C., and imposing the following penalty: three years suspension, followed by two years probation, under terms to be specified by the Educational Practices Commission, which terms should assist in insuring that Respondent does not represent a threat to the safety or well-being of students under his responsibility. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 9th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, DOAH CASE NO. 93-2250 The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by each party: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5 to the extent that the referenced exhibit reflects those findings. However, other evidence conflicts with, or supplements the disposition of the case. Adopted in paragraph 9. and 6. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 4. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 4, except that it was not established the resignation was "forced". Rejected as unsubstantiated by evidence. Reflected in the Administrative Complaint and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 5. Rejected as to the Illinois incident; adopted as to the Texas incident, see paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Chaires, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jill M. Boyd, Esquire Bond & Boyd, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas H. Lanham, Esquire 1900 South Harbor City Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32901 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center, Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
