Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James Mickey, Jr., was an occupational placement specialist at Homestead Senior High School (HSHS) in Homestead, Florida. He has taught there since 1979 and has been an employee of petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board), since 1970. On April 23, 1987, and as set forth in greater detail on June 1, 1987, petitioner issued proposed agency action alleging that Mickey had (a) wrongfully converted $200 in cash to his own use which belonged to another person, (b) accepted a $715 coaching supplement for services that he did not perform, and (c) falsified or failed to keep adequate records for a Work Study Program of which he was in charge. For this, the Board has proposed to suspend Mickey for ten working days, and if he failed to repay $990, to suspend him for an additional twenty working days. The threat of this disciplinary action prompted Mickey to institute this proceeding. Conversion of Funds - This charge stems from an allegation made by a former student at HSHS who claims she was required to give Mickey $200 of her proceeds derived from working in the Work Study Program in the spring of 1985. As might be expected, the validity of this charge turns on the credibility of the testimony of the "victim" and the accused. The former student, who is now twenty-one years old and will be identified by her initials, L. D., worked part-time in school year 1984-85 in a work study program at the HSHS "slush house," so named because slush drinks and other munchies were sold there during lunch hour, and from 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. each school day. Profits were used for such laudable purposes as purchasing uniforms for the boys and girls school track teams. Sometime in the spring of 1985, Mickey noticed a shortage of funds at the house and suspected foul play, particularly since only he, L. D. and the custodian had keys to the house. Mickey stated he mentioned this to L. D., who denied any impropriety, but who eventually resigned from her job on May 15. Because of the accusations, Mickey contends permanent animosity between him and L. D. was engendered. Whether another student was hired to replace L. D., and if so whom, is not of record. While employed in the program, L. D. kept track of the hours she worked by recording this information on a piece of paper. This was then given to Mickey who placed the information on a time card to calculate her wages. L. D. could not recall what her hourly rate of pay was, or the amount of wages to which she was entitled. Because of paperwork delays, checks for the work study program participants, such as L. D., were not issued and distributed until August, 1985. L. D.'s proceeds totaled in excess of $200 for the semester but she could not recall the specific amount. According to L. D., Mickey brought her check to her house one day and told her to cash it and give him back $200 for payment due another student who had replaced her. He later telephoned her to remind her about the money. After cashing the check on August 28, L. D. went to the school office looking for Mickey. She carried a bank envelope with an undisclosed amount of cash. She first went to the principal's office and related to his secretary that she was going to give Mickey the cash in the envelope because Mickey had told her it was needed to pay another student. Finding this to be somewhat unusual, the secretary took L. D. to the library where they met the assistant principal (Bernstein). The secretary told Bernstein that the "young lady has money" for Mickey. L. D. repeated her story that she had $200 for Mickey that was to be paid to another student. When Mickey could not be found, L. D. departed. Neither the secretary or Bernstein saw any cash change hands, and neither knew whether the envelope actually contained $200. Later on, L. D. found Mickey in his office and gave him the $200. There is no evidence that Mickey then gave the money to another student, or returned it to the program. Word of this alleged transaction reached the principal who asked L. D. to write a statement. She did so that day although she wrote portions of it at two separate times. The statement generally corroborates L. D.'s testimony given at hearing. Respondent does not deny meeting with L. D. in his office on the morning of August 28 but denies receiving any money. However, L. D.'s testimony is deemed to be the most credible and persuasive, is corroborated by other independent testimony, and is hereby accepted. Coaching Supplement - Mickey has been a coach of various athletic teams at HSHS for a number of years. Under school policy, a coach was given a salary supplement as compensation for the additional hours devoted to coaching a team. Prior to school year 1984-85, Mickey had served as head coach of both the men and women track teams and had received two supplements for his services. However, his request to coach both teams in 1984-85 was eventually turned down since school policy did not permit a person to serve as head coach for two teams at the same time. While the record suggests that Mickey may have actually performed head coaching services for the two teams during the first part of school year 1984-85, he was compensated only as head coach of the boys cross- country track team. Its season began in August, 1984, and required his services until around 7:00 p.m. or later each school day. To Mickey's credit, his team won the state championship that year. For these services, Mickey received a salary supplement. After learning that his request to coach the two track teams (and receive two supplements) had been rejected, Mickey met with the HSHS principal, Percy Oliver, in early January, 1985, to see if he could earn the supplement in another manner. He was told of an opening for an assistant coach on the wrestling team that would pay a $715 supplement. Although the wrestling season had already begun in November, and would end in February, Oliver approved Mickey's request to serve as assistant coach for the wrestling team. To earn the supplement, Oliver stated it was necessary for Mickey to "go out and assist the kids' wrestling coach" and attend practices and meets. In an interview prior to hearing, Mickey acknowledged receiving the $715 even though he failed to attend any practices or meets. The only duty he could recall performing was advising the head coach on unspecified "rules and procedures." He also stated he did not deserve the supplement for wrestling duties, but was entitled to the extra compensation for his other school activities. At hearing, Board witness Gray described what he considered to be the normal duties of an assistant wrestling coach in an effort to show that Mickey did not earn his supplemental pay. However, Gray's testimony was drawn from his own coaching experience in the late 1960s, and is deemed to be too remote to be relevant to this proceeding. Even so, it is found Mickey was not entitled to compensation for serving as an assistant wrestling coach in school year 1984-85 since he did not perform the duties expected of an assistant coach. Recordkeeping - During school years 1983-84 and 1984-85, Mickey was in charge of a "work study program" at HSHS. As such, he had the responsibility of keeping records for the program and authorizing payment to students. This program is designed to provide on-the-job training to students enrolled in vocational educational programs who are otherwise qualified. Students were then compensated at the rate of $3.25 per hour for their services which could not exceed twenty hours per week. Mickey acknowledged he was familiar with the recordkeeping requirements of the program, since he had been involved with work study programs for some fifteen years. To be eligible for the program, a student must have been enrolled in a vocational educational program at HSHS, and be a member of a family meeting certain income criteria. In this regard, the program is funded by a federal grant, and income criteria are published annually by the federal government. As a prerequisite to enrollment students are obliged to fill out a form entitled Vocational Work Study Student Income Determination. The form must be signed by the parent or guardian, and reflect the number of members in the family as well as the annualized family income. The form itself does not require additional income verification by the parents but Mickey stated they sometimes attached additional income verification to the form, such as a W-2 form. Although it was Mickey's responsibility to verify the students' eligibility, he indicated that if the information submitted facially complied with the eligibility requirements, he made no further inquiry. Students enrolled in the program were to be paid every two weeks. Before payment could be made, it was necessary for the supervising teacher (Mickey) to submit paperwork to the Board's county-wide coordinator (Joseph Zaher) where the program payroll was processed. Through testimony from another work-study program supervisor, it was established that preparation of paperwork was sometimes "delayed," but never more than for a few weeks. In Mickey's case, the completed paperwork was not submitted until at least June, 1985, or after the regular school year had ended, and checks were not issued until July or August. Therefore, the students were not paid biweekly as they should have been. It is also noted that the actual paperwork was prepared by a former student, D. M., rather than by Mickey himself. Mickey blamed the delay on the "downtown office," saying one set of paperwork sent in March had been lost, and this forced him to send a second set to Zaher in June or July. Even if this is true, Mickey did not timely supply the first set of paperwork, and he was negligent in not following up on the matter to ensure that the students were promptly paid. The notice of charges alleges that certain students were paid for work not performed. The pertinent program "write-in roster" and attendance cards reflect that student K. M. attended an out of town track meet on May 9 and 10, 1985 but was also paid for working in the work study program on the same days. Even though K. M. was assisting Mickey at the track meet, she was not eligible for payment in the program. In the case of student T. M., Mickey relied upon a time sheet approved by another teacher and cannot be held accountable for that teacher's error. The student was also paid for working for the registrar on March 7, 8 and 20, 1985, even though he was absent from school on those days. This was improper. Mickey gave no explanation for this error except to say that he had no "guidelines" for administering the program. As to student L. D., payroll records reflect she worked after May 15, 1985, when, in fact, she quit on that date. No explanation for this variance was given by Mickey except to say he believes she received pay only for actual work performed. The notice also alleges several students were allowed to enroll in the program even though they were ineligible. At hearing, Mickey stated that although he knew he had an obligation to verify eligibility, he accepted without further checking the information given by the parents on the enrollment form. The pertinent records reflect that students T. M., K. M., L. D., M. W. and T. C. did not provide proof that they were either income eligible or enrolled in a vocational program. They also reflect that one person, D. M., was allowed to work in the program from February through April, 1984, even though she had graduated from HSHS in January, 1984. Although there are a number of mistakes, errors and omissions in the work study program records, and they failed to comply with Board recordkeeping requirements, there is no evidence that Mickey intentionally violated any program rule or regulation, or applicable state recordkeeping requirements. Miscellaneous - The Board investigated the charges against Mickey, and the results of its audit were published in a local newspaper. As a result of such notoriety, it was established that Mickey's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding respondent guilty of those charges set forth in the conclusions of law, and that he be suspended from his position for ten days without pay. Petitioner should also dispose of the $990 in a manner consistent with paragraph 8 of the conclusions of law. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of December, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Ivory Scott, held Teaching Certificate Number 460227, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent was employed with the School Board of Lee County Florida, and was assigned to Mariner High School. In addition to his duties as a health teacher and drivers' education instructor during the 1987-1988 school year, the Respondent coached the boy's varsity basketball team. M. C., a fifteen-year old female minor student at Mariner High School, participated in after school sports activities as the head statistician for the boy's varsity basketball team and as a player for the girl's basketball team. The Respondent first became acquainted with M.C. when she attended his health class during the first semester of the school year. Before the basketball season began, the student approached the Respondent and told him that she kept statistics for the boy's basketball team at her former high school the year before. The student volunteered to be one of the statisticians for the Respondent's team. She was interviewed by Respondent regarding her recordkeeping abilities and knowledge of the game. Based upon the interview and the student's display of knowledge, she was made the team's head statistician. Prior to granting permission to allow M.C. to participate in the boy's basketball program as a student athletic assistant, her mother voiced concern to the Respondent about transportation problems which could occur when a family member was occasionally unable to meet the student at the school after a game. The Respondent solved this problem with an offer to provide the student with a ride home whenever the family was unable to pick up the student. This potential solution to the problem was accepted by the mother, and the Respondent did give the student a ride home after a few games during the basketball season. On February 9, 1988, the student M.C. wanted to go home before she played in a basketball game at school at 4:00 p.m. The student asked the Respondent for a ride, and he agreed to give her a ride after school ended at 2:20 p.m. When the Respondent left the school grounds with the student, no one else was in the vehicle. The Respondent drove in a direction away from the student's home. Once an isolated area was located, the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with M.C. The Respondent then drove M.C. home, and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. During the following week, but before February 19, 1988, the Respondent again left the school grounds alone with the student M.C. They traveled to another isolated area and the Respondent again had sexual intercourse with the student. When the student was driven home, she was instructed not to tell anyone about the incident. On February 19, 1988, the student M.C. was crying in an hysterical manner in the courtyard area of the school grounds. The child's schoolfriend, A.F., tried to comfort the child, but was unable to calm her. The assistant principal who observed the scene, took the girls to the guidance area so that they could deal with M.C.'s loss of control in a more private area. A female guidance counselor was asked to keep an eye on the students because of M.C.'s unusual behavior. In an attempt to assist the student, the guidance counselor asked M.C. if she would like to go to the counselor's private office. The student accepted the offer, but did not discuss why she was upset. On Monday, February 22, 1988, M.C. returned to the guidance counselor's office. She implied that her problem was of a sexual nature, but was unwilling to discuss the matter further. A few days later, the counselor gave the student the Abuse Counseling Center telephone number. On Friday, February 26, 1988, the child M.C. contacted the guidance counselor and revealed that she had seen the man involved in her problems the evening before. The police officer on campus was contacted. The student revealed to the counselor and the officer that she was in a relationship with a man who was twenty-five years old, married, and the father of a child. Although the Respondent was married and had a child, he was older than twenty-five years of age. The evening before the limited revelations to the counselor and officer occurred, M.C. had attended the school district's boy's basketball tournament. The Respondent was present at the tournament. The following week, the counselor and the police officer urged M.C. to tell her parents about her relationship with the man. When the student did not tell her parents, the police officer called the student's mother and told her what the student had told him. The student was taken for a medical examination by her mother on March 3, 1988, and it was determined that her hymen was no longer intact. The student would not tell her mother the name of the man involved, but she agreed to tell the guidance counselor on Friday, March 4, 1988. On the appointed date, the student told the counselor the man involved was the Respondent, Ivory Scott. The guidance counselor informed the assistant principal who brought the student into the guidance office on February 19, 1988, about the allegations. The assistant principal advised the principal. When the principal was informed of the student's accusations, he sent for the Respondent immediately to prevent him from hearing the news from less reliable sources. After the principal notified the Respondent of the student's accusations, the Respondent admitted to having the student M.C. alone with him in his vehicle on several occasions. The Respondent denied that any sexual activity took place during these times, and he was unable to speculate why the child might be motivated to make the accusations against him. During the hearing, the Respondent denied that the student M.C. had ever been alone in his vehicle with him, or that the events testified to by the student regarding sexual intercourse had ever occurred. It was his testimony that M.C. had once confided to him that her stepbrother had intercourse with her. The Respondent did not report this purported confidence to the authorities, and there was no evidence in the record to substantiate that the student had a stepbrother. A number of students from the high school testified at hearing. Members of the basketball team and a student athletic assistant testified that on Thursday, February 25, 1988, M.C. was behaving in a flirtatious, sexually aggressive manner with a member of the boy's basketball team in the back of the bus. The basketball player and his mother testified as to M.C.'s persistent need to seek attention from the player. A former boyfriend of M.C.'s testified that, contrary to her statements that she had not kissed with boys prior to the sexual incidents with Respondent, he had engaged in kissing activity with her. The former boyfriend also testified that M.C. told him that nothing has happened between her and the Respondent. She told him this after a newspaper article related her accusations and the Respondent's arrest. The former boyfriend had telephoned her to discuss the matter after his grandparents mentioned that they read about the accusations in the newspaper. Diane Goldberg, a licensed clinical social worker who was accepted as an expert in the area of child sexual abuse counseling, opined that M.C.'s behavior after the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse with the Respondent was congruent, and consistent with behavioral indicators which reflect that sexual molestation has occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be revoked for violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, of the State Board of Education. That the allegation that Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4544 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected as to the finding that the student relied on Respondent for rides home after her basketball practices prior to the alleged incidents. Accept that she occasionally relied on Respondent for rides home after games. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Reject as to two week time period. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Witness incompetent to render legal conclusion. Rejected. Improper summary, Accepted. See HO #21. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #8-#10, #11, #13 and #15. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to fact. M.C. referred only to rides home, not rides home after games. See HO #6 and #7. Reject the second sentence as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The rest of paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. Accept first sentence. See HO #6. All but the last sentence in the first paragraph are accepted as facts presented. Although probative, these facts were not determinative. See Conclusions of Law. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The first two sentences in the second paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 4 is accepted. See HO #6 and #7. The third sentence is accepted as testimony. The finding of fact based on the evidence is found in HO #7. The last paragraph in proposed finding of fact number 4 is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed factual finding. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #19 and Conclusions of Law. Accept the first paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 6. See HO #14 and #15. The second paragraph is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first sentence. See HO #13 and #15. The rest of proposed finding of fact number 7 is rejected as irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Dr. Seitz's testimony was not filed in Case NO. 88-4544. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur C. Smith, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0008 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 315 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 609670, covering the areas of Physical Education, General Science, and Education Leadership. The certificate expired on June 30, 2000. However, Respondent has the option to ministerially renew his certificate. In 1989, Respondent was a teacher at Pensacola High School. During the summer of 1989, Dona Snyder, then 18 years old, was a student at Pensacola High School. Respondent would often speak with Dona at school and telephone her at home to ask her to go out with him. She turned him down. However, the day before summer school ended Dona and Respondent engaged in romantic hugging and kissing. The last day of school they went to eat at a local restaurant. Later in the year, after Ms. Snyder had graduated, Dona and Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse, which resulted in the birth of a child. From 1994-1998, Respondent was employed as a Physical Education teacher at Pine Forest High School, in Escambia County. In 1994, M.M., aged 14, was a ninth-grade student at Pine Forest High School. She met Respondent during that year. When M.M. was in the tenth grade, Respondent chaperoned M.M's. ROTC class to Seattle, Washington. M.M. and Respondent became more familiar with each other during the trip. They became very comfortable with each other and Respondent began making comments of a sexual nature about M.M's. appearance. M.M. developed a crush on Respondent. When Respondent and M.M. returned from the Seattle trip, they visited each other at various locations at Pine Forest High School. In April 1996, towards the end of M.M.'s tenth grade year, Respondent told M.M. that he would like to see her away from school. Respondent made it clear that he was interested in a sexual relationship with M.M. M.M. was around 16 years old at the time. Respondent encouraged M.M. to either lie to her mother or sneak out of her home at night in order to meet him. At first, M.M. refused Respondent's suggestions. She did not think sneaking out was right. Later in 1996, Respondent and M.M. saw each other at a football jamboree. Respondent gave M.M. his telephone number. M.M. later telephoned Respondent and they decided to meet at the University Mall. It was agreed that M.M. would concoct a pretextual reason to go to the mall which she would tell her mother. After they met at the mall, Respondent took M.M. to his home. They went to his bedroom and had sex. After this first sexual encounter, Respondent and M.M. started meeting each other and having sex almost every weekend for more than a year. M.M., with Respondent's encouragement and complicity, would sneak out of her mother's home from her bedroom window at approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent would pick her up several blocks away from her house. They would go to Respondent's house and have sex. Afterwards, Respondent would take M.M. back to the place where he picked her up. M.M. would then walk back to her house and enter through her bedroom window. Clearly, Respondent placed M.M. in a dangerous situation by encouraging and facilitating these late-night excursions. Respondent and M.M. had sex in various places, such as Respondent's home, Respondent's car, Belleview ball park, the school baseball field, and the baseball locker room. On one occasion, Respondent took M.M. and another female high school student to a local hotel for group sex. Respondent provided alcohol to the girls. He directed the girls to have sex with each other. While the girls had sex with each other, Respondent watched. Respondent had sex with the other student and then had sex with M.M. During their relationship, Respondent told M.M. not to tell anyone about their affair because he could lose his job and go to prison. Respondent also talked M.M. into foregoing her desire to pursue college and ROTC. Through this relationship, he directly contributed to M.M.'s grades deteriorating and a loss of self-esteem. The good relationship she had with her mother deteriorated. M.M. was known as Coach Bragg's girlfriend. He encouraged her to lie to her mother. None of these behaviors should be encouraged or promoted by a teacher. The relationship between Respondent and M.M. came to light when M.M's. mother woke one night and discovered her daughter missing. She confronted M.M. when M.M. was attempting to get back into her bedroom through the window. M.M's. mother telephoned the police. Later, Respondent lost his effectiveness as a teacher when he was removed from his teaching position. Respondent was arrested and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. On or about July 7, 1998, the case against Respondent was nolle prosequi by the court because Respondent had instructed M.M. to lie about their relationship. During the time of the prosecution, Respondent also caused M.M. to ignore her subpoena to testify at Respondent's trial and go into hiding until the prosecution was dismissed. However, a bench warrant was issued for M.M. Once it became clear that the prosecution would be pursued, M.M. returned to Escambia County and was arrested and jailed on a bench warrant which had been issued for her failure to appear at trial. Respondent concocted a story for M.M. to tell to the prosecution. He talked her into marrying a best friend of Respondent's so that she could say she was seeing this friend instead of seeing Respondent. Respondent's lack of moral character is apparent. As a teacher, Respondent held a position of trust towards M.M. and Dona Snyder. Clearly by engaging in a sexual relationship with them he breached that trust and violated both the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code. Respondent has repeated this predatory behavior over the course of his teaching career and cannot be trusted to protect female students from his amorous intentions. Clearly, Respondent does not have the moral character to be a teacher and should not be permitted to hold or renew his teaching certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 609670. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael D. Tidwell, Esquire 811 North Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Education Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Prior to the commencement of the 1977-78 school year, the position of Assistant Principal at Hardee High School became vacant. The vacancy was properly advertised, and very little interest was shown in the position. The Petitioner, Jerry Kapusta, was at that time employed at Hardee High School as a Physical Education teacher, Head Football Coach, and Head Track Coach. Kapusta applied for the vacant position. The Principal of Hardee High School recommended that Kapusta be hired as Assistant Principal. Acting in part on the basis of the Principal's recommendation, and in part upon his own independent examination of Kapusta's qualifications, the Superintendent of Public Instruction recommended to the School Board that Kapusta be hired as Assistant Principal at Hardee High School. A motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendation was defeated at a School Board meeting by a vote of 2 to 2. One member of the Commission was absent. Subsequently, the Superintendent made a decision to replace the position of Assistant Principal with the position of Dean of Students. The Superin tendent recommended that Kapusta be hired for this position. At a School Board meeting conducted approximately two weeks following the earlier meeting, the Board rejected the recommendation by a vote of 3 to 2. Members of the School Board who voted against the recommendation testified that they did so primarily because Kapusta was not properly certified by the State Board of Education in the fields of supervision and administration. School Board member Barlow testified that she voted against the recommendation because Kapusta was not certified, because she felt he was doing a good job as football coach, and that he should stay in that position, and because she felt that Kapusta's lack of certification would hinder the Board's efforts to get the schools accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. School Board member Knight testified that she voted against the recommendation because of Kapusta's lack of certification, and because he was doing a good job as football coach. School Board member Gilliard testified that he voted against the recommendation due to the lack of certification and because be wanted Kapusta to remain as football coach. Sometime during May, 1969, the School Board adopted policies which were included in the Board's policy book. The qualifications for the position of Assistant Principal were among the policies adopted. One of the qualifications was as follows: Candidates for assistant principalships. . . must hold a rank II or higher certificate covering administration and supervision at the level for which the applicant is to be employed or covered by a special permit. Similar qualifications were adopted for other administrative positions. This policy was readopted by the School Board each time that it readopted its policy manual. Since the policy was adopted the School Board has consistently ignored it. Joint exhibits 6 and 7 list persons who were hired by the Board to fill administrative positions since the policy was originally adopted. The overwhelming majority of persons hired for administrative positions since the policy was adopted were not properly certified according to the policy. Certification of administrative personnel as administrative personnel is not among the requirements for accreditation set out In the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' "Standards of the Commission on Secondary Schools." The Petitioner, Jerry Kapusta, has adequately performed his duties as Physical Education Teacher, Head Football Coach, and Head Track Coach at Hardee High School. Kapusta is certified as a physical education teacher and health instructor for Kindergarten through twelfth grade, and for junior colleges. He is not certified as a supervisor or administrator. He would require approximately twenty-one (21) hours of additional course work in order to obtain such certification. It is Kapusta's intention to enroll in courses that would lead to his certification as an administrator. Kapusta is the most qualified person to have applied for the position of Dean of Students at Hardee High School. Other than his lack of certification, and the desire that he remain as Head Football Coach, no testimony was presented which would establish that Kapusta is other than qualified for the position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RRECOMENDED: That a final order be entered accepting the Superintendent's recommendation that the Petitioner/Appellant, Jerry Kapusta, be appointed to the position of Dean of Students of Hardee High School, and appointing him to that position. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Burton, Esquire Burton, Patarini & Collins, P.A. Post Office Box 420 and 605 Wauchula, Florida 33073 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue Whether Respondent, Franklin Lewis, inappropriately touched a student, and, if so, whether this misconduct violates Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-4.009 and constitutes "just cause" for Respondent's dismissal.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as an instructional employee since August 20, 1996. At the time of his suspension, he taught reading and was the wrestling coach at Dunbar High School (Dunbar) in Fort Myers. Respondent is a member of the collective bargaining unit for instructional personnel. His employment is subject to the terms and conditions of the written agreement between Petitioner and the Teachers Association of Lee County. Prior to the February 7, 2005, incident2/ that is the subject of this case, Respondent was a well-liked and respected person that many students looked up to and turned to for help and support. Respondent is 43 years old. He is divorced and the father of four children. S.W. is 18 years old. He was a student at Dunbar and graduated in 2005. He was a member of the wrestling team during his sophomore, junior, and senior years at Dunbar. Prior to joining the wrestling team, S.W. was in a combined geography/history class taught by Respondent. Respondent encouraged S.W. to join the wrestling team because other students "called him a woman and stuff like that." Respondent believed that if S.W. joined the wrestling team, he would gain the respect of other students because they would know S.W. could defend himself. Mr. Dukes also encouraged S.W. to join the wrestling team. During the wrestling season, October through February, the team practiced every day after school until 5:15 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. Respondent and Mr. Dukes often gave students a ride home after wrestling practices. During the 2004-2005 school year, Respondent usually drove S.W. home after wrestling practices. Early in 2005, S.W. told Respondent that he was interested in becoming a massage therapist, but he did not want other students to know. Respondent agreed not to tell anyone. According to Respondent, he has chronic neck pain from an old injury and wanted to give S.W. an opportunity to practice massage. Respondent suggested that S.W. give Respondent massages, and Respondent would pay S.W. $20 for each massage. S.W. gave Respondent two or three massages before February 7, 2005, and Respondent paid S.W. for them. All the massages took place at Respondent's house. The record does not indicate in what room the earlier massages took place, but a reasonable inference from the record evidence is that the massages always took place in Respondent's bedroom. Respondent stated that during the massages, the door to the room was usually closed. S.W. owed money to Respondent. Although the size of the debt was disputed, S.W. was indebted to Respondent for money Respondent spent on food and drinks for S.W. At S.W.'s request, Respondent occasionally purchased food and drinks for S.W. at convenience stores when Respondent was driving S.W. home from wrestling practices. Sometimes Respondent gave money to S.W. to buy food and drinks on his own. Respondent gave or loaned money to other students. Mr. Dukes also gave small amounts of money to students from time to time, but he never asked to be paid back. Monday, February 7, 2005 On February 7, 2005, following wrestling practice, Respondent drove S.W. and two other members of the team, J.M. and P.L., to an apartment complex where Mr. Dukes lived. They went there to use the complex's sauna for the purpose of "sweating off" weight. Wrestlers compete in weight classifications, and it is important to a wrestler to keep his weight within the classification that is considered optimum for him. Following their use of the sauna, the three students got back in Respondent's car to be taken home. Respondent first dropped off P.L. at P.L.'s house and then dropped off J.M. at J.M.'s church. At S.W.'s urging, Respondent drove back to Dunbar so S.W. could use the scale at the school to check his weight. After S.W. checked his weight, Respondent and S.W. drove to Respondent's house. According to Respondent, they went to his house because S.W. wanted to give him a massage to "pay off" S.W.'s debt to Respondent. S.W. says Respondent suggested the massage. When Respondent and S.W. arrived at Respondent's house, Respondent's 10-year-old daughter and adult sister were in the house. Respondent and S.W. went into Respondent's bedroom. At first, the door to the bedroom remained open. They watched a video of Respondent competing in a wrestling match when he was in high school. When the video ended, Respondent closed the bedroom door. Respondent took off his shirt and lay on the bed to get a massage from S.W. According to Respondent, he was lying on his stomach with his head on a pillow at the bottom of the bed. S.W. was sitting on the bed, at Respondent's right side, with his feet on the floor. S.W. began to massage Respondent's shoulders. According to Respondent, his head was on the pillow at the beginning of the massage; but in order to see what S.W. was referring to on the video that was playing on the television located to Respondent's front and right, Respondent raised his head and held it in his right hand, propped up by his right elbow. Respondent said his body was also twisted to the right. It was from this position that Respondent claims his head accidentally slipped from his hand and landed in S.W.'s lap or on S.W.'s leg. Petitioner claims that, if Respondent's description of the relative positions of Respondent and S.W. on the bed were true, it would have been physically impossible for Respondent's head to have slipped from his hand and fallen against S.W.'s leg. The evidence is not sufficient to support a finding that it would have been impossible. The improbability of such an occurrence, however, is a factor that contributes to the overall finding that Respondent's account of the incident lacks credibility. According to Respondent, when his head slipped and fell against S.W.'s leg or lap, no part of his hands ever touched S.W. in "his private area." S.W.'s account of the incident in the bedroom is much different. He testified that during the massage, they were not watching a video. Respondent had his head in S.W.'s lap. As S.W. was massaging Respondent's shoulders, Respondent pulled S.W.'s pants outward. S.W. said that he "felt lips on [his] stomach." Then, he felt Respondent's hand go into his pants and touch the "top of [his] penis" and pubic hair. S.W. explained that he was referring to the base of his penis, where it attaches to his abdomen. Respondent and S.W. agree that S.W. pushed Respondent away, and S.W. asked Respondent to take him home. According to Respondent, he told S.W. it was an accident and that he was sorry. S.W. said he walked out of the bedroom and looked back to see Respondent with "his head down shaking it like when, you know, you can't believe you did something." While he was waiting for Respondent to put his shirt back on and take him home, S.W. stood for a few minutes near a pool table where Respondent's sister and daughter were playing pool. Respondent's sister, Marjorie Lewis, M.D., testified that S.W. looked "very calm." According to S.W., during the short drive to his house, Respondent "told me he was sorry, that this never happened before, and he didn't know what got into him." Tuesday, February 8, 2005 The next morning, S.W. got a ride to school from his friend and fellow Dunbar student, M.G. S.W. told M.G. that he was quitting the wrestling team, and M.G. pressed S.W. for the reason. According to M.G., S.W. told him that he was giving Respondent a massage when Respondent placed his head in S.W.'s lap and then put his hand in S.W.'s "pubic area." S.W. told M.G. he shoved Respondent away, and Respondent sat on the bed with his head in his hands, as if "he was ashamed of himself." S.W. did not tell M.G. that Respondent kissed his stomach. At the hearing, S.W. said he told M.G. that Respondent "started to pull his [S.W.'s] pants down," reached into his pubic area, and "tried" to grab his penis. In explaining why he told M.G. that Respondent "tried" to touch his penis, S.W. said he meant that Respondent only touched the top of his penis, but did not grab all of it. Other statements made by S.W. that Respondent "grabbed my penis," are not inconsistencies that show S.W. lacks credibility. In this case, the inconsistencies simply reflect the imprecision that is common when the circumstances of an event are repeated several times to both friends and strangers. S.W. was a credible witness, and he showed no doubt that Respondent touched his penis. When S.W. and M.G. got to Dunbar, M.G. accompanied S.W., at S.W.'s request, to Respondent's classroom to get some things belonging to S.W. Respondent was in the classroom, and M.G. approached and talked to him. M.G. and Respondent knew each other because M.G. had been on the wrestling team. During their conversation, Respondent never made eye contact with M.G., but kept his eyes on his computer screen. According to M.G., that was unusual behavior for Respondent. Later that same day, M.G. repeated what S.W. told him to S.W.'s friend and wrestling teammate, J.M. J.M. testified that M.G. told him that Respondent made S.W. give him a massage and Respondent "tried to touch his penis." J.M. talked to S.W. in the school cafeteria a short time later. S.W. said he quit the wrestling team because of what happened the day before at Respondent's house and that S.W. felt "degraded" and "like a four-year-old." J.M. testified that S.W. told him Respondent locked the bedroom door, "tried to reach into [S.W.'s] pants, like touching his pubic area." S.W. did not tell J.M. that Respondent kissed his stomach. Sometime during the school day, Respondent saw S.W. and urged him not to quit the wrestling team. According to Respondent, S.W. told Respondent he was not quitting the team because of the incident at Respondent's house, but because of other "personal reasons." Later that day, Respondent telephoned S.W. According to Respondent, he called to tell S.W. that S.W. was mistaken about Respondent's head hitting S.W.'s lap, that his head only hit S.W.'s leg. According to S.W., Respondent asked S.W. to keep the incident a secret and "he'd do anything." Respondent admits that he told S.W. during this telephone conversation not to report the incident, but did so "because I thought it was silly." Wednesday, February 9, 2005 The next evening, S.W. called Laurie Beaudry, his Big Sister from the Big Brother/Big Sister Program and told her he was quitting the wrestling team. According to Ms. Beaudry, S.W. told her of an "inappropriate touching" incident. Because he was upset, Ms. Beaudry offered to pick him up so they could talk. She picked S.W. up and returned to her house. On the way to pick up S.W., Ms. Beaudry called Respondent on her cellular telephone and asked Respondent whether he knew why S.W. was upset and wanted to quit the wrestling team. Respondent told her he did not know. After S.W. and Ms. Beaudry arrived at her house, S.W. told her that on Monday he was giving Respondent a massage, "then Mr. Lewis was kissing on his stomach, and then he pulled his pants and grabbed his thing." Later that evening, Respondent telephoned J.M. Respondent and J.M. had a close relationship, and J.M. said he thought of Respondent as a big brother. Respondent asked J.M. what S.W. was telling people about the incident. J.M. asked Respondent to tell his side of the story first. Respondent admitted at the hearing that what he then told J.M. was a lie. He told J.M. that he and S.W. had been practicing a wrestling move, and S.W. got upset when his pants came down. Respondent claims that what he described to J.M. actually happened at Dunbar, a week earlier. According to Respondent, J.M. told him S.W.'s account of the incident was that Respondent made S.W. give him a massage, and Respondent's head fell in S.W.'s lap. According to J.M., he told Respondent that S.W. accused Respondent of trying to touch S.W. in his pubic area. Respondent denies that J.M. said anything about S.W.'s accusing Respondent of touching S.W.'s "private area." According to J.M., he told Respondent he did not believe Respondent's account of the incident. Respondent began to cry during their telephone conversation and said, "this can't get out" and "this could ruin my life." Respondent asked J.M. to tell S.W. that Respondent would "do anything," such as leave Dunbar or the wrestling team, if S.W. did not report the incident. Respondent denies that he cried or made these statements to J.M. Immediately following his telephone conversation with Respondent, J.M. called Mr. Dukes to discuss the incident. Based on what J.M. told him, Mr. Dukes understood S.W.'s story to be that Respondent fondled S.W. J.M told Mr. Dukes he was also going to quit the wrestling team because of the incident. Shortly after the conversation between Mr. Dukes and J.M., Respondent and Mr. Dukes talked by telephone. Respondent denied J.M.'s account of the incident. Respondent admitted at the hearing that he told Mr. Dukes the same lie he told J.M., that he and S.W. had been practicing a wrestling move and S.W. got upset when his pants "came down" and Respondent's head "went towards his crotch." Respondent asked Mr. Dukes to accompany Respondent to Ms. Beaudry's house to see S.W. and "get to the bottom of what was going on." Respondent knew S.W. was at Ms. Beaudry's house because he had called for S.W. at S.W.'s house and had spoken to S.W.'s foster mother. During the drive to Ms. Beaudry's house, Respondent and Mr. Dukes discussed the allegations made by S.W. According to Mr. Dukes, Respondent said, "S.W.'s story is true." Mr. Dukes became upset and Respondent said "he didn't blame [Mr. Dukes] for being mad at him." Respondent denies that he told Mr. Dukes that S.W.'s account of the incident was true. When Respondent and Mr. Dukes arrived at Ms. Beaudry's house, Mr. Dukes suggested that Respondent remain in the car. Inside the house, Mr. Dukes talked with S.W. who was upset and did not want to see Respondent. According to Mr. Dukes, S.W. told him Respondent touched "his private area." At some point, Ms. Beaudry said she wanted to speak to Respondent, and Respondent was asked to come into the house. S.W. went into a bedroom, and S.W. and Respondent did not see or speak to each other. During the discussion between Respondent and Ms. Beaudry, Respondent began crying. Respondent says he was crying because he was thinking about how his children would be harassed when the matter got into the newspaper. According to Mr. Dukes, when Ms. Beaudry confronted Respondent with S.W.'s accusation that Respondent "grabbed his penis," Respondent's reaction was "mournful." Respondent "said he was sorry, you know, and he don't know why it happened and this has never happened before and things like that." According to Ms. Beaudry, Respondent sat in a chair, held his head in his hands, and rocked back and forth crying and saying, "I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Is [S.W.] OK? Is [S.W.] OK?" Respondent did not deny S.W.'s account of the incident or offer Ms. Beaudry a different account of the incident. Respondent asked Ms. Beaudry and Mr. Dukes not to report the incident and said, "I'll do anything. I'll move. I'll leave the school or whatever." About 11:30 that evening, after Respondent returned home, he told his sister, Dr. Lewis, that there had been a "misunderstanding" with S.W. According to Dr. Lewis, Respondent told her "he may have inadvertently touched [S.W.] near his private area." Dr. Lewis noted that Respondent showed signs of depression in the days that followed. Thursday, February 10, 2005 The next day, February 10, 2005, Mr. Dukes reported the incident to an employee in Dunbar's Office of Student Services. From that first contact, a series of contacts were made with Dunbar officials leading to a formal investigation and Petitioner's initiation of these termination proceedings against Respondent. Sometime that same day, Dr. Lewis called Ms. Beaudry to ask how S.W. was doing and to offer counseling to S.W. Ms. Beaudry declined the offer. A reasonable inference can be drawn from Dr. Lewis' offer of counseling for S.W. that she believed his emotional upset was genuine and not contrived. Credibility This is not just a case of S.W.'s word against Respondent's. Respondent's account of the events is also contradicted by J.M. (regarding what J.M. told Respondent about the incident, whether Respondent cried, and whether Respondent asked J.M. to keep the incident a secret) and Mr. Dukes (whether Respondent admitted that S.W. was telling the truth). Furthermore, Respondent admitted that his first explanation of the incident to J.M. and Mr. Dukes was a lie. The record evidence does not explain why S.W. would have become so upset if the only thing that happened was what Respondent claims -- an accidental, brief contact between Respondent's head and S.W.'s leg or lap. S.W. testified that he loved and respected Respondent like a brother or father. Respondent did not deny their close relationship. The record contains no credible evidence to establish a motive for S.W. to destroy his relationship with Respondent and jeopardize Respondent's career as a teacher by falsely accusing him. Respondent removed S.W. as one of the captains of the wrestling team sometime during the 2004-2005 wrestling season for using excessive profanity, but Respondent himself never said he believed this "demotion" was the reason for S.W.'s accusation against him. S.W.'s demotion from captain is not sufficient, standing alone, to support an inference that it caused S.W. to become so angry with Respondent that he fabricated the incident that occurred on February 7, 2005. Moreover, it would not account for the contradictions between Respondent's account of his conversations with J.M. and Mr. Dukes and their account of the same conversations. Respondent had an obvious motive to lie in order to avoid the adverse professional and financial consequences of S.W.'s accusation against him. The more persuasive and credible evidence supports a finding that Respondent's account of the incident is untrue. The truthfulness of S.W.'s account of the incident is corroborated by Respondent's behavior in the days that followed. Respondent exhibited remorse, fear, and shame. This behavior, while not always reliable as proof of guilt, was more consistent with S.W.'s account of the incident than with Respondent's account. Petitioner has met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence its factual allegation that on February 7, 2005, while Respondent was receiving a massage from S.W. in the bedroom of Respondent's home, Respondent reached his hand into S.W.'s pants and touched S.W.'s penis. Ms. Beaudry and Mr. Dukes stated that the incident caused S.W. to become more introverted. Mr. Dukes said S.W. and J.M. performed poorly as wrestlers after the incident. The wrestlers, in general, and S.W., in particular, were teased and picked on by other students when the incident was reported in the news and became public knowledge. Respondent's misconduct undermines the foundation of the relationship between a teacher and his students, and thereby impairs his effectiveness in the Lee County school system. Respondent's dishonesty, which includes some of his testimony under oath in these proceedings, also impairs his effectiveness in the Lee County school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Respondent, Franklin Lewis', misconduct constitutes "just cause" under Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 to dismiss him from his employment as a teacher with Petitioner, the Lee County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 31st day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2007), by using her position as a member of the Duval County School Board to influence placement of her children in magnet schools without following proper procedures, and if so, what is an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent has served as a member of the Duval County School Board (School Board). She was elected to the School Board in 2002 and represents District IV. Respondent is subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for public officers and employees, for her acts and omissions during her tenure as a member of the School Board. Respondent and her husband, DeAndre Jackson, have four children, all of whom attend or attended public schools in Duval County. Mr. Jackson is a teacher at Jean Ribault Senior High School, which is the high school from which Respondent graduated. The Duval County School District (School District) offers a number of school-choice options. Of the 123,400 students in the School District, about 30,000 students participate in school-choice options, attending schools other than their neighborhood or zoned school. Magnet schools constitute one of the school-choice options in the School District. Magnet schools are schools that offer a specialized program or theme for students to participate in based on the student’s interests, skills, or talents. Parents of students may apply if they wish their child to attend a magnet school that is outside that student’s neighborhood or zoned school. School Board Policy 5.46 is entitled Magnet Schools and Programs (Policy). Pursuant to this Policy, parents wishing their children to enter a magnet program may apply in January or February for the upcoming school year. After the application deadline, the applications are processed and a computer lottery generates assignments based on student preference and space availability. The lottery typically occurs in early April, and students who are not selected are placed on waiting lists. Participants in the lottery have weighted entry points, which include the following “preferences” identified in the Policy as follows: (a) whether the student lives in the magnet school’s attendance area; (b) whether the student participated in the magnet program at a prior grade level; (c) whether the student has a sibling who attends the magnet school; and (d) whether the student’s address is in an attendance area of a Title I school. Dr. Sally Hague is the Director of School Choice and Pupil Assignment Operations for the School District. Her duties include oversight of most of the school-choice options in the School District. According to Dr. Hague, there are preferences outside of the Policy which are also recognized. Children of active- duty military personnel receive a priority imposed by statute. Dr. Hague also recognizes a preference for students who have toured the school with parents during the application period. Additionally, children of School Board employees who are members of collective bargaining units may be given a preference. Specifically, employees who are teachers and members of Duval Teachers United have the option under the collective bargaining agreement for their children to attend school at their work site or the nearest appropriate school, subject to consideration given to space and racial balance. When a parent chooses to exercise this contractual right to place his or her child at or near the school where the parent works, that parent would contact Dr. Hague.1/ The collective bargaining agreement does not set out a deadline regarding making such a request. Dr. Hague receives calls from many parents of students in the School District, including calls from parents who are teachers and parents who are School Board members. Respondent had the occasion to call Dr. Hague at times regarding her children. Shortly after Respondent was elected to the School Board in 2002, Respondent called Dr. Hague regarding her children’s school placements. Respondent again called Dr. Hague in 2005, requesting a transfer for one of her children from one school to another. In both instances, Dr. Hague considered Respondent to be calling as a mother, not as a School Board member. During the 2006-2007 school year, two of Respondent’s children, Ky. J. and Ka. J., attended John E. Ford K-8 Montessori School, a magnet school.2/ Late in the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent was informed by Ka.’s teacher that Ka. should skip a grade. Respondent believed that Ka. was not overly mature and wished to transfer him to a different magnet school. Additionally, Respondent was concerned that Ka.’s FCAT scores were “flat academically” compared to prior years. As a result of her concerns, Respondent began considering options for the next school year. One of the options Respondent was considering was transferring her children to another magnet school, Henry F. Kite. In late May 2007, Respondent again contacted Dr. Hague regarding a change in the placement of Ky. and Ka. Respondent’s telephone contact to Dr. Hague occurred after the application period for magnet schools placement in the 2007-2008 school year had passed. She did not contact Dr. Hague earlier in the school year because she was not aware of the relevant issues regarding Ka. (i.e., his teacher’s recommendation that he skip a grade and his FCAT scores). At the time she made the phone call to Dr. Hague, Respondent had a general understanding that there had been at least one individual on the Superintendent’s staff (the Superintendent prior to Dr. Wise) who had been permitted to have her child transferred to a different magnet program without going through the application process. The only other School Board member who testified, Nancy Bonner, was also aware of one such instance, as was Mr. Sundstrom, the Chief-of-Staff to the former Superintendent. The testimony regarding the content of this telephone conversation varies to some extent. Respondent has no recollection of making any reference to being a School Board member during her conversation with Dr. Hague. Dr. Hague’s recollection of any reference Respondent made to her position as a School Board member during this phone call is less than clear. When asked whether Respondent referred to herself as a School Board member during this conversation, Dr. Hague testified, “. . . she did refer to herself as a board member at one point. . . .Well, I mean, she did say, you know, as a board member, you know, if there was any way to place her children at Kite.” Dr. Hague acknowledged that Respondent was “search[ing] for other ways that we might be able to move the students to Henry F. Kite.” Moreover, the evidence is clear that Dr. Hague knew from the first conversation with Respondent in 2002 regarding her children that Respondent was a School Board member. Dr. Hague also testified that in each instance, Respondent called her as a mother and that Dr. Hague was not asked by Respondent to violate any rule or policy: Well, she [Respondent] has children in the school system and she was calling in reference to her children and their school assignment, not unlike any one of 300, 400 calls I would take during the course of a month from parents who call to inquire about placement with their children, or movement on a waiting list, or any number of things that the parents call me about regarding school assignments. When asked whether she felt intimidated by the phone call, Dr. Hague replied that she did not feel any intimidation during the phone call. When asked if she felt pressured, she replied, “Maybe pressure’s not the right word, some persistence, I think on her part to see if there were any options from moving the students to Kite.” Dr. Hague continues to perceive her working relationship with Respondent as a good one. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent demanded that her children be placed at Kite. Respondent said nothing to indicate that she might take some sort of adverse action against Dr. Hague if Dr. Hague did not approve a transfer, and in fact, did not take any adverse action toward Dr. Hague. After informing Respondent that the application period had passed, Dr. Hague referred Respondent to then- Superintendent, Joseph Wise. After speaking with Dr. Hague, Respondent contacted Superintendent Wise via telephone and left a voicemail regarding the placement of her children in magnet schools for the 2007- 2008 school year. Respondent “loosely” recalled what she said in the voicemail, and stated that she told Superintendent Wise that Dr. Hague told her to contact him. Superintendent Wise delegated the task of communicating with Respondent regarding this matter to his then- Chief-of-Staff, David Sundstrom.3/ Mr. Sundstrom contacted Dr. Hague who explained the application process for magnet schools to him. Respondent was next contacted on June 5, 2007, via e-mail by Mr.Sundstrom regarding her children’s placement in magnet schools for the 2007-2008 school year. In the e-mail, Mr. Sundstrom advised her that the lottery period had passed, that she had not yet filled out any application to move her children to another magnet school, and that there was a waiting list at Kite for the grades she requested. Respondent replied in approximately an hour and copied Dr. Wise. While she alleged in the e-mail that she was aware of waivers provided to members of Dr. Wise’s staff, she stated that she would submit late applications to place her children on the waiting list. Respondent and Mr. Sundstrom exchanged additional e- mails on June 5, 2007. For some time prior to the June 5, 2007, e-mails, the relationship between Respondent and then- Superintendent Wise, and his Chief of Staff, had deteriorated. According to Mr. Sundstrom, Respondent’s working relationship with Superintendent Wise deteriorated within months of his arrival in Duval County and was “really an unhealthy arrangement or relationship” in the months preceding the June 2007 e-mails. Mr. Sundstrom very openly did not and does not like or respect Respondent. Similarly, Respondent distrusted Mr. Sundstrom and believed that he was trying to undermine her work as a board member. The e-mails exchanged between Respondent and Mr. Sundstrom in June 2007 reflect the high level of tension between the two which came about prior to the issue raised herein. After becoming aware of the e-mails concerning Respondent filling out applications late for her children, Dr. Hague asked a member of her staff to prepare applications for Respondent to sign to request placement of her children on the waiting list for Henry F. Kite. This was solely at Dr. Hague’s direction as a courtesy to Respondent, and was not requested by Respondent. On July 16, 2008, Respondent signed and submitted applications for placement of her children in magnet schools for the 2007-2008 school year. Her son, Ka., was placed on the waiting list. Only five students were on the waiting list for Henry F. Kite, substantially fewer than waiting lists for more highly competitive schools. Ka. was moved into an open spot at Kite when the waiting list was exhausted. The weight of the evidence does not establish the allegation that Respondent asserted a “School Board member privilege” in her communications with Dr. Hague or Superintendent Wise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED: That the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent, Brenda Priestly-Jackson, did not violate Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
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)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (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 The issues for determination are whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the Professional Services Contract of each of the respondents because each respondent allegedly engaged in immorality and misconduct in office in violation of Subsection 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and the Rules of Professional Conduct in Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 4.009(2) and (3), 6B-1.001, and 6B-1.006(3)(a), (4)(b) and (c), and (5)(a) and (h).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for the employment and dismissal of instructional staff (teachers) in Brevard County, Florida (the school district). During the 2007-2008 school year, Petitioner employed each of the respondents as teachers and wrestling coaches. Petitioner employed John M. Hackney as a teacher and the varsity wrestling coach at Astronaut High School (Astronaut). Petitioner employed James Michael Murray as a teacher at Space Coast Junior Senior High School (Space Coast) and as the junior varsity wrestling coach at Astronaut.2 Mr. Hackney and Mr. Murray have extensive experience in competitive wrestling. Mr. Hackney has coached high school wrestling for more than 20 years and has been the head coach of the Astronaut varsity wrestling team for approximately 15 years. For the last 15 years, Mr. Hackney has also coached competitive wrestling in the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU). Mr. Hackney has also served as the head of AAU wrestling in Florida. Mr. Murray began wrestling competitively in 1967 for the wrestling team at Cocoa High School (Cocoa), a high school located within the school district. Mr. Murray wrestled for Cocoa for three years, wrestled for Brevard Community College for two years, and was a member of wrestling team at the University of Florida for one year, although he did not compete in any event for the university. Mr. Murray completed law school and practiced law as a licensed attorney in Florida. While in private practice, Mr. Murray was a wrestling referee for the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA). The FHSAA is the officiating body for all high school athletic programs in the state, including wrestling. Mr. Murray authored some parts of the FHSAA officiating exam. He also taught classes to prepare candidates for the FHSAA exam. In 2000, Mr. Murray left his law practice to become a high school teacher and a wrestling coach. Mr. Murray became the head coach of the Space Coast varsity wrestling team in the 2003-2004 school year. When the principal at Space Coast removed Mr. Murray as head coach, Mr. Murray remained as a teacher at Space Coast, but became a junior varsity wrestling coach at Astronaut. Mr. Murray also has extensive experience as a coach in AAU wrestling. On December 1, 2007, the Astronaut varsity wrestling team competed in a multi-team tournament at Poinciana High School (Poinciana). A regular member of the Astronaut team, identified in the record as W.P., was injured and unavailable to compete in the Poinciana tournament. Mr. Hackney substituted a student, identified in the record as T.G., for W.P. T.G. was a seventh-grade middle school student. He was not enrolled in Astronaut and was not eligible to compete for Astronaut in the Poinciana tournament, because the Poinciana tournament was a high school event sanctioned by the FHSAA. T.G. was at the Poinciana tournament because Mr. Hackney and Mr. Murray coached T.G. in AAU wrestling events. T.G. was a very good wrestler for his age group and very interested in wrestling. Mr. Hackney allowed T.G. to ride on the team bus with the Astronaut varsity team and attend the tournament with the Astronaut team.3 Mr. Murray also attended the Poinciana tournament. The Poinciana tournament was a varsity tournament, and Mr. Murray was a junior varsity coach. Mr. Murray was not present at the varsity tournament in any official capacity. Mr. Murray attended the varsity tournament to help Mr. Hackney. While the Astronaut team members were weighing in prior to the Poinciana tournament, the father of T.G., identified in the record as Mr. G., approached Mr. Hackney and asked Mr. Hackney if Mr. Hackney would substitute T.G. for W.P. and allow T.G. to wrestle a high school student from another school who was at the tournament. The student was ranked number one in the nation in the AAU, and Mr. G. wanted T.G. to get experience wrestling at that level of competition. T.G. welcomed the opportunity to wrestle such a highly-ranked opponent. Mr. Hackney agreed to the request by Mr. G. Mr. Hackney discussed the matter with Space Coast coaches Mr. Toni McCormick and Mr. Richard Jones, and the coaches for Space Coast agreed to T.G. wrestling as W.P.4 Mr. Murray was not present during the discussions between Mr. Hackney, Mr. G., and the Space Coast coaches. When Mr. Hackney informed Mr. Murray of the decision to allow T.G. to compete as W.P., Mr. Murray advised Mr. Hackney not to proceed. T.G. competed as W.P. in three matches at the Poinciana tournament. One of the matches was against the number one ranked AAU wrestler. On December 5, 2007, Mr. Hackney allowed T.G. to compete as W.P. for Astronaut in a dual meet with the Eau Gallie High School (Eau Gallie) wrestling team. Mr. G. approved the entry of his son as W.P. Mr. Murray was not present at the Eau Gallie dual meet. Petitioner knew, or should have known, that Mr. Hackney allowed T.G. to compete as W.P. in the Poinciana tournament and dual meet at Eau Gallie. Mr. Hackney informed the coaches of the opposing teams of his intent to allow T.G. to compete as W.P. Mr. Jones also discussed the situation with Ms. Sharon Travis, the athletic director at Space Coast. Within days of the Eau Gallie match, the area newspaper published a picture of T.G. wrestling with a caption identifying T.G. as W.P. Parents and spectators at both the Poinciana tournament and the Eau Gallie dual meet knew that T.G. was competing as W.P. The principal at Space Coast, Mr. Bob Spinner, knew that T.G. had competed as W.P. in the Poinciana tournament and the Eau Gallie dual meet. In preparation for an arbitration hearing in April of 2008 concerning Mr. Murray’s grievance against the principal for removing Mr. Murray as head wrestling coach at Space Coast, Mr. Spinner learned that Mr. Hackney had allowed T.G. to compete as W.P. in the Poinciana tournament and Eau Gallie dual meet. The principal called a student, identified in the record as W.C., to his office approximately four times to interview the student concerning the involvement of Mr. Hackney, Mr. Murray, and T.G. in the Poinciana tournament and Eau Gallie dual meet. Other employees and agents of Petitioner also knew of the competition of T.G. in the Poinciana tournament and the Eau Gallie dual meet. Prior to the arbitration, Mr. Terry Humphrey, the principal at Astronaut, and Ms. Joy Salamone, the director of Human Resource Services and Labor Relations, learned of the actions of Mr. Hackney and Mr. Murray involving T.G. The actions of the respondents did not impair their service in the community as teachers or their effectiveness as teachers in the classroom. Each of the respondents continued to teach in the classroom and receive favorable evaluations as classroom teachers after the Poinciana tournament and the Eau Gallie dual meet. Mr. Hackney and Mr. Murray received the highest marks available on all of their evaluations, including the evaluations completed after the Poinciana tournament and Eau Gallie dual meet. Petitioner selected Mr. Hackney as the Teacher of the Year for the 2006-2007 school year. After Mr. Murray prevailed in the arbitration proceeding, he was scheduled to be reinstated as head coach for the Space Coast varsity wrestling team. Mr. Jones, a community coach at Space Coast, met with several parents, and they decided to raise the ineligible competition by T.G. as a ground to prevent the reinstatement of Mr. Murray at Space Coast. One of the parents reported the ineligible competition by T.G. to the FHSAA. The FHSAA imposed a fine of $2,500.00 against Astronaut. Sometime in July 2008, the school district superintendent asked Ms. Salamone to conduct an investigation. On or about August 4, 2008, the investigation concluded that Mr. Hackney and Mr. Murray should be removed as wrestling coaches, but retained as classroom teachers. The superintendent convened a meeting to reconsider the recommendation. The recommendation was changed, and the superintendent recommended that Petitioner terminate the respondents as classroom teachers.5 Mr. Hackney and Mr. Murray cooperated fully in the investigation. Neither of the respondents ever attempted to conceal their actions. Mr. Hackney was motivated solely by his desire and the desire of Mr. G. for T.G. to gain experience T.G. would not otherwise enjoy. Neither of the respondents sought personal gain, either direct monetary gain or indirect gain through a winning season. Astronaut would have gained nothing in season standings by winning the Poinciana tournament and Eau Gallie dual meet. There is no evidence that T.G. was successful in the matches with older competitors, and the number one ranked AAU wrestler pinned T.G. in their match. The competition of T.G. in the Poinciana tournament and Eau Gallie dual meet did not expose the school district to increased liability. Mr. G. paid an additional premium for AAU insurance that covered his son in any competition, including the Poinciana tournament and the Eau Gallie dual meet. Mr. Hackney knew that T.G. was insured for both events. The entry of T.G. in the Poinciana tournament and Eau Gallie dual meet did not cause harm to T.G. The FHSAA suspended T.G. from varsity competition for one year, but T.G. was ineligible for varsity competition before the suspension. The competition by T.G. in each event was not a violation of AAU rules and regulations. T.G. did not suffer any physical harm from his competition with older, more experienced wrestlers. There is no evidence that T.G. suffered any academic or personal harm. The testimony of T.G. at the hearing demonstrated his appreciation for the experience he gained in the Poinciana tournament and Eau Gallie dual meet.6 The termination of the respondents from their classroom teaching positions deviates from Petitioner’s progressive discipline policy. Petitioner has never terminated a coach from his or her teaching position for any reason other than an improper relationship with a student. Petitioner has refused to terminate other teachers for conduct more egregious than that of Mr. Hackney and Mr. Murray. For example, a teacher who provided alcohol to a student and allowed her to drink until she became incapacitated was suspended for 30 days from June 12 through July 12, 2008; was reprimanded; and was subjected to a salary freeze for one year. In another incident, three assistant principals conspired over a two-year period to move 52 special education students into different grades so they would not have to take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The goal was to raise the school’s overall performance and receive higher funding from the state. Both administrators and teachers may receive financial benefits from increased FCAT scores. Petitioner did not terminate any of the employees. One assistant principal was demoted to teacher, and another was subjected to a salary freeze for one year. The assistant principal, who knew of the plan and failed to report it, was promoted to the position of elementary school principal. In 2005, two coaches punished two players, who missed practice, by subjecting the two players to tackling by fellow players during practice. The coaches instructed the other players to hurt the two players who missed practice and allowed tackling after blowing the whistle to end the session. The incidents received publicity in the local media after the investigation. Petitioner issued letters of reprimand to each of the coaches.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order and reinstating each of the respondents to their positions as classroom teachers with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 17th day of June, 2009.
