The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), (1)(g), and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1128573, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2021. During the 2013-2014 school year, until her voluntary resignation effective June 3, 2015, Respondent was employed as a language arts teacher at Gulf Breeze High School. Since that time, Respondent has been employed as a third-grade teacher at a private Christian academy in Pensacola, Florida. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the alleged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent illegally operated a boat while under the influence of alcohol. As a result of conduct, she was arrested and charged with Boating Under the Influence. On or about February 18, 2009, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Boating Under the Influence. In or around January 2015 through March 2015, Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol and/or consumed alcohol in the presence of students. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, instances: in or around February 2015, wherein Respondent provided alcohol to underage students; and on or about March 20, 2015, when Respondent drove to J.H.'s, a student's, home, while under the influence of alcohol, and thereafter, attempted to drive J.H. while so inebriated. On or about April 24, 2015, Respondent illegally operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On or about May 26, 2015, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, Respondent was arrested and charged with DUI-Second Conviction More Than Five (5) Years After Prior Conviction. On or about April 7, 2016, Respondent pled nolo contendere to an amended charge of Reckless Driving; adjudication was withheld. Count 1 Count 1 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation.” The Count was based on the two incidents described in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint as follows: Boating Under the Influence -- 2008 On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent was maneuvering a boat onto a trailer at the Navarre Beach boat ramp. Her husband was driving their vehicle, and had backed their trailer into the water. As a result of actions at that time, Respondent was placed under arrest for Boating Under the Influence (BUI), a misdemeanor (her husband was arrested for Driving Under the Influence). Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the BUI offense and, on February 18, 2008, was adjudicated guilty. Subsequent to the final hearing, counsel for Petitioner researched the issue and discovered that the incident occurred prior to Respondent’s initial certification as a teacher. As a result, Petitioner correctly concluded and stipulated “that no disciplinary action should be taken as a result of this conviction.” Driving Under the Influence -- 2015 On April 24, 2015, Respondent and a friend drove, in the friend’s car, to Pensacola Beach for drinks. Respondent left her car in a Publix parking lot. Upon their return, Respondent correctly perceived that she was not fit to drive home. Her phone was dead, so she got into her car and started it in order to charge the phone. She called her son and asked that he come pick her up. At some point after calling her son, Respondent called her soon-to-be ex-husband, from whom she was in the process of a bitter divorce, and engaged in a heated and animated discussion with him. A complaint was called in, and Officer Kidd was dispatched to the scene. Upon his arrival, Officer Kidd observed Respondent in her car, with the engine running, “yelling at someone on the phone.” He noticed a bottle of Crown Royal in the center console. Respondent refused to perform field sobriety tasks. Office Kidd’s observations of Respondent while she was in the car and upon her exiting the car led him to believe that she was impaired. Respondent had been in the car, with the engine running, and was clearly in control of the vehicle regardless of her intent to drive. Although Respondent’s son arrived on the scene to take her home, Respondent was arrested and transported to jail.2/ Respondent was charged with DUI. The charges were reduced, and she entered a nolo plea to reckless driving. The trial judge withheld adjudication. Count 2 Count 2 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been found guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” The Count was based on the incidents described in paragraph 4 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. March 20, 2015 -- The Garage On or about March 20, 2015, over spring break, Joshua Hartley was at Pensacola Beach with friends, including Respondent’s son. He had his father’s car. Apparently, Joshua’s father, Jon Hartley had been trying for some time to reach Joshua and have him return the car. Joshua and his group of friends had plans to stay at the beach into the evening. Respondent’s son suggested that Respondent, who he knew to be at the beach, could follow Joshua home, and then return him to his friends at the beach. Respondent was called, and she followed Joshua from the beach to his house, a drive of perhaps 15 minutes. When Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house, Mr. Hartley, Ms. Barrett, and a third man were sitting and drinking in the open garage. Other than agreement that Respondent and Joshua showed up at the house at the same time, the description of the events by Joshua Hartley, Mr. Hartley, and Ms. Barrett were so divergent that the three might well have been in different places. Ms. Barnett described the incident as occurring between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., when it was dark. She testified that Joshua and Respondent pulled up in separate vehicles, and that Mr. Hartley initially approved of Joshua returning to the beach with Respondent as a good deed, since Joshua purportedly indicated that “she’s really drunk.” She indicated that Joshua got into the passenger seat of Respondent’s vehicle, whereupon Respondent put the vehicle in gear, and lurched forward, almost hitting Mr. Hartley’s vehicle. At that time, Ms. Barrett indicated that Mr. Hartley ran down, startled by the driving error, told Joshua that he could not go with her, and offered to let Respondent stay with them until she sobered up. Ms. Barrett further described Respondent as essentially falling out of her bathing suit, barefoot, staggering, with slurred and vulgar speech, and highly intoxicated. After about an hour, and as Respondent was preparing to leave, Ms. Barnett testified that Joshua, who had remained with the adults in the garage since his arrival, went to his room. Ms. Barnett testified that Respondent then excused herself to use the restroom. Ms. Barnett testified that after 15 minutes or so, she went inside, and found Respondent “exiting Joshua’s bedroom.” Her description of the event is not accepted, and her veiled insinuation that something improper occurred -- for which no evidence exists -- did not go unnoticed. Mr. Hartley described the incident as occurring between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. He testified that Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house in Respondent’s car with Joshua as the passenger. He was “positive” that Joshua was not driving because he was 15 years old and did not have a driver’s license. When they pulled into the driveway, Mr. Hartley testified that he walked down to the vehicle and that Joshua got out of the car. Mr. Hartley was unsure if Joshua stayed in the garage at all, but at most went to his room after a matter of minutes. Respondent joined the adults in the garage. Mr. Hartley indicated that Respondent “looked like she had been at the beach” and, though her speech was not slurred, he could tell she had been drinking because he could smell alcohol and by “the way she was speaking.” His description of Respondent was far from the florid state of intoxication as described by Ms. Barnett. Mr. Hartley offered no description of Respondent’s vehicle lurching forward, Respondent staggering, or of Joshua asserting that Respondent was really drunk. Finally, his concern that “the grown, intoxicated woman [as described by counsel in his question] was in your 15 year old son’s bedroom” was based solely on Ms. Barnett’s description of what she claimed to have seen. Joshua testified that he drove to his house in his father’s black Lincoln Aviator, and that Respondent followed in her white Ford Expedition. It was daylight, around 4:00 in the afternoon. Upon their arrival, Respondent pulled onto the grass next to the driveway. Mr. Hartley was mad, possibly about Joshua having the car, would not let him return to the beach, and sent him to his room within a minute of his arrival. Joshua testified that Respondent was in typical beach attire. He had no complaint as to Respondent’s actions either at the beach or at his house, and did not see her drinking. He did, however, indicate that “they” told him that “she might have been drunk or something.” He testified that after Respondent spent some time with the adults in the garage, she then went inside to use the restroom. Joshua’s door was open, and Respondent stood at the door and apologized if she had gotten him into trouble. She then left. Given the dramatic divergence in the stories of the witnesses, the evidence is not clear and convincing that anything untoward occurred when Respondent agreed to give Joshua a ride to his house to return his father’s car, and offered to return him to his friends at the beach. Though credible evidence suggests that Respondent had alcohol on her breath, there was no evidence that she was “under the influence of alcohol,” that she was not able to lawfully drive a vehicle, or that Joshua suspected that she had been drinking. Ms. Barrett’s more dramatic testimony that Respondent was drunk and staggering, falling out of her clothes, with her speech slurred and profane, and the intimation that she was in Joshua’s bedroom in that condition, is not accepted. The evidence adduced at the hearing was not clear and convincing that, on March 20, 2017, Respondent engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board. February 15, 2015 -- Mardi Gras There was a good bit of evidence and testimony taken that Petitioner was seen drunk and staggering down the street at the 2015 Pensacola Mardi Gras, and was seen and assisted by students in that condition. However, the basis for the Amended Administrative Complaint was not that Respondent was publically intoxicated, but that she “provided alcohol to underage students.” Pensacola has a Mardi Gras event with a parade and floats. In 2015, “Fat Tuesday” was on February 17. The big 2015 Mardi Gras parade was on Sunday, February 15. Respondent had a group of friends that were in a Mardi Gras Krewe and she had been helping them with the float. She apparently drank a good bit. By the time her friends were ready to join the parade, around noon to 1:00 p.m., Respondent determined that she was drunk enough that she should go to the hotel room the group had rented. Unlike the evidence for the “Garage” incident, the evidence was convincing that Respondent was very intoxicated. Ms. Smith testified that Respondent joined a group of alumni and students at a Subway parking lot where they had gathered to watch the parade. The evidence is persuasive that Respondent came upon the scene by happenstance, and that the parking lot was not her destination. While there, Respondent very likely consumed one or more “Jello-shots.” However, the suggestion that Respondent was in any condition to have brought the Jello-shots with her to the parking lot is rejected. Rather, the evidence supports that the shots were there, and that she partook. It would not have been out of character for Respondent to have taken them and handed them around. Furthermore, the testimony that Respondent was distributing beers to students is, for the same reason, simply not plausible. After a while, Ms. Smith, followed but not assisted by Mr. Brayton, assisted Respondent to her hotel. Respondent was, by this time, in a state colloquially known as “falling-down drunk.” She could not walk unassisted, and at one point laid down on a picnic table. It was at this time that Respondent and Ms. Smith were photographed, a picture that received some circulation. Ms. Smith finally delivered Respondent to her hotel, where Respondent’s son saw them and relieved Ms. Smith of any further duties. Mr. Brayton’s testimony that he thereafter entered Respondent’s hotel room was not supported by Ms. Smith or others. His testimony regarding Respondent’s son and his friends at the hotel was not clear and convincing. January 2015 -- The House Party Amelia Smith testified to an alleged incident in the fall of 2014 in which she was at Respondent’s house and students were having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. There was no allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint as to any event in the fall of 2014. Ms. Klisart testified to an incident involving students drinking at Respondent’s house around the Martin Luther King holiday, which in 2015 was on January 19. That corresponds to Petitioner’s statement that she returned to her house after an evening celebrating her birthday,3/ to find her son and his friends having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. The allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol in January 2015 was adequately pled. The evidence supports a finding that Respondent had been drinking when she arrived at her house. The evidence is not clear and convincing that she joined the students in the garage, but she clearly knew the party was ongoing, that it involved high school students, that the students were drinking, and that she made no effort to put a halt to the party. Notoriety of the Incidents The evidence is clear and convincing that the incidents described herein were widely known by students at Gulf Breeze High School, by other teachers, and by the school administration. Counts 3 and 4 Count 3 alleges that “Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.” Count 4 alleges “that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety.” Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student’s] health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, by allowing, if not condoning, student drinking at her home in January 2015, failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from harm.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), and rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of five years, and be required to obtain treatment through the Recovery Network Program at a frequency and for a duration deemed appropriate by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 7th day of June, 2017.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner enter a final order sustaining respondent's suspension and dismissing him from employment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of September 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. Frederick Charles Metropolitan Correctional Center Flagler Unit 15801 S.W. 137th Avenue Miami, Florida 33177 Mr. Frederick Charles 35303 Southwest 180th Avenue Trailer 337 Florida City, Florida 33034 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Ms. Patti Guadagno (Ms. Guadagno or Respondent) violated sections 1012.795(1)(a), , or (j), Florida Statutes, and administrative rules,11 as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Guadagno holds Florida Educator's Certificate 608587, covering the area of elementary education with an endorsement for English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Guadagno was employed by the Miami-Dade County School District (District) in Florida, primarily as a teacher at either Douglas or Joe Hall Elementary School. 4. 2/ Ms. Guadagno was notified by certified mail dated March 6, 2012, that the Office of Professional Practices Services of the Florida Department of Education (DOE) had opened investigation Case Number 112-2307 into Ms. Guadagno's The letter did not note that those charges had been dropped about six months earlier. There was testimony from Student - that on one occasion during the academic year, Ms. Guadagno was upset with - and pushed 11111 binder off of - desk. - testified that when. stood up, she then "tossed" the chair to the side. There was no testimony at hearing that a desk was thrown. • was asked about other incidents in which Ms. Guadagno might have thrown a desk, but Student - had no direct knowledge of any: Q. You mentioned in your statement at page 78 that she threw a desk. Was that the same incident? A. No. Q. Okay. It was a separate incident? A. That was, like, a rumor that I heard or--it was a--because, like, all the classes would talk about, like, her and what she would do. So it was, like, someone had--was, like, doing something with a desk and she, like, pushed the desk into him. Q. Okay. A. But I didn't see it, so I don't know. Although the allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint was that Ms. Guadagno "would throw binders and desks'' during class--suggesting it was a repeated behavior--the only competent witness on this allegation, Studen_t , testified as to only the throwing of a binder. Ms. Guadagno slid or threw Student - • s binder to the floor to embarrass or disparage in an attempt to get Student - to resume working. It was not clearly shown that Ms. Guadagno shoved paper down Student- •s shirt, as alleged. Student - testified at hearing that - saw Ms. Guadagno crumple up some paper and stuff it down Student - •s shirt, saying "she just got frustrated with .. ... This testimony was consistent with Student - • s earlier written statement, provided on May 8, 2012. While - Student - • s written statement, provided on April 9, 2013, did state that Ms. Guadagno shoved a paper in - shirt, this was hearsay and cannot be considered to supplement or explain the live testimony of Studen_t , which involved a different male student. There is no competent evidence as to the allegation involving Student - On , while teaching her fifth-grade class at Douglas, Ms. Guadagno instructed the students to rearrange their desks. Later, when Ms. Guadagno pushed Student - • s desk to get .. to move it back more quickly, some crayons fell. Student - knelt down to pick up the crayons. Ms. Guadagno and Student 1111 may have collided. Ms. Guadagno yelled at Student to get off of the floor and kicked - in the ribs. Student was not injured, stating that, "on a scale of one to ten, it was a four, it wasn't really painful." Ms. Guadagno screamed at the students, telling them they were ''animals" because they left trash on the floor. She was angry, and her face was red. On April 17, April 30, and May 8, 2012, student statements regarding the events of , were taken by police officers of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In a long letter dated June 20, 2012, addressed to the Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Guadagno gave her version of the events of While this letter, admitted as Exhibit P-3, was identified by Petitioner as "Respondent's DOE Letter," it is not at all clear that this letter was submitted to DOE. In fact, considering when it was dated and how it was addressed, it appears more likely that it was submitted to the Office of Professional Standards of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools rather than the Office of Professional Practice Services of DOE. In this statement, Ms. Guadagno denied that she had kicked a student. She stated that she was under the impression that the investigation was to be closed due to inconclusive findings. She pointed out several discrepancies in student statements. She stated her belief that Student - made up the incident in retaliation for earlier discipline taken against 111111, specifically the writing of llll name on the board, which she claimed had the effect of making 1111 ineligible to go on an end- of-year trip to Disney World. She also noted that the students had time to fabricate their statements. In a "Conference for the Record" memorandum dated June 29, 2012, Dr. Milagros Hernandez, district director, reviewed Ms. Guadagno's employment history, summarized the investigative report of the April 16, 2012, incident, and advised Ms. Guadagno that District authorities would provide her with formal notification of disciplinary action. The memorandum also advised her that the investigative information would be provided to DOE for possible licensure action. In a letter dated August 30, 2012, Ms. Guadagno advised Ms. Ana Rasco, administrative director of the Office of Professional Standards of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, that she agreed to accept a 30-workday suspension without pay in lieu of dismissal. On September 5, 2012, the Miami-Dade County School Board voted to suspend Ms. Guadagno from her teaching position at Douglas for a period of 30 workdays. It is not clear from the evidence at exactly what point the DOE case was expanded beyond the allegation of to include the incident of However, Mr. Clinton Albritton, investigator for the Department of Education, witnessed several student statements that were executed on April 9, 2013. On June 10, 2013, Principal Rodriguez provided an e-mail to Mr. Albritton, briefly describing what he knew of the kicking allegation and advising that Student - was a standard academic student with no outstanding behavior issues, but noting that Ms. Guadagno had prior issues that had been addressed through the Miami-Dade Office of Professional Standards. Then, by certified letter from DOE signed by Mr. Albritton dated June 12, 2013, Ms. Guadagno was afforded the opportunity to review materials collected and prepared in the investigation of Case Number 112-2307 and to submit documents to refute, explain, or mitigate the charges of misconduct against her. The letter also advised that an informal conference had been scheduled on July 1, 2013, to give her an opportunity to respond to the allegations. However, the letter did not describe the nature of the charges being investigated by DOE. While there is no evidence that she participated in an informal conference on July 1, 2013, Ms. Guadagno testified in her deposition that she participated in some sort of conference on July 12, 2013, and testified that she did submit a response. No copy of any submission by Ms. Guadagno in response to this opportunity appears in the record. About seven months later, on January 17, 2014, Ms. Guadagno signed an application for renewal of her educator's certificate, which was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2015. The application included numerous questions to be answered by checking blocks marked "Yes" or "No." Ms. Guadagno's application indicated a "no" response to the following two questions: Do you have any current investigative action pending in this state or any other state against a professional license or certificate or against an application for a professional license or certificate? Do you have any current disciplinary action pending in this state or any other state against a professional license or certificate or against an application for a professional license or certificate? The final page of the legal disclosure portion of the application for renewal contains the statements: I do hereby affirm by my signature that all information provided in this application and supplement is true, accurate, and complete. Warning: Giving false information in order to obtain or renew a Florida Educator's Certificate is a criminal offense under Florida Law. Anyone giving false information on this affidavit is subject to criminal prosecution, as well as disciplinary action by the Education Practices Commission. It is uncontested that Ms. Guadagno signed her name in the space provided immediately below these statements, and dated the form January 17, 2014. In her deposition of March 3, 2015, Ms. Guadagno testified that she knowingly answered these questions in the negative: Q: I would refer you to the last two questions. Uh-huh, which I know, absolutely. Q: And the no box is checked; is that correct? A: Uh-huh, that is correct. Q: That was your intention at the time? A: That was my intention. I had phoned my attorney and asked him what I would check in that situation and he had required that checking no was absolutely correct. Q: Which attorney was this? A: Branden Vicari. Later, following a ruling that Ms. Guadagno had waived any attorney-client privilege with respect to communications from or to her attorney regarding her responses to these two questions,31 Mr. Branden Vicari testified that he could not recall whether or not he had a conversation with Ms. Guadagno regarding the renewal of her application. The following colloquy then took place: Q: Okay. Well, the bottom line here is that she claims that you told her to answer those questions in the application. Do you recall telling her-giving her advice to that effect? A: I could say with 100 percent certainty that I did not give her advice to check off no on the two questions in question. Q: And why is that? A: I - I - well, I could tell you what I would have advised her if I did have a conversation with her. Q: All right. A: That would've been Q: But you would not have advised her to answer no? A: That's correct. Ms. Guadagno's testimony that Mr. Vicari advised her to answer the two questions "no" is not credible, and his testimony that he would not have given her that advice is credited. Ms. Guadagno's testimony during both her deposition and at hearing was argumentative, evasive, and generally not at all credible. At the time Ms. Guadagno was completing her renewal application, it is unclear whether the investigation was still ongoing or whether the investigation phase had ended and the decision to take disciplinary action had already been made. More significantly, there is no evidence in this record to indicate that Ms. Guadagno knew the status of the case against her. It was clearly shown, however, that Ms. Guadagno gave those answers in her application in order to obtain her license renewal with reckless disregard for the truth. Although Ms. Guadagno had already been suspended without pay for 30 days by Miami-Dade County Public Schools for the April 16, 2012, incident, and had completed that suspension over a year before, she knew at the time of her application that the District and DOE were separate entities. PRIOR HISTORY Ms. Guadagno has been employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools for about 29 years. During that time, she has received many positive comments and accolades from her superiors in observation reports and performance reviews. The only "developing/needs improvement" rating in evidence was received by Ms. Guadagno in the category of "professionalism'' during the 2011- 2012 academic year, based upon district disciplinary action for some of the incidents discussed here. Since her subsequent transfer, at her request, to Joe Hall Elementary School, she has received only "effective" and "highly effective" ratings . Several letters were admitted into evidence from appreciative students and parents from various times throughout her teaching career, praising her for her teaching skills and dedication to students.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street, Suite E Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 For Respondent: Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent, Patti Guadagno , in violation of sections 1012.795(1)(a) and (j), Florida Statutes , and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and 6A- 10.081 (5)(a) and (h). It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission suspend her educator's certificate for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.s tate.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2017.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Claudia Walker, was employed as a continuing contract teacher by Petitioner Broward County School Board. The Respondent taught from January 1979 through November 1, 1984 at Bright Horizons School. In November 1984, she transferred to South Florida State Exceptional Student Center and thereafter taught elementary school age children with behavioral problems. Among those assigned to her Self-contained classroom were some homicidal and suicidal students with low impulse control. During the time Respondent has worked for the Broward County School Board, her teaching evaluations have been good, to outstanding, to exceptional. She has never previously been cited or disciplined. Doris Seitner was employed by Petitioner as a teaching assistant from approximately September 3, 1985 to December 3, 1985 and was assigned to Respondent's class. On Thursday, November 7, 1985, Respondent and Seitner took the class of about 25 students on a field trip to the Metro Zoo. Prior to their departure on the bus, Ms. Seitner noticed Respondent entering the staff restroom. When Respondent emerged, a student immediately entered the restroom. Upon the student exiting the restroom, Ms. Seitner also entered the restroom where she found a small pink glasses case. Believing the case belonged to the student, the aide opened the purse and saw a plastic baggie containing a white powder, a small vial, a razor blade, and several cut up straws. Upon leaving the restroom, Ms. Seitner encountered the Respondent, who identified the case as hers and took it. At this point, the state of events was that Doris Seitner had seen a substance she thought was cocaine. Doris Seitner is not an expert on drug identification. She admits never previously having seen cocaine up close. Although she had seen some drug abuse classes at the school, she had no courses in cocaine and had never smelled or tasted it. She did not open the plastic baggie or examine its contents on November 7, 1985. However, believing that the case contained cocaine and drug related paraphernalia, Ms. Seitner confided what she had found, together with her suspicions to a number of people and sought their advice on how to proceed. Shawn Joseph, another teacher's aide, suggested Ms. Seitner inform the school officials of what she had found. Later in the evening, Ms. Seitner contacted Pam Tepsic, a teacher on task assignment, who suggested she advise the principal immediately. The acting principal, Kathryn Mangan, upon learning of the discovery, contacted Howard Stearns, Petitioner's Director of Internal Affairs, who referred her to William Bohan. At all times material, William Bohan was employed by Petitioner as an investigator for Internal Affairs and has been a certified law enforcement officer. On November 12, 1985, Mangan told Bohan about Ms. Seitner's belief that she had seen cocaine in Respondent's glasses case. Bohan instructed Mangan to take no action but to call him in case the glasses case was seen again. Bohan interviewed Ms. Seitner and instructed her to watch out for the case. On the morning of Monday, November 25, 1985, while Respondent was in her classroom, Ms. Seitner came in and asked if she could fetch lunch for Respondent. Respondent retrieved her purse from the back room of the self- contained classroom, a location called "the teacher planning area", wherein she normally isolates her purse from the students, and gave Ms. Seitner money to pay for her lunch. Doris Seitner sat at the desk, and looking down into the Respondent's unzipped purse, spotted the pink glasses case. Seitner notified Tepsic, who notified John Smith, acting principal, who notified Bohan, who came to the school. Bohan and Tepsic walked to Respondent's classroom. When they arrived there, Tepsic approached Respondent in the classroom; Bohan stationed himself at the door. Tepsic told Respondent that a man wanted to see her in the principal's office. Tepsic avoided responding to Respondent's repeated requests to know what was going on or answered Respondent that she did not know what was going on. Respondent walked with Tepsic to the door. Bohan asked Respondent if the purse by her classroom desk was hers. The Respondent answered, "yes" whereupon Bohan walked over, picked up the purse, and, retaining the purse, began walking with Respondent and Pam Tepsic to John Smith's office. On the way to Smith's office, Respondent told Bohan she could carry her own purse but Bohan responded that he could carry it. She repeated her questions to Pam Tepsic, asking what was going on and received the same evasions. In making the immediately preceding finding of fact, the testimony of Pam Tepsic, Investigator Bohan, and Respondent have been considered and weighed. While Investigator Bohan testified that Respondent said and did nothing to claim her purse after he seized it and Pam Tepsic initially related that Respondent said nothing about her purse at any time in the classroom or while walking over to the principal's office, Pam Tepsic's testimony as a whole reveals that she was particularly nervous during all these incidents and that at a point in time closer to the actual events, she had believed some such conversation took place between Bohan and Respondent, but that on the date of formal hearing she simply could not recall any conversation between Bohan and the Respondent, including Bohan's asking Respondent if the purse were hers and Respondent's reply, "yes", statements Bohan and Respondent each testified had been made. The Respondent's account of her request to carry her own purse is highly credible. It is simply not credible that any adult woman would not request return of such an intimate item as her purse, containing all her personal effects, including valuables and money, from a man whom she had never seen before in the absence of any explanation of what was going on. Bohan, Tepsic, and Respondent entered John Smith's office. Bohan placed Respondent's purse on Smith's desk in front of himself. Bohan told Respondent he had been informed she was in possession of an illegal drug and asked if she would consent to Bohan's searching her purse. Pam Tepsic's recollection of what happened next was that either Respondent said she would consent to the search or that someone else said Respondent had consented or said something like, "Well, then you consent," to Respondent. Respondent denies ever being asked to consent to a search of her purse. John Smith understood Bohan to ask permission to search the purse and understood that Respondent said "yes" to Bohan's request. Bohan relates an affirmative answer from Respondent. Before he started searching her purse, but after the question concerning consent/permission, Bohan asked Respondent did she have anything in her purse that might be a problem that she might want to tell him about before he searched her purse. Tepsic, Bohan, Smith, and Respondent are in agreement that Respondent replied, "yes" that she did want to tell Bohan what was in the purse. The explanation given at that time was that early that morning she had taken cocaine and other items from her estranged husband who had a drug problem. Bohan removed from Respondent's purse the pink glasses case; some other unrelated items; four small plastic bags containing a white powdery residue; four straws cut 2-1/4 inches to 2-3/4 inches long; one GEM single edge razor blade; one small, 3/4 inch empty vial; one piece of aluminum foil 2-1/2 inches by 3-1/4 inches; eight straws in Wendy's wrappers; one wooden toothpick; and one nickel. When Respondent persisted in her explanation that the drugs and paraphernalia were her husband's property and that she had taken them to protect him but in response to further questioning by Bohan, Respondent was unable to flesh out an explanation she had begun concerning the husband's drug counselling and treatment and her participation therein, Bohan told Respondent that her options were either jail in Fort Lauderdale via the Broward County Sheriff's Department or discussing the matter at Petitioner's Internal Affairs Office. Although Bohan asserted that he made no "threats," Bohan, Tepsic, Smith, and Respondent concur that these were the only alternatives Bohan provided Respondent during their confrontation in Smith's office. A subsequent laboratory analysis conducted on the items seized November 25, 1985 revealed the presence of cocaine only in the small plastic bag containing the white powder. The property in the purse was taken into the Internal Affairs Office for inventory. These items, including the cocaine, were described by Ms. Seitner as "similar" to the items she saw in the pink case on November 7, 1985. Respondent customarily keeps a razor blade in her purse to use for arts and crafts projects in her class. Other teachers at the center also use razor blades to perform art projects. The Respondent customarily keeps drinking straws in her purse to give to her three small children to drink with while they are riding in her car. Article XVIII, Section K, of the current collective bargaining agreement between the Broward Teachers Union and Petitioner provides: "No investigation of an em- ployee, beyond preliminary inquiry, by the Internal Affairs Department may be undertaken without written notice to the employee, such notice to include a statement of the cause giving rise to the investigation." No written notice was given to Respondent by Petitioner. A sign posted on the grounds of the school at the front gate notifies anyone entering that they are subject to being searched while on the grounds. (TR 149-150) Respondent accompanied Bohan to Internal Affairs where Bohan and Stearns interrogated her. Respondent again told them the drugs inventoried belonged to her husband. She further revealed to Stearns, apparently in hopes of receiving counselling instead of dismissal, that she had been clean of cocaine during the nine months of her recent pregnancy and clean recently until the immediately preceding Saturday night. (TR-205) After Internal Affairs finished questioning Respondent, Bohan took her to the Employee Assistance Program and then later to the Broward Alcohol and Rehabilitation Center. Respondent claims she was denied use of a phone to contact anyone until she reached the Employee Assistance Program, but she concedes there were public phones available at the school and she did not insist on using any. At hearing, Respondent testified that she had never used cocaine and would not have used it in November, 1985 because she was breastfeeding her new daughter. She also testified that the contraband items were taken from her husband the morning of November 25, however, rather than corroborating this story, the testimony of Wilton Johnson, her estranged husband, is contrary to Respondent's account of the incident in so many details as to adversely affect Respondent's credibility that the incident occurred. Respondent was suspended with pay November 26-28, 1985, the remainder of the school week. On Monday, December 2, 1985, she was permitted to resume her classroom duties until she was notified of suspension with pay, December 6, 1985. On December 19, 1985, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Counts I and II, finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts III and IV, and dismissing her from employment. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1986.
