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 Respondent, Charles L. Smith, holds a temporary state teaching certificate number 514251 issued by the State Department of Education covering the area of physical education. He has been a teacher for fourteen years and holds a master's degree in special education. He is presently the head football coach and a physical education instructor at Stewart High School in Lumpkin, Georgia. This is not respondent's first involvement with a disciplinary proceeding. On June 8, 1983, petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, filed an administrative complaint against Smith alleging that while he was employed as a teacher at Dunnellon High School (Marion County) in school year 1982-83, he made derogatory statements to students and engaged in improper conduct of a sexual nature with a minor female student. The matter eventually culminated in an administrative hearing held on August 11, 1983, where one of petitioner's witnesses was Ruth Annette Edwards, a teacher's aide in Smith's class. Her testimony in that proceeding has been received in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit 3. The testimony can be characterized as damaging, for Edwards gave testimony which tended to corroborate the allegations against Smith. Although the Hearing officer recommended that Smith be found guilty of all charges and that his certificate be revoked for two years, in its Final Order rendered on November 9, 1983, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) expressed "strong doubts that the incident (with the female student) actually occurred" and instead placed respondent on probation for one year and imposed the following conditions: The Respondent will break no laws, nor any rules of the State Board of Education. The Respondent will perform in a satisfactory manner as a teacher, and will cause reports of his performance to be forwarded to the Education Practices Commission. Therefore, under the terms of pro- bation, if respondent violates any state law or EPC rule during the ensuing year, he risks the loss of his teaching certificate. The probation period expires on November 9, 1984. Respondent's contract to teach at Dunnellon High School was not renewed in school year 1983-84. However, Smith's failure to teach there was not due to the EPC disciplinary action, but rather was attributable to his failure to pass the mathematics part of the teacher certification examination. Because of this, he weighed alternative offers from Alachua County School Board and the State of Georgia, and accepted the latter offer because of its higher pay. Sometime prior to 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning, January 29, 1984, the Clara Davis household in Dunnellon, Florida, received a telephone call. Mrs. Davis answered the telephone and was asked by the caller to speak to her grandson, Pretis Griffin, then nineteen years old and a senior at Dunnellon High School who resided with her. Pretis was a former student in Smith's English class in 1982-83, and also knew him from varsity athletics. Mrs. Davis responded that Pretis was still asleep and hung up. The same caller telephoned back a few minutes later and said he was calling long distance from Gainesville and needed to talk to Pretis. She roused Pretis, who answered the call. Pretis testified the caller identified himself as respondent and sounded like Smith. Although Smith denied he made the call, it is found that Smith did indeed telephone Pretis on January 29. After the two made small-talk initially, Smith then asked Pretis if he would do him a favor. Pretis said "yes," and Smith said "I want you to tell Mrs. Edwards something." Pretis asked "What," and Smith replied, "Tell Mrs. Edwards thanks for what she's done, and I will get back at her through her husband." After some more small-talk, the two ended the conversation by Smith saying, "Don't forget to tell her," followed by a "little laugh." After the call ended, Pretis told his grandmother the caller was Coach Charles Smith. The next day, Monday, January 30, Pretis approached Ruth Edwards at school and told her respondent had telephoned him and wanted to convey a message. Pretis then told her "Coach Smith said thanks for what you done and he'll get you back through your husband." Upon hearing this, Edwards simply shrugged and walked away. The following Sunday, February 5, 1984, the Davis household received another telephone call for Pretis prior to 10:30 a.m. According to Pretis, it was the same caller as the previous Sunday, and despite Smith's denial, it is found that respondent made a second call to Pretis on February 5, 1984. After making small-talk, Smith eventually asked if his message had been delivered and what Edwards' response had been. When Pretis responded that he had, and that Edwards had merely shrugged and walked away, Smith commented "Oh, she thought it was a joke," and Pretis said "I guess." The two then discussed an upcoming basketball game at Dunnellon the following Saturday night and the fact that Smith might attend the game. In the next day or so, Pretis told Edwards at school that Coach Smith had telephoned again and that he might attend the high school basketball game that weekend. Edwards gave no visible response to Pretis' comment. Edwards, who readily acknowledged she dislikes Smith, initially claimed that Pretis relayed three separate messages to her from Smith, and also gave a more threatening account of the conversations between Pretis and Smith. However, it is found that only two calls took place, and the substance of the calls was accurately portrayed by Pretis. After Pretis told Edwards that Smith had telephoned a second time, she went to the assistant principal and advised him that Smith had threatened her. Later, Edwards and Pretis were interviewed, and the matter was then turned over to the Marion County School Board, and eventually referred to petitioner. That prompted the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Smith, who has never met Edwards' husband, denied making the calls. He seemed fully aware of the terms of his probation, and recognized that any violation might jeopardize his teaching certificate. He contended it would be "stupid" to threaten Edwards because it would lead to the exact predicament he finds himself in. On the two mornings in question, he claimed he was either at work (as a clerk at a 7-11 store in Gainesville) or in church. However, his wife was unable to confirm this because of the passage of time since January and February, 1984. Until the hearing, Smith has not seen nor spoken to Edwards (or her husband) since the administrative hearing conducted in August, 1983 and has never carried out any threats against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.06(3)(m) and that he be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Arthur G. Haller, Esquire 771 N.W. 23rd Avenue, Suite 1 Gainesville, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent from his employment contract.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control and supervise the public schools within Manatee County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22 (1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School District. Mr. Gagnon has been in the education field for approximately 23 years, and has been with the School District since 2002. Mr. Gagnon served as an assistant principal at Lakewood Ranch High School and as principal at Palmetto High School, both of which are in Manatee County. Mr. Gagnon was the principal at MHS beginning with the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Gagnon served as the MHS principal until he transitioned to the position of assistant superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the School District in January 2012. Mr. Gagnon served as the interim superintendent for approximately one month in September/October 2012 and then returned to the assistant superintendent position when another person was appointed interim superintendent. In 2005 the School District posted a position for a specialist in the OPS to investigate alleged School District employee misconduct. The then superintendent wanted to establish a standardized method of investigating employee misconduct. Ms. Horne interviewed for the position, and was appointed as the first OPS specialist. As there were no School District policies or rules in place when she started, Ms. Horne assisted in writing the School District’s OPS policies. Sections 39.201 and 39.202, Florida Statutes, are incorporated into the School District’s policies and procedures as Policy 5.2(1), Policies and Procedures Manual, School Board of Manatee County (2013), which provides: Mandatory Duty to Report Suspected Child Abuse. All employees or agents of the district school board who have reasonable cause to suspect abuse have an affirmative duty to report it. Employees or agents so reporting have immunity from liability if they report such cases in good faith. This includes suspected child abuse of a student by an employee. Ms. Horne provided the training on this policy and other policies to School District employees. As the OPS investigator, Ms. Horne was to “investigate alleged employee misconduct and other matters as assigned” to her by her supervisor. Ms. Horne never had the authority to determine whether or not someone had engaged in misconduct or to make any recommendations as to what may or may not have happened. Her role was to simply gather the information, prepare a report of her findings, and provide that report to her supervisor. In November 2012, Mr. Martin was the School District’s assistant superintendent for District Support, and Ms. Horne’s direct supervisor. During her eight-year tenure as the OPS specialist, Ms. Horne investigated over 800 cases of employee misconduct. The School District uses a progressive discipline model for its employees. Should an employee exhibit behaviors that could be considered inappropriate or misconduct, the School District has a step-by-step method of taking disciplinary action, from simply talking with the employee up to termination of employment. If it is an egregious action, such as sexual conduct with a student, immediate termination is an option. The discipline begins on-site by the site-based managers where the incident occurs. Those site-based managers could have that simple conversation, and if need be, it could progress to a verbal directive, a memorandum of conference, and/or a written reprimand. Site-based managers include principals, assistant principals, directors, and assistant directors.3/ In those instances where the disciplinary action could lead to days without pay or termination, actions that could only be taken by the School Board, OPS would open an investigation. During the first two weeks of November 2012, Mr. Rinder was approached by several MHS teachers regarding concerns for their students. When Mr. Rinder spoke with Mr. Sauer, MHS’s principal, about those concerns, Mr. Sauer asked Mr. Rinder to type up the list (Rinder’s List) and give it to Mr. Sauer. Mr. Sauer, in turn, forwarded Rinder’s List to the OPS. Rinder’s List: [1.] One staff member reported a phone call to a female student during class. The student was upset by the call and told the staff member that Mr. Frazier had asked her if “she had gotten her period and did she need him to go to the drug store for her.” [2.] One staff member reported that Mr. Frazier repeatedly called for a female student during class. When asked if it was important, Mr. Frazier said “yes”. [sic] When the staff member asked the student what the problem was, the answer was “My mom wanted to take me to lunch and he helped me do it”. [sic] [3.] Male student was failing a core class. He told the teacher that “Frazier told me that he will change the grade”. [sic] [4.] A female student was observed getting into Mr. Frazier’s vehicle after school hours and was transported. [5.] Female student told a staff member that she overheard students talking about several meetings in the park late at night with Mr. Frazier. She stated that Mr. Frazier placed and [sic] empty water bottle between her legs as she was walking down the sidewalk. [6.] Female student was observed sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap eating cake off his fork. [7.] Female student reported to a staff member that Mr. Frazier made a comment to a student in the hall that he had put her on skype [sic] and she took a picture and has it saved on her cell phone. She is scared that he will retaliate if she tells. [8.] Female student told a staff member that Mr. Frazier had made comments to her at the Tiki Bar that she was old enough to be there and they could talk. When she refused to talk with him, she started having issues with Mr. Frazier at school. She transferred to LIFE program to get out. [9.] Female student was reported to a staff member by several students who stated that she was having a relationship with Mr. Frazier. She transferred schools. This conversation was overheard by two teachers in the hall. [10.] The Math Department this week was discussing Mr. Fraziers [sic] questionable activities. Upon receipt of Rinder’s List, Ms. Horne was directed to open an investigation into the allegations contained therein. The subject of the investigation was an MHS parent liaison4/ and assistant football coach named Roderick Frazier. In a very general sense, the allegations involved misconduct by a teacher. Rinder’s List initiated the Frazier investigation. However, Rinder’s List contains blatant hearsay which cannot form the basis for a finding of fact without corroboration. There was no testimony provided by any students mentioned in items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, or 9 above; hence, it is impossible to verify what occurred. Item 10 merely indicates that an entire department at MHS discussed “questionable activities” by an individual, but it provides no specific activities. There was no credible, non-hearsay evidence in this record to substantiate any of these allegations (items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, 9 or 10). On November 14, 2012, an email with an attached letter from then-Superintendent David Gayler, was sent to Mr. Sauer around 8:40 p.m., advising him that Mr. Frazier was to be placed on paid administrative leave (PAL) on Thursday, November 15. Mr. Sauer notified Mr. Frazier appropriately. The School Board’s policy regarding placing an employee on PAL is dependent upon whether there is a potential for harm to any student and/or the employee could incur a suspension or termination from employment. Due to an on-going investigation at a different school, Ms. Horne did not arrive at MHS to begin the investigation until the afternoon of Thursday, November 15. Ms. Horne first interviewed Mr. Rinder, as Rinder’s List did not contain any names of teachers or students who were allegedly involved. Upon obtaining the names of the teachers who had expressed concerns, Ms. Horne interviewed most of the teachers on November 15. By the time Ms. Horne completed her teacher interviews, the students had been dismissed from school and were no longer available. At some time, Mr. Rinder observed a female student getting into Mr. Frazier’s car after school (Rinder’s List, Item 4). Mr. Rinder was not alarmed by this sight, but merely thought it was Mr. Fazier’s son’s girlfriend getting a ride. There was no testimony that Mr. Rinder ever brought this information to Mr. Gagnon’s attention. Ms. Aragon brought two concerns about Mr. Frazier to Respondent’s attention: 1) she thought that girls were sitting too close to Mr. Frazier in golf carts at MHS; and 2) Mr. Frazier had called her classroom telephone to talk with a female student. Neither Ms. Aragon nor Mr. Gagnon were absolutely certain as to when these concerns were brought to Mr. Gagnon’s attention: Ms. Aragon thought they were brought to his attention during one conversation, and Mr. Gagnon thought there were two separate conversations approximately a year apart, based on the actions that he took to address them. Mr. Gagnon’s testimony is more credible. Upon being told of the golf cart issue, Respondent immediately went to the MHS courtyard and observed Mr. Frazier with a female student sitting in his golf cart. At the same time, Respondent observed two other assistant principals with students of the opposite sex sitting in their golf carts. Respondent addressed Mr. Frazier first, and then issued a directive to his discipline staff that no one was to allow a student to just sit in a golf cart. Respondent directed that if there was a legitimate reason to transport a student, that was fine, but students were no longer to just sit in the golf cart. With respect to the telephone incident (Rinder’s List Item 1), Mr. Frazier called Ms. Aragon’s classroom and bullied his way to speak with the female student. After the student hung up the phone with Mr. Frazier, she appeared to be upset. Ms. Aragon immediately questioned the student, and Ms. Aragon understood that Mr. Frazier had inquired about the student’s menstrual cycle. Ms. Aragon thought it was “inappropriate” for Mr. Frazier to be speaking with a female student about her menstrual cycle, but Ms. Aragon testified that she did not know if the conversation impacted the student’s day. Ms. Aragon was not privy to the actual conversation between the student and Mr. Frazier, and the student with whom the conversation was held did not testify. The actual telephone conversation is hearsay. Ms. Aragon sought guidance from the teacher’s union president as to what to do. When Ms. Aragon spoke with Mr. Gagnon about Mr. Frazier’s telephone call, Mr. Gagnon immediately turned the issue over to an assistant principal for investigation. Based on the report from the assistant principal, Mr. Gagnon was not concerned that anything inappropriate or sexual was happening.5/ At some point in time, Ms. Coates overheard two female students comment about Mr. Frazier. Although Ms. Coates asked the students to tell her directly the basis for their comment, the students declined. (Neither student testified at hearing.) Shortly thereafter, Ms. Coates told Respondent the students’ comment. Ms. Coates heard Mr. Gagnon respond that something was going around on Facebook. Mr. Gagnon did not remember Ms. Coates telling him of the students’ comment. However, Mr. Gagnon routinely reviewed the disciplinary records for the three parent liaisons and was satisfied that Mr. Frazier was not showing favoritism in his discipline to one group of students over another. It is not uncommon for students to perceive that a teacher is showing favoritism towards a student or group of students. At the conclusion of the teacher interviews on November 15, Ms. Horne understood that the allegations had occurred a year or two before they were reported in Rinder’s List. This thought process was reinforced when Ms. Horne met with some of the MHS administrators in Mr. Sauer’s office where they had a telephone conference with Mr. Martin. Following the telephone conference, Ms. Horne returned to the School District’s main office and again conferred with Mr. Martin for directions. On November 15 or 16, 2012, Ms. Horne had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon at the School Board building. Mr. Gagnon asked about the Frazier investigation. Ms. Horne responded that the only issues she was hearing had previously been addressed, and that Ms. Horne would be returning for other interviews. Additionally, Mr. Martin had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon about the Rinder List allegations. Mr. Gagnon maintained that the allegations were old and had been dealt with appropriately. Ms. Horne shared with Mr. Martin that the Rinder List allegations were old and had been dealt with previously. Based on this information, Mr. Martin, in his sole discretion, determined to remove Mr. Frazier from PAL on November 16, 2012, and return him to work. Ms. Horne was surprised by this, as her investigation was incomplete. Ms. Horne interviewed Mr. Frazier as well as one other teacher, on November 16, 2012. Although Ms. Horne had the name of an alleged victim, Mr. Martin directed her not to interview that student at that time. In January 2013, a former MHS female student, D.K., wrote a letter to MHS alleging that Mr. Frazier did various inappropriate acts towards her while she was a student at MHS during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. In her letter, D.K. stated that she became close to Mr. Frazier during her two years at MHS. D.K. met Mr. Frazier at a park near her home, but during her second year at MHS (2011-2012), Mr. Frazier “started being weird with [her] and saying inappropriate things to” her. D.K. admitted that she frequently rode in Mr. Frazier’s golf cart around the school, and that Mr. Frazier put a water bottle (Rinder’s List Item 5, second sentence) in between her legs (between her knees and crotch) as they were sitting in the bleachers at the softball field and while sitting in a golf cart. D.K. came forward with the letter because she had heard of the Frazier investigation and that it was being closed. Several days after D.K.’s letter was received in OPS, Ms. Horne interviewed D.K., who was accompanied by her mother. Ms. Horne was unable to confirm D.K.’s credibility completely because Ms. Horne left OPS prior to the conclusion of the Frazier investigation. The most disturbing part of D.K.’s testimony came when D.K. admitted, and Ms. Peebles confirmed, that during the 2010- 2011 school year, Ms. Peebles walked into Mr. Frazier’s office unannounced and observed D.K. sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap holding a piece of cake (Rinder’s List Item 6). Ms. Peebles immediately instructed D.K. to get off Mr. Frazier’s lap and to sit in a chair on the other side of his desk. Mr. Frazier appeared to be unfazed by Ms. Peebles entering his office unannounced and witnessing this scene. Mr. Frazier proceeded to handle the disciplinary matter that Ms. Peebles had brought to him. Ms. Peebles reported the observation to an assistant principal, Matthew Kane, but not to Respondent. Ms. Peebles did not believe there was abuse on-going, but thought it was “not appropriate” for Mr. Frazier to have a student sitting on his lap. D.K. testified that “after he [Mr. Frazier] got in trouble he started getting me [D.K.] in trouble for things that I had been getting away with the whole time I was there [at MHS].” D.K. did not provide a time-frame or what “trouble” Mr. Frazier had gotten her into while D.K. was at MHS, and no evidence was provided otherwise. Further, D.K. never told Mr. Gagnon of any issues involving Mr. Frazier. D.K. was enrolled at a different local high school when Mr. Frazier was placed on PAL. Ms. Peebles relayed another issue regarding Mr. Frazier; however, it involved hearsay and was not corroborated by the student who initially reported the issue to Ms. Peebles. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding of fact as to that issue. In late January 2013, Ms. Horne transferred to an assistant principal position at a school district elementary school. Both Ms. Horne and Mr. Martin confirmed that the Frazier investigation had not been completed when Ms. Horne left OPS. Ms. Horne had not submitted a written report to her supervisor which would have signaled the completion of the Frazier investigation. The specialist position in OPS remained vacant until July 2013 when Mr. Pumphrey assumed the position. Mr. Pumphrey confirmed that there “had been an ongoing investigation both at the School District level and law enforcement surrounding Rod Frazier.” In an effort to gain speed in his investigation, Mr. Pumphrey reviewed the Frazier investigation file and became aware that the School District “had stalled their investigation pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.” Mr. Pumphrey reviewed Mr. Frazier’s personnel file and determined there was “no documentation of any discipline to Mr. Frazier.” Additionally, Mr. Pumphrey pulled all the published information including media accounts and police reports, and reviewed them. As Mr. Martin had been instrumental in hiring Mr. Pumphrey, the two spoke several times “because this thing [the Frazier investigation] was all over the place.” Several days after re-starting the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey expressed to the superintendent his concern about the close proximity of Mr. Pumphrey’s office to that of Mr. Gagnon and requested that Mr. Gagnon6/ be placed on PAL. The superintendent did so. During the course of the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey considered that Mr. Gagnon’s actions or inactions during the course of the Frazier investigation constituted “administrative negligence and/or intentional misconduct.” Mr. Pumphrey broadened the Frazier investigation to determine whether district administrators “had prior knowledge of complaints by female students and faculty regarding inappropriate conduct involving Frazier and, if so, why the complaints were not timely addressed.” There is no credible, non-hearsay evidence in the record to substantiate that Mr. Gagnon failed to investigate or report inappropriate conduct by a faculty member. When apprised of questionable or suspect conduct, Mr. Gagnon took the steps necessary to inquire. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding that Mr. Gagnon acted in the fashion alleged in the administrative complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.315, Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056 and 6A-10.081(1) through (5); and School Board Policies 6.30(2), (3)(b), and 6.301(2), as alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Termination (Petition); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for these violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the St. Lucie County School System. The authority to supervise the school system includes the hiring, discipline, and termination of employees within the school district. Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher at Fort Pierce Westwood High School. He worked for the School Board since at least September 2007, albeit originally at a different school. Respondent signed a professional services contract with the School Board on or about February 12, 2010. He is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie County Classroom Teachers’ Association (CBA), as stated in Article I, section A of the CBA. On October 28, 2011, Respondent was advised of a meeting to take place on November 1, 2011, regarding a School Board investigation into alleged inappropriate contact with students. There is no indication in the record whether Respondent attended the meeting or gave any information. There is also no indication whether the investigation referenced in the October 28, 2011, letter is the same investigation giving rise to these proceedings. On March 3, 2014, Maurice Bonner, the Director of Personnel for the School Board, provided to Respondent a Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment (Notice). The Notice advised that Respondent was being investigated regarding allegations of inappropriate contact with students, and that he was being placed on temporary duty assignment as assigned by the Personnel Office. Respondent signed the letter acknowledging its receipt on March 14, 2014. On April 1, 2014, Genelle Zoratti Yost, Superintendent of the School Board, wrote to Respondent with a reference line entitled Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment. The letter states, in pertinent part: On March 21, 2014 you were arrested for violating Section 800.04(6)(a)(b), Florida Statutes, “Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.”[1/] Pursuant to the Arrest Warrant issued on March 21, 2014 you are not to be within 100 feet of Fort Pierce Westwood High School or Harbor Branch. As a result, you are unavailable to work on campus so your temporary duty assignment outlined in the notice of Temporary Duty Assignment provided to you on March 3, 2014 shall remain in full force and effect until further notice. Furthermore, you have not reported your arrest to the Superintendent within 48 hours as required. . . . Based on the information available to the School District there is sufficient information to charge you with violating the following [list of State Board of Education rule violations and School Board Policy violations]. . . . The April 1, 2014, letter notified Respondent that the superintendent would be recommending to the School Board that it terminate his employment, and provided him with notice of how he could request a hearing on the proposed termination. The letter also advised that, should he seek a hearing, the superintendent would recommend that he be suspended without pay pending the outcome of the hearing. Respondent signed the letter acknowledging receipt of it on April 3, 2014. Respondent requested a hearing with respect to his termination and was notified by letter dated April 23, 2014, that he was suspended without pay. Respondent’s request for hearing was forwarded to the Division, and the case was docketed as Case No. 14-1978. Because of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against Respondent, at the request of the parties, on September 30, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Darren Schwartz entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction, which closed the file with leave to re-open. On a date that is not substantiated in this record,2/ Respondent was tried by jury and convicted of seven counts of lewd or lascivious conduct in violation of section 800.04(6)(a) and (b) and nine counts of lewd and lascivious molestation in violation of section 800.04(5)(c)2. All 16 counts were second- degree felonies. On July 29, 2016, counsel for the School Board wrote to then-counsel for Respondent, advising him that in light of the jury verdict, notice was being given that on August 9, 2016, the superintendent would be recommending Respondent’s termination from employment. The letter also provided Respondent notice of his rights to a hearing in accordance with section 1012.33(6)(a). Counsel for Respondent notified the superintendent that Respondent continued to request a hearing in accordance with the CBA. On October 31, 2016, a Judgment and Sentence was entered in the case of State of Florida v. Dan Allen Hussan, Case No. 562014CF000857A (19th Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County), adjudicating Respondent guilty of all 16 counts. Respondent was sentenced to 15 concurrent sentences of life in prison, with credit for 103 days served prior to sentencing. With respect to Count XVI, Respondent was sentenced to 15 years of sexual offender probation, consecutive to the sentence set forth in Count I. On November 7, 2016, Judge James McCann entered, nunc pro tunc to October 31, 2016, an Order of Sex Offender Probation with respect to Count XVI. The Order of Sex Offender Probation adjudicated Respondent guilty and set the terms for sexual offender probation following the life sentence. Respondent remains incarcerated. He also maintains that he is not guilty of the underlying charges. Petitioner contends that Respondent did not self-report his arrest as required by School Board policy. However, no competent, substantial evidence was presented to demonstrate Respondent’s failure to report. While a notice provided to him regarding this allegation was admitted into evidence, the accusation, standing alone, does not amount to evidence that the accusation is true.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment based on a finding of just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2017, 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 25th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause, within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (1999), to terminate Respondent's employment as a non-instructional employee for alleged misconduct consisting of sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and inappropriate comments. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employs Respondent as a security guard at the Alternative Learning Center High School (the "ALC"). Petitioner has employed Respondent in the capacity since November 21, 1995. The ALC includes a High School and Middle School. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent at the High School. Respondent has also worked continuously for the Department of Juvenile Justice from July 16, 1993. The Department employs Respondent as a group leader at the Price Halfway House. The Price Halfway House is a level six facility for delinquent youths between the ages of 14 and 18. Before Petitioner suspended Respondent from his employment with the Board, Respondent worked at the ALC from 7:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. each school day. Respondent then worked at the Price Halfway House from 3:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Petitioner gave Respondent good performance assessments throughout Respondent's employment at the ALC. Respondent attained a rating described as an "effective level of performance observed." The ALC principal never had cause to question Respondent's professional conduct. The principal described Respondent's position as a "very tough position." Respondent deals with students who have discipline problems, and Respondent rarely has occasion to deal with students in a positive manner. Students at the ALC have violated the rules or code of conduct at their geographic school or have been arrested for a criminal felony offense. The ALC is an alternative to expulsion from the geographic school. The ALC is a "lock-down facility." Classrooms are locked while class is in session. Students are not allowed to move outside the classroom without permission. A student who has obtained permission to move outside the classroom cannot do so before personnel outside the classroom are notified by two-way radio of the student's movement. Group movement to and from school and during lunch is closely monitored by school personnel. Respondent's duties at the ALC consisted of monitoring activity on the school campus to ensure that students and faculty enjoyed a safe environment. Respondent's duties required him to monitor students for weapons, drugs, fights, gang behavior, and similar activity. Respondent interceded disruptive behavior by students, including fights and escorted students to the administrative offices for discipline and other matters. Petitioner maintains a policy that prohibits employees from engaging in sexual harassment of another employee or student. The policy defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment includes conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a student's educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive school environment. The policy lists examples that include repeated remarks with sexual or demeaning implications and unwelcome or inappropriate physical contact such as unnecessary touching. Respondent was aware of the policy. The Allegations On June 28, 1999, two female students at the High School reported to the principal at the Middle School that Respondent made inappropriate sexual comments to them and touched them in a sexual manner. The two students are Kimberly Battle and Stephanie Day. The principal of the Middle School is Mr. Charles Dailey. Ms. Battle and Ms. Day told Mr. Dailey that toward the end of the 1998-1999 school year and during summer school Respondent touched them on their buttocks and made inappropriate sexual comments to them. However, Ms. Battle is the only complainant who testified at the hearing. Ms. Day did not testify at the hearing. A representative from a home for unwed mothers represented that Ms. Day did not want to testify in the action and preferred to "drop the charges." The ALJ excused Ms. Day from her subpoena on the basis of a note from Ms. Day's physician recommending that she not be required to testify until she is "six weeks postpartum." Ms. Battle claims that Respondent violated the school policy prohibiting sexual harassment through repeated incidents of inappropriate comments and unnecessary touching. The incidents allegedly occurred during the regular school year and during the summer school session. Respondent allegedly made inappropriate sexual comments to Ms. Battle in the hallway of the high school towards the end of the 1998-1999 school year. Respondent allegedly said "look at that butt" and "I'm going to get that." Ms. Battle claims that Respondent made similar comments to her during the 1998-1999 school year while she was on the bus ramp before and after school. Respondent allegedly continued to make inappropriate comments throughout the 1999 summer school session. Ms. Battle also claims that Respondent repeatedly touched her buttocks with his hand and said it was a mistake. On June 23, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day told Ms. Elsa Rosado, the school bus aide, that Respondent was "a pervert or something, and he was all nasty." Ms. Rosado told the bus driver and spoke with Ms. Day's mother. On Friday, June 25, 1999, Ms. Battle claims that Respondent pulled up her skirt on two separate occasions in the high school. She claims Respondent pulled up her skirt the first time in the break room at approximately 12:18 p.m., and did so the second time in the office of the School Resource Officer after 1:00 p.m. During the second alleged incident, Ms. Battle claims that Respondent pulled out the waistband of her underwear and looked inside her underwear. On Friday, June 25, 1999, Ms. Battle rode the school bus to the Middle School. She intended to report Respondent to Mr. Dailey. Mr. Dailey was not at school that day. On Monday, June 28, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day reported the alleged incidents to Mr. Dailey. Mr. Dailey reported the allegations to Petitioner. Petitioner investigated the allegations, and this proceeding ensued. The Hallway and Bus Ramp Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent made inappropriate comments to Ms. Battle or touched her unnecessarily while she was in the high school hallway or bus ramp. Ms. Battle claims that Respondent engaged in those incidents when "everybody was around" including students, teachers, the principal, and assistant principal. Ms. Battle could not say whether any of the people around at the time heard the alleged comments or saw any unnecessary touching. Petitioner did not call any witnesses that verified the alleged comments or touching. The school principal testified that repeated inappropriate comments or touching by Respondent in the hallway or on the bus ramp would have been observed by either the principal, assistant principal, or some other staff member. The school principal, assistant principal, guidance counselor, school resource officer, and the classroom teacher for Ms. Battle each testified that Respondent consistently conducted himself in a professional manner for more than five years. None of those individuals observed the comments or behavior alleged by Ms. Battle. Ms. Battle was uncertain of the frequency of the alleged comments and touching. She first estimated that Respondent made inappropriate comments on approximately 10 occasions but revised that estimate to "about three or four, two or three, somewhere around there." Ms. Battle's testimony was vague and inconsistent regarding the content of the comments allegedly made by Respondent and the specifics surrounding on alleged touching. Lifting the Skirt Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent touched Ms. Battle unnecessarily by lifting her skirt and committing the other acts and comments alleged by Ms. Battle. Respondent was not present in school at the time of the second alleged touching. At the time of the first alleged touching, Respondent was either not at school or was in the process of leaving school. Ms. Battle claims that Respondent lifted her skirt the first time in the school break room while she was on break at approximately 12:18 p.m. She claims that the second incident occurred later the same day in the office of School Resource Officer sometime after 1:00 p.m. The school principal authorized Respondent to leave school with Mr. Eugene Robinson between 12:00 noon and 12:30 p.m. to perform plumbing repairs in Mr. Robinson's home. Respondent did so and worked on the repairs continuously until after 3:00 p.m. when Respondent left for his second job. Mr. Robinson was well known to the principal. Mr. Robinson had been an employee of Petitioner for over 40 years including 32 years as an administrator. Before retiring, Mr. Robinson was an assistant principal for the ALC. Mr. Robinson had an emergency plumbing problem in his home on June 25, 1999. He knew that Respondent had skills as a plumber and that the school resource officer, Mr. Robinson's son- in-law, had used Respondent as a plumber previously. Mr. Robinson went to the ALC High School between 12:00 noon and 12:30 p.m. on June 25, 1999. Mr. Robinson requested that the principal authorize Respondent to leave campus, and the principal granted the request. Respondent left school immediately with Mr. Robinson. The two drove separate cars to Mr. Robinson's house. After leaving school, Respondent took 15 minutes to stop at his house to pick up his tools and proceeded directly to Mr. Robinson's house where he worked until approximately 3:30 p.m. Respondent then went to his second job. Respondent did not sign the "sign-out" log when he left school on June 25, 1999, in violation of school policy. Although the policy required staff to sign the log when they came and left school, staff occasionally failed to do so. The guidance counselor, for example, was in school from June 22 through June 30, 1999, but failed to sign in. Even if Respondent were present after 12:00 noon on June 25, 1999, Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the acts alleged by Ms. Battle. The allegations are inconsistent with several aspects of the evidentiary record. Students began summer school at 8:30 a.m. and ended their day at 1:30 p.m. The same classroom teacher had the same students all day. Students took a 15-minute break sometime around noon to get a drink and a snack at the break room. Ms. Battle's class took their break from 12:00 noon until 12:15 p.m. Two other classes took their break at the same time. Each teacher escorted his or her class to the break room. The principal dispensed change at the vending machines that were in close proximity to the break room. Students purchased drinks and food from the vending machine and then went into the break room to eat and drink. The break room door remained open. The principal located himself by the doorway in the hall. The assistant principal and Respondent positioned themselves inside the break room to monitor the students. Ms. Battle testified that the assistant principal gave her permission to remain in the break room for a couple of minutes after the other students left because she was about three minutes late getting to her break. Ms. Battle's regular break was over at 12:15 p.m. Between 12:15 p.m. and 12:30 p.m., Respondent had either already left school with Mr. Robinson or was involved in the process of obtaining approval from the principal and preparing to leave with Mr. Robinson. Ms. Battle testified that she "distinctly remembered" the assistant principal allowing her to remain in the break room after others had left. She also claims that the assistant principal and principal were outside of the break room the first time that Respondent allegedly lifted her skirt. Ms. Battle claims that she could hear the principal and assistant principal talking in the hallway outside of the break room. However, the assistant principal was in Massachusetts attending a wedding and was not present at school on June 25, 1999. Ms. Battle did not tell anyone of the alleged incident in the break room at that time. She returned to her classroom. She later obtained permission from her classroom teacher to go to the principal's office to request permission to go to the Middle School to speak with Mr. Dailey. The principal was not available, and Ms. Battle returned to her classroom. Ms. Battle claims that her classroom teacher later excused Ms. Battle to go to the bathroom. Ms. Battle claims that before she entered the bathroom Respondent signaled for her to come over to him by the office of the School Resource Officer. It was between 1:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., and classes for the day were almost over. Inside the office of the School Resource Officer, Ms. Battle claims that Respondent stood between the closed door and Ms. Battle. Ms. Battle claims that Respondent held the door handle with his left hand behind his back and indicated that the elbow of Respondent left arm was bent at more than 90 degrees. However, there was insufficient distance between the door handle and the wall to accommodate Respondent's elbow. Respondent allegedly lifted Ms. Battle's skirt with his right hand, pulled back her underwear with a finger of his right hand, and then released the door handle and placed his left hand on his groin while he looked at her "private area." Ms. Battle claims that she told Respondent her teacher would be mad at her and that she needed to return to class. Respondent allegedly allowed Ms. Battle to leave. Ms. Battle claims she returned to her classroom, sat in the back of the class, put her head down and cried. Ms. Battle claims Respondent relieved Ms. Battle's classroom teacher for the final 15 minutes of class because the classroom teacher had to attend to some other business. According to Ms. Battle, Respondent sat in the back of the classroom. Ms. Battle turned around to look at him and claims that Respondent "made his private area jump" without thrusting his hips or pelvis. Contrary to Ms. Battle's testimony, Ms. Battle's classroom teacher made Ms. Battle sit directly in front of her desk at all times to control her behavior. The teacher never allowed Ms. Battle to sit in the back of the class. Ms. Battle's teacher personally taught class on June 25, 1999. Ms. Battle sat directly in front of her desk at all times. Ms. Battle never appeared disturbed the entire day. The teacher never observed Ms. Battle put her head down on her desk, cry or otherwise appear distraught. Although Respondent did sit in for the teacher occasionally, it was never for more than two or three minutes. Whenever a student is not in class, staff maintain radio contact with each other concerning the student's location. When Ms. Battle left her classroom to go to the bathroom, her classroom teacher notified the front office, and staff monitored her movement by radio. The bathroom is in plain view of the front desk of the administrative offices. The door of the office of the School Resource Officer is visible from the front desk of the administrative office. Staff members would have known by radio contact of Ms. Battle's movement from her classroom and would have monitored her movement closely. Procedural Deficiencies Petitioner's investigation of the charges made by Ms. Battle and Ms. Day suffered from several deficiencies. The investigation did not include statements from either Mr. Dailey, Mr. Robinson, or Ms. Battle's classroom teacher. When Mr. Dailey told Mr. Robinson of the charges against Respondent, Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Dailey that Respondent was working on a plumbing problem at Mr. Robinson's house on June 25, 1999. Mr. Dailey did not tell Mr. Robinson to disclose the information to anyone else and did not relay the information to Petitioner's investigator. A statement from Mr. Dailey presumably would have uncovered the information from Mr. Robinson and led to a statement from Mr. Robinson. When Respondent disclosed in his predetermination conference that he was with Mr. Robinson on June 25, 1999, Petitioner did not obtain a statement from Mr. Robinson. Mr. Dailey was not friendly with Respondent. Their friendship had ended in 1998 over a disagreement concerning a female teacher. Mr. Dailey "banished" Respondent from the Middle School where Mr. Dailey was principal. On Monday, June 28, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day informed Mr. Dailey of the charges against Respondent. Mr. Dailey interviewed the two together rather than separately. Ms. Battle and Ms. Day had discussed the matter together the preceding weekend and that Monday morning before meeting with Mr. Dailey. On Monday morning, June 28, 1999, Ms. Battle and Ms. Day obtained permission to leave the High School to talk to Mr. Dailey in the Middle School. The guidance counselor at the High School observed the two students sign out. They obtained a pen from Respondent to sign out and did not display any apprehension in Respondent's presence. Rather, they exchanged "high fives." Ms. Battle and Ms. Day completed written statements for Mr. Dailey in the same room. They later gave collective statements to Petitioner's investigator and police investigators.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the underlying factual allegations; finding that there is not just cause to terminate Respondent's employment; and reinstating Respondent with back pay from the date of his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 28th day of September 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Bruce Harter, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Victor M. Arias, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Polk County School Board because of the matters alleged in the letter of intent prepared by the Superintendent of Schools.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Polk County School Board, (Board), was the county agency responsible for providing public primary, secondary and adult education in Polk County, Florida, and operated Haines City High School, (HCHS), in Haines City. Respondent had been employed at HCHS for eight years, and in the last two years prior to the incidents herein taught in the school's Diversified Cooperative Training Program, (DCT) under a continuing contract of employment. DCT students are allowed to leave campus before the end of the school day to work at jobs in the local area. However, Respondent allowed some students to leave school during the morning hours for the purpose of getting breakfast and, coincidentally, to bring items back to school for her to eat. There is also allegation that Respondent would solicit students to run personal errands for her during school hours but would not give them a pass to allow them to lawfully leave the campus. Allegedly, she advised them that they were on their own and she would deny responsibility or knowledge if they were caught. Taken together, the evidence establishes that Respondent did allow students to leave class on personal business and did not give them passes to be off campus. It also appears that she solicited them to pick up items for her while they were away, but not that she solicited students to leave class to run errands off campus for her. Even so, her actions are in violation of the Board policy regarding student absence from campus, a policy about which Respondent had been briefed. In addition, some time during the Autumn of 1994, Respondent overheard a student on the school's football team, Bradford Parton, discussing with his girlfriend the fact he was having cramps. Respondent advised him he should take potassium and on at least one occasion, during a class session, gave Parton a pill which, she said, would give him energy and take away his cramps. She believed the pill was the functional equivalent of one banana. Respondent was aware that it was a violation of Board policy for anyone other than the school nurse to administer any form of pill or medication to a student. When the Principal learned that Respondent had given Parton the pill, he directed an investigation into the matter. On November 17, 1994, after he had heard that Respondent was making comments in class to the effect that the students were getting her in trouble with the administration, the Principal gave her verbal instructions not to discuss these matters with the students and to limit her conversations with them to matters related to class work. His comment to her included, "Just teach the class. Just don't bring yourself down to their level." The following day, on November 18, 1994, after receiving word that Respondent had again spoken to Parton after he had warned her not to do so, the Principal reduced his prior comments to writing and again instructed her not to discuss the matter with any students, warning her that he considered her doing so a matter of insubordination which, if repeated, would result in severe disciplinary action. There is some indication Respondent, in early December, 1994, advised several students after the warning she was going to have them removed from her class She subsequently advised the school's guidance counselor that several of the students involved should be removed from her class because they appeared to be "unhappy" in it. The students denied being unhappy in class and urgently resisted being removed because they needed the credit to graduate. Respondent's comments to the students constituted insubordination, and her action in urging removal of the students was considered by the administration to be an attempt at retaliation against them because of their allegations made against her. There is also indication that while the investigation into the allegations against her was under way, Respondent spoke with Ms. Denmark, another teacher, who was in the room when Respondent gave the pill to Mr. Parton, in an effort to get her to change her statement. School Board officials consider Respondent's blatant violation of school rules and policies by allowing students to leave campus without a pass and by improperly administering a pill to a student combine to severely impair her effectiveness as a teacher. Under the circumstances established here, this appears to be the case. Prior to the initiation of this action, Respondent had received a verbal warning regarding drinking in front of students at a conference and regarding making untoward comments about Blacks. Her personnel record, commencing with the teacher evaluation of her performance in the 1988-1989 school year, reflects positive comments and no substantial criticism. However, in July, 1994, the Superintendent advised Respondent of his intention to suspend her without pay for five days for making improper comments of a sexual nature toward students and for allowing students to grade papers, to average grades and to have access to her grade book. Respondent requested hearing on this proposed action. That hearing was held consolidated with the instant hearing and no final action has been taken by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Mary L. Canova's, suspension without pay pending hearing be sustained and that she be dismissed from employment as a teacher with the Polk County School Board because of misconduct in office and gross insubordination as described herein. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-2599 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted in so far as Respondent allowed students to leave campus and periodically suggested those who did run errands for her. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein with the understanding that the term, "no further details regarding the allegations were provided" refers to the charging letter, and that Respondent was provided with specific allegations of misconduct prior to hearing. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. See Partain's December 2, 1994 letter to Chapman. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Lane, Tron, Clarke, Bertrand, Vreeland & Jacobsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1578 150 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 24650 U. S. Highway 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 John A. Stewart Superintendent Polk County Schools Post Office Box 391 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of the alleged misconduct and, if so, whether such misconduct constitutes just cause for Respondent's termination, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent has been teaching for 30 years. At all material times, she has held a professional service contract, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. For the past 13 years, Respondent has taught at Northport K-8 School. She taught at this school until she was suspended without pay, pending termination, for the incidents of March 20, 2013, which are the subject of this case. During second period on March 20, 2013, Respondent was teaching a seventh-grade class. One of the students, R. W., misbehaved. Respondent cautioned him to sit down and be quiet. Instead of doing so, R. W. asked her, "How do you know that I'm the only one talking?" Respondent again instructed him to be quiet, to which the student replied, "I wish I could cuss a teacher out right now." Respondent did not reply. Several nearby students heard this exchange and nothing more of significance. After the bell rang, R. W. proceeded to his next class, which was taught by Sandra Tyndale-Harvey, whose classroom is in the same hallway as Respondent's classroom. During the three-or four-minute interval between second and third periods, Respondent visited another teacher, Kalyn Nova, whose classroom is between the classrooms of Respondent and Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. "Inappropriate Language" and Three Alleged Failures to Act Respondent told Ms. Nova about the incident involving R. W. during the previous period. Although she was speaking in a whisper, she was upset and was overheard by D. S., an eighth-grade student in Ms. Nova's third-period class. According to D. S., he overheard Respondent tell Ms. Nova that R. W. had said to her: "If you don't shut the 'F' up, I'm going to beat the shit out of you," or words very close to that effect, including the abbreviated swear word, the unabbreviated swear word, and the threat of violence. Ms. Nova and Respondent recalled the statement differently from D. S., but similar to each other. Ms. Nova testified that Respondent stated that R. W. had said, "If you don't stop talking to me, I'm going to beat the shit out of you." Respondent testified that R. W. had said, "If you say my name one more time, I'm going to slap the shit out of you," implying that this was what Respondent told Ms. Nova that R. W. had said. The differences in language among all three statements are immaterial. All three versions capture a threat to physically beat Respondent and a hair-trigger precondition to the beating: failing to stop speaking or saying R. W.'s name one more time. All three versions also use the word, "shit." Respondent's use of this vulgarity was not inappropriate for three reasons. First, Respondent was merely recounting what she understood that R. W. had said to her. Based on this record, Respondent was wrong; R. W. never said anything like this to her. But Respondent is not charged with fabricating this statement. Although R. W. did not say it, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent intentionally misquoted the statement, such that her use of "shit" in Ms. Nova's classroom might have been inappropriate. It is at least as likely that Respondent misunderstood R. W. to have threatened Respondent using the word, "shit." Second, Respondent was visibly upset when she recounted what she had thought R. W. had said to her. And third, despite the fact that she was upset, Respondent took a reasonable precaution--i.e., whispering--to avoid being overheard by other students, even though she was unsuccessful in this effort. Perhaps because she was upset, Respondent's speech was loud enough for a nearby student to overhear it. After recounting R. W.'s statement to Ms. Nova, Respondent walked over to D. S. and M. B., who were seated next to D. S. D. S. knew Respondent because he had taken a class from her the previous school year. Respondent asked D. S. if he would talk to R. W. because he and R. W. were friends and see what was going on with him. The incident during second period was not the sole reason that Respondent might have wondered what was going on with R. W., whose behavior and academic performance had been deteriorating recently. By this time, the bell had rung, and Respondent was walking toward the classroom door to return to her classroom. D. S. and M. B. asked Ms. Nova if they could go to the restroom. Ms. Nova said that they could, so D. S. and M. B. exited the classroom directly behind Respondent, who held open the classroom door for them. Hallway camcorders recorded much of what followed. The camcorders of main interest are identified in the video as Cameras 5 and 6. Located in close proximity to each other, these cameras display opposite ends of the same hallway. Thus, a person walking toward one camera will eventually walk off the bottom of the frame, only to appear at the bottom of the frame of the other camera. A small portion of the hallway, directly beneath both cameras, is not covered by either camera, so a person would not instantly appear in the frame of the other camera as soon as she left the frame of the first camera. The video is timestamped to thousandths of a second, and, at least at the level of seconds, the times for the two cameras are closely synchronized. If the cameras are out of sync at all, it is by no more than a couple of seconds. The video from Camera 6 reveals that Respondent held open the door for D. S., who passed through the door immediately ahead of Respondent. Respondent released the door, but, before it had swung closed, M. B. passed through the door a few steps behind D. S. Both boys walked in the direction of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Rather than proceed in the opposite direction, toward her occupied classroom, Respondent stopped in the middle of the hallway and then followed the two boys for about six seconds, as they approached and stopped at the door of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Both boys looked directly at Respondent, who, for two to three seconds, might have talked to the boys, but it is impossible to know for sure because her back was to the camera. Respondent suggests that she counseled the boys not to run in the hallway, but clearly they were not running. Also, considering that third period had already begun, it is unlikely that, even if two eighth-grade boys were running down the hall, Respondent would so diligently supervise them, even to the extent of following them down the hall for six seconds in the opposite direction of her classroom, and completely ignore the needs of the classroom of her students awaiting her arrival. It appears, then, that Respondent said something to the boys, and it had nothing to do with not running in the hallway. Just before the boys entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, Respondent turned around and started to walk up the hall toward her classroom. Seven seconds after entering Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, D. S. and M. B. reentered the hallway with R. W. By this time, Respondent was out of range of Camera 6, but she was within range of Camera 5. The video from Camera 5 reveals that Respondent did not immediately enter her classroom. Instead, for about ten seconds, Respondent stared down the hall in the direction of Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom. Based on the timestamps on the two videos, Respondent saw D. S. and M. B. leave the classroom with R. W., and she saw the boys walk R. W. across the hall, where one of the eighth-grade boys opened the door of another classroom, which was occupied at the time. At this point, Respondent entered her classroom, so she did not see what followed in the hallway. The circumstances under which R. W. left Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom are difficult to establish. D. S. testified that he asked to talk to R. W., but he did not say whom he asked. R. W. testified that two boys--D. S. and A. S.--entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom and asked the teacher if they could take R. W. because Respondent needed to talk to him. An especially reliable student witness, S. W., testified that she heard the boys tell R. W. that Respondent needed him, and he thus left the classroom with them. Ms. Tyndale-Harvey testified that, by the time that she took attendance toward the beginning of third period, R. W. was not in her classroom. When she asked if anyone knew where he was, several of the students said that he was talking to Respondent. The hallway was clear when the boys and R. W. left Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, so third period had started, but it is possible that the teacher had not yet taken attendance by the time that R. W. had left. Given the statements of the other students and presence of D. S. and M. B. in the classroom for a total of only seven seconds, it is more likely than not that they persuaded R. W. to join them in the hall without informing or asking Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. The video from Camera 6 reveals that no one left the second classroom to join D. S., M. B., and R. W. in the hall. The three boys went down the hall, still within range of Camera 6, but no longer being observed by Respondent. D. S. or M. B. ducked into a third classroom, from which, in short order, four students joined them in the hall. Up to this point, R. W. was being escorted, but did not appear restrained. While standing in the hall at the door of the third classroom, R. W. stood by himself, only two or three steps from his classroom, but making no attempt to reenter his classroom. However, almost immediately after the four boys joined D. W. and M. B. in the hallway, several of the boys physically confronted R. W., who tried to escape up the hall. One of the boys grabbed him after only a couple of steps and R. W. stumbled. Now surrounded by five or six boys, R. W. kneeled on the floor as the boys grabbed at and pushed him. One of the boys removed his cloth belt and swatted at R. W.'s lower torso seven times, as three of the other boys held R. W. against the wall. The evidentiary record does not establish that R. W. suffered any physical injuries as a result of this incident, whose intensity is impossible to describe. The boys are relatively far from Camera 6, and any views of R. W. are intermittent due to the movement of him and the other boys during the incident. Clearly, though, whatever level of intensity that the incident attained, tapered off considerably after about 30 seconds. About one minute after the start of the incident, the media specialist, who has worked at the school in her present position and as a teacher for 28 years, entered the hallway and walked right by the boys. She gave them a look, but noted nothing out of order--besides, one hopes, the presence of six students loitering in the hall in the middle of third period. The media specialist continued walking up the hall. The students followed her five or six steps behind. At this point, two students were holding R. W., possibly by his backpack, which had remained in place during the hallway incident. As these three boys approach Camera 6--and thus were clearly depicted right in front of the lens--the boys' grasp of R. W. is light, and R. W. is smiling. The other four boys are trailing the first three and are talking in pairs, paying no attention to R. W. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner proved that Respondent was aware that D. S. and M. B. left Ms. Nova's classroom and headed toward R. W.'s classroom, departed Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom with R. W., and walked across the hall with R. W. and opened the door of another, occupied classroom. Petitioner also proved, of course, that Respondent never intervened with the boys during these actions. Petitioner proved that Respondent had just asked one of the boys to talk to R. W. before he left the classroom to visit Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Even in a preponderance case, it is impossible to infer that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that D. S.'s walking to and into Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom meant that he was going to act on her request. But this is a reasonable inference as soon as D. S. emerged from the classroom with R. W., especially given the proximity in time between Respondent's request and D. S.'s action in retrieving R. W. from class. Seeing D. S. and M. B. walking R. W. across the hall and open the door of another occupied classroom establishes the inference that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the boys were not merely going to talk to R. W. about what might be wrong. D. S. and M. B., as well as all of the other eighth-grade boys, were much larger than R. W., so D. S. and M. B. did not need allies in order to talk to R. W. safely. More likely, the presence of allies was at least for intimidation, or worse. The Petition alleges a duty to act based on Respondent's having just heard one or both of the students ask if they could confront R. W. The evidentiary record does not establish such a request. However, Petitioner's opening statement predicates the duty to act on Respondent's instruction to one of the boys to talk to R. W. (Tr. 15) As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the point here is that Respondent has established a specific basis for notice and a heightened duty to act on Respondent's part, and basis alleged in the Petition--D. S.'s asking Respondent if he may confront R. W.--is close in time and content to the proved basis-- asking D. S. to talk to R. W. Interlude The media specialist who had passed the boys in the hall was headed to Respondent's classroom to schedule an author visit. The media specialist entered the classroom and, four or five seconds later, so did the six students and R. W. The media specialist remained in Respondent's classroom for a little over one minute. About 20 seconds after she left the room, so did the six students and R. W. The boys urged R. W. to apologize to Respondent. He did so once, but laughingly. Urged by the boys to apologize again, R. W. did so, the second time more sincerely. Respondent thanked R. W. for the apology, but said that she was still going to have to write a referral. Respondent said nothing else to R. W. The boys escorted R. W. down the hall, past his classroom, and into an adjoining hall, where they walked him into a restroom. From the video, it appears that one of the boys locked the door behind them. The boys remained in the restroom for less than one minute. R. W. then walked out of the restroom. About 15 minutes after the boys had left Respondent's classroom, the Dean's clerk went by the classroom and informed Respondent that R. W. had told her that he had been "jumped in the boys' bathroom" by six boys. The clerk added that R. W. had told her that the boys had attacked him on Respondent's instruction. The clerk told Respondent that she was taking R. W. to the front office so he could tell administrators what had happened. Three Alleged Instances of Student Witness Tampering Within three minutes after the clerk and Respondent parted, the six eighth-grade students involved in the hallway incident (plus another student who does not appear to have been involved) entered Respondent's classroom. They met with Respondent in a separate planning room that was in the back of the classroom. Respondent testified that she asked what had happened, and the boys told her about the incident in the hall--with one boy saying that he had removed his belt, but he had hit the floor with it. Respondent testified that they would have to tell the Dean what they had done. About five minutes after entering Respondent's classroom, the six students left it. On this record, it is impossible to find that that Respondent said anything more to the boys. It is thus impossible to find that Respondent tried to influence or interfere with these students in terms of what they would tell school investigators. The second alleged instance of interfering with student witnesses involves Respondent's third-period class, which witnessed the eighth-grade students' production of R. W. before Respondent. One student from this class, D. D., testified that, after Respondent had finished meeting with the boys in the planning room, she asked the class what would R. W. have looked like if he had been beaten up, and the class responded with suggestions. Although this student testified that R. W. did not look as if he had been beaten up, he did not testify that Respondent ever followed up with the obvious question of whether W. looked as if he had been beaten up to the students. Another student from this class, M. C., testified, but was not asked what Respondent had said to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. The only other student from this class called as a witness, V. S., was also not asked about any comments that Respondent made to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. It appears that, at hearing, Petitioner decided not to press the second alleged instance of interference with student witnesses. Any implication by Respondent that R. W. did not look beaten up while he was in her classroom was no more an attempt to influence the students than a statement asking them to remember when R. W. was in the classroom: both statements were true. Petitioner thus failed to prove any attempt by Respondent to influence student witnesses on these first two alleged occasions. However, at lunch on the day of the incident, Respondent visited some of her second-period students in the cafeteria. Five students concerning this incident were called as witnesses: W., C. T., K. H., L. J., and J. R. All of them were in R. W.'s second- and third-period classes. S. W. was an especially impressive witness. She also appeared to be quite fond of Respondent. S. W. testified that Respondent approached her and some friends while they were eating and asked if R. W. had said that he had been hurt, and S. W. replied that he had not. Respondent also asked if S. W. or her friends had heard R. W. say during second period, "If she opens her mouth one more time, I'm going to beat the shit out of her." Neither S. W. nor her friends could recall that; S. W. recalled that R. W. had said only, "Sometimes I wish I could curse out a teacher." C. T. was at lunch when Respondent approached him and asked if he and his friends remembered when R. W. had said, "If this bitch won't shut up, I'm going to knock her on the floor." Neither C. T. nor his friends recalled this statement. C. T. testified that R. W. said in second period, "I wish I could cuss out a teacher right now." K. H. testified that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he had heard R. W. say that "he wished he could knock that bitch the fuck out." K. H. replied that he not heard any such statement. K. H. testified that R. W. said that he had wished he could cuss out teachers, or words to that effect. L. J. testified that he did not recall anything, except that Respondent approached him during lunch and asked if R. W. had said "anything about he was going to beat the shit out of me." J. R. testified only that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he recalled that R. W. had used a curse word at her in class. Petitioner has proved that Respondent asked leading questions to each of these five students. Although the leading questions framed what Respondent apparently had understood R. W. to have said, not a single witness recalled any such statement from R. W. Under the circumstances, including the fact that Respondent had no role in conducting an investigation of her acts and omissions, the leading questions constituted improper influencing of student witnesses. Despite what Respondent understood R. W. to have said, the leading questions suggested to these student witnesses that R. W.'s statement was physically threatening, when it was not, and used one or more swear words, when it did not.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the above-cited violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct and School Board policy and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of February, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC Suite 103 1300 Corporate Center Way Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Leslie Jennings Beuttell, Esquire Richeson and Coke, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Dena Foman, Esquire McLaughlin and Stern, LLP Suite 1530 525 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-5414
