The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 460644, covering the areas of Educational Leadership and Social Science. The license is valid through June 30, 2001. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher at Marathon High School in the Monroe County School District. On or about November 26, 1996, Respondent submitted an application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate to Petitioner's Bureau of Teacher Certification. On the application, Respondent checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre or had adjudication withheld in a criminal proceeding; or are there any criminal charges now pending against you. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. By indictment of the grand jury convened in Pickens County, South Carolina, on June 22, 1995, Respondent was charged with "Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature" and with the offense of "Disturbing Schools." Respondent pled guilty to the charge of Disturbing Schools and the lesser charge of "Simple Assault and Battery" on March 18, 1996. He received a sentence of a $200 fine and a suspended 90 days jail sentence. On or about October 6, 2000, Petitioner submitted its First Request for Admissions to Respondent. Respondent failed to answer, admit, or deny the truth of the matters asserted in the request; namely, that Respondent submitted the application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate in the manner and form described in paragraph 3, above, and that he pled guilty to the criminal charges described in paragraph 4, above. Pursuant to Rule 1.370(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., the truth of the matters asserted in the request is conclusively established.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 22nd day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Graham, Esquire Graham, Moody & Sox, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Costa Lempesis 1334 Bryjo Place Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 614 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's license as a teacher in the State of Florida should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Daniel Klahn, was the holder of Florida teaching certificate 634054. The certificate is for the area of Social Studies and was valid through June 30, 1994. During the 1990-1991 school year, Mr. Klahn was employed as a teacher by the Taylor County School Board. Mr. Klahn and his wife have two sons, Daniel M. Klahn, II, and John D. Klahn. During the 1990-1991 school year, Mr. Klahn and his wife decided they wanted to adopt a female child. Toward this end, they agreed to be foster parents for the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. L. S., a nine-year-old female child was placed as a foster child in the Klahns' home during the 1991-1992 school year. L. S. was born on May 3, 1982. She underwent surgery for ruptured blood vessels in her brain shortly after she was born. L. S. suffers from epilepsy. In approximately 1987, L. S. lived with her mother, step-father and two half-brothers. L. S. reported that her step-father had been sexually abusing her. L. S. was taken out of the home and placed in foster care as a result of her allegations against her step-father. L. S. ultimately admitted that it had been one of her step-brothers, Nathan Wheeler, that had abused her and not her step-father. Nathan was approximately 16 or 17 when the incident was reported by L. S. L. S. had originally accused her step-father because she had been told by Nathan that he would kill or otherwise harm her mother and step-father if she ever told on him. Nathan was eventually moved out of L. S.'s home. L. S. was not, however, allowed to go back to her mother for two years. During the two years that L. S. was in foster care she lived in four different foster care households, including Mr. Klahn's. Mr. Klahn's home was the fourth foster care home L. S. was placed in. She stayed in the home for approximately 3 months. L. S. was approximately 8 or 9 years old while she lived with Mr. Klahn. L. S., as a result of having been sexually abused, having been taken away from her mother and having been placed in various foster homes, was anxious to get back to her mother. When she was unhappy about a foster home, she would act out and become unruly. L. S. did not like being in Mr. Klahn's home. She believed that Mr. and Ms. Klahn treated her harder than they did their two sons. Mr. and Ms. Klahn were not very understanding of her situation and treated her as a child who simply lacked discipline. As a result of these facts and those described in finding of fact 13, L. S.'s grades started to slip and she became more troublesome. While in Mr. Klahn's home, L. S. continued to visit on occasion with the family that she had previously lived with, the Bennetts. At some point, L. S. reported to the Ms. Bennett that Mr. Klahn was abusing her. She eventually reported the alleged incidents to her mother. The alleged incidents reported by L. S., which form the bases of the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Klahn, are as follows: the Respondent inappropriately touched L. S. in the chest and vaginal area. when L. S. misbehaved the Respondent and his wife held down L. S. and attempted to place pepper in her mouth. The Respondent and his wife then placed liquid soap on L. S.'s mouth; the Respondent applied medication to L. S.'s vaginal area; the Respondent made inappropriate suggestive comments in front of L. S. Alleged Inappropriate Touching. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Klahn "touched L. S. in the chest and vaginal area", except as discussed, infra. Pepper and Soap Incident. On one occasion, L. S. was in the dining room doing homework. Mr. Klahn was attempting to assist her when she became angry and threw a temper tantrum. L. S. called Ms. Klahn a "mother fucking witch." When she did, Ms. Klahn picked up a pepper shaker and told L. S. to stick out her tongue. L. S. refused. Ms. Klahn then went into the kitchen and got the dish washing liquid soap and returned to the dining room. Ms. Klahn then put soap on L. S.'s lips. Mr. Klahn had to hold L. S. in order for Ms. Klahn to put the soap on L. S.'s lips. Vaginal Medication. Shortly after being placed in Mr. Klahn's home, L. S. was diagnosed as suffering from a yeast infection. Medication for the infection was prescribed by a physician. Mr. Klahn applied the medicine to L. S.'s vaginal area. L. S. felt that she was old enough to put the medicine on herself or that Ms. Klahn should have put the medicine on rather than Mr. Klahn. L. S. did not, however, tell Mr. Klahn how she felt. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Klahn put the medicine on L. S. because she refused to do it herself or because she refused to let anyone except Mr. Klahn put the medicine on. Suggestive Comments. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Klahn made inappropriate suggestive comments in front of L. S.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Daniel Klahn. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 April, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Victor Africano, Esquire Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Karen B. Wilde Florida Department of Education The Florida Education Center Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Adela Popescu holds Florida Educator's Certificate 876674 covering the area of mathematics, which was valid through June 30, 2006. She was employed by the Broward County School District as a math teacher. The Florida Teacher Certification Examination ("FTCE") is a statewide examination. It is given four times a year at multiple locations. The Department of Education contracts with the Institute of Instructional Research and Practice of the University of South Florida to administer the examination, and the Institute contracts with persons to serve as room proctors and to grade the essay part of the general knowledge portion of the examination. The general knowledge portion of the examination is a basic skills test. Respondent applied to take the general knowledge portion of the test on April 16, 2005. That portion required the examinees to write a short essay on a choice of topics. The Department provided to Respondent, along with her admission card allowing her to take the examination, the Department's written guidelines prohibiting cheating on the examination and itemizing some activities considered cheating following the words "including but not limited to." Respondent took the essay portion of the general knowledge examination on April 16, 2005. At the beginning of the examination, the examinees were given written instructions. The instructions specifically provided: "You will have 50 minutes to plan, write, and proofread an ORIGINAL essay on one of the two topics presented below." Two topics were presented and then the following sentence provided: "Read the two topics again and select the one on which you wish to write your ORIGINAL essay." The word "original" was in capital letters in both sentences. In addition to the written instructions, the room supervisor for the test read the following instructions to the group of examinees: You must write an original essay that specifically and directly responds to the topic you select. Pre-prepared essays that are discovered to contain memorized sentences or passages will be marked accordingly. For example, if the essay raters discover passages that appear in two or more essays, the essays will be brought to the attention of the Florida Department of Education. The above-quoted language was read three times in succession in order to emphasize the need to write an original essay. Therefore, the requirement that the essay be original was presented to the examinees two times in writing and three times verbally, for a total of five times. There was no minimum or maximum length to the essay. The topics given required no particular level of knowledge of anything; rather, the topics were akin to asking an elementary school student to write an essay on what the child did during the summer vacation. It is surprising to find such a basic task on an examination given to college graduates, but at hearing the Department presented testimony to the effect that it is only trying to ascertain if the examinee can communicate extemporaneously, i.e., whether he or she is capable of writing a note to a student's parents. The five-paragraph-long essay that Respondent turned in as her original work is virtually identical to an essay the Department has seen so many times that Department staff refer to it as "the lush green hills essay." Admitted in evidence were the essays of three examinees who took the exam prior to Respondent and two examinees who took the exam on the same date. The primary differences in the essays arise from inferior skills in the English language so, for example, one examinee wrote "the lunch green hills," Respondent wrote "the lash green hills," one examinee apparently forgot that the green hills were "lush," and one examinee apparently thought there was only one hill. Otherwise, there are few differences in the essays. Respondent's essay was flagged by the essay readers, referred to the chief reader, and then forwarded to the Department. The Department agreed with the determination that the essay was not "original," that Respondent had cheated on the examination, and that her essay should be declared invalid. The Department so advised Respondent by letter dated May 16, 2005. In addition to advising Respondent that her score on the essay subtest of the general knowledge examination was invalid, the Department also advised Respondent that she had a right to an administrative hearing on that determination. Respondent did request an administrative hearing, and the case was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 05-2318. Before the final hearing in that case, Respondent filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of her request for a hearing. There is a dearth of evidence in the record in this cause as to how or when Respondent was issued a Florida Educator's Certificate. However, the parties have stipulated that she was licensed, with her license expiring June 30, 2006. Prior to that date, the Commissioner of Education issued the Amended Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this proceeding. There is no evidence as to how Respondent plagiarized someone else's work: whether she brought it into the examination, whether she memorized it, or whether she obtained it through the use of technology. The method she used to cheat, however, is irrelevant since she represented someone else's work as her own and admits it was not an original essay. Shortly before the final hearing in this cause, the parties filed a number of motions typically designed to resolve a case without the need for a hearing. Petitioner argued that jurisdiction over this matter should be relinquished since by Respondent's admission that she did not turn in an original essay, which constituted cheating, there were no longer genuine issues of material fact. In opposition to that motion, Respondent asserted that Petitioner was relying on two policies which were required to be promulgated as rules but were not, thereby preventing Petitioner from taking disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent alleges that the two unpromulgated rules upon which Petitioner relies are the definition of cheating, which appeared in the materials allowing Respondent admission to the examination, and the examination instructions, which required that an original essay be submitted and which were provided to Respondent twice in writing and three times verbally. Respondent did not raise these issues in her administrative challenge to the Department of Education's decision to declare her essay to be invalid, which would have been the appropriate proceeding since the question of whether she should be given a score for her essay or whether it should be declared invalid was the subject matter of that proceeding, not this proceeding. The two challenged policies, the definition of cheating and the essay instructions, are not rules and, therefore, need not be promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Further, neither the definition of cheating nor the essay instruction is vague, and neither vests unbridled discretion in anyone. The words "cheating" and "original" are not statutory terms, requiring interpretation. Further, they are not specialized terms unique to the Commissioner of Education or the Department of Education. They are words of common usage. Copying someone else's work and representing it to be one's own is a willful and intentional act. It is also unethical and dishonest to plagiarize.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of Counts 2, 3, and 5-7, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this cause and suspending or revoking Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent held Florida teacher's certificate number 681506, covering the areas of Pre-K through Grade 3, which was valid until June 30, 1995. On or about November 4, 1986, Respondent was charged with battery by information filed in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. On December 29, 1986, following a non-jury trial, Respondent was found guilty as charged. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was ordered to pay $77.00 in court costs. In 1990, Respondent submitted an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau of Teacher Certification of the Department of Education (Bureau). On the application, she checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) even if adjudication was withheld? Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. Please Check One: Yes No If yes, you must give complete details for each charge. As Respondent was aware, her negative response to this question was untrue inasmuch as, in 1986, she had been found guilty of the crime of battery in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. In 1992, Respondent submitted another Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, knowing that her response was false, she answered "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) to a crime other than a traffic violation? A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge In 1993, Respondent submitted a third Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, she knowingly gave false information by checking "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. On February 7, 1994, while working as a teacher at Golden Glades Elementary School, a public school located in Dade County, Respondent was involved in an altercation with a student, C.K., in the doorway to Respondent's classroom.2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1) of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, concerning her falsification of the 1990, 1992, and 1993 certification applications she submitted to the Bureau; (2) barring Respondent from applying for certification for a period of three years for having committed these violations; and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1997.
The Issue Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about August 2, 1977, in Duval County, Florida, did expose his sexual organs by masturbation inside a pornographic booth in the presence of a plain clothes city vice detective at a Jacksonville movie theater, and further, whether or not Ossie L. Gardner plead guilty to the lesser charge of "indecent exposure" and was fined 550.00 plus court costs, all in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example to students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about June 29, 1967, in Leon County, Florida, did solicit for a lewd and lascivious act by an offer to commit and engage in lewdness, to wit, fellatio with an employee of the Tallahassee Police Department, in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example for students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's Certificate filed by the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, against Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into several stipulations. The first of those stipulations was that the statements in the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's, Certificate found under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are agreed to and established as facts in this cause; therefore, with the recitation of those facts in the following quotation, those facts under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are hereby established. "JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS" "OSSIE L. GARDNER is the holder of Post-Graduate, Rank II Florida teaching certificate number 181441, covering Math, Emotionally Disturbed and Junior College, which is valid until June 30, 1993." "OSSIE L. GARDNER has been employed as a math/science teacher at the Juvenile Shelter in Jacksonville, Florida. He holds a tenure contract in Duval County where he continues to teach at this time. The Professional Practices Council received a report from Buford H. Galloway, Director of Evaluation and Development, indicating that OSSIE L. GARDNER was charged with Exposure of Sexual Organs by Masturbation on August 2, 1977. Pursuant to this report and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, staff of the Department of Education conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on February 13, 1978 made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that OSSIE L. GARDNER is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause on February 13, 1978, and directed the filing of this petition. The Petitioner has authority under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education to file this Petition. The State Board of Education has authority under action 231.28, Florida Statutes to revoke the teaching certificate of OSSIE L. GARDNER." At the commencement of the hearing, the parties further agreed to stipulate to the introduction of certain items of evidence without the necessity for authentication of those documents. Finally, the parties agreed to stipulate to the introduction of the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden, as a late-filed exhibit, to be used by the undersigned in the same way as the testimony offered in the course of the hearing. The facts in the case revealed that on August 2, 1977, between 3:30 and 4:00 P.M., Officer J. W. Lockley of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Duval County, Florida, was making a routine check of the J & K Adult Theater in the 400 block of Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This theater contains material of sexual content. Among other features of the theater are certain booths located behind a curtained area, which is separated from the other part of the establishment. Those booths have coin-operated projectors which allow for the display of preselected film clips which have been obtained from the proprietor. The booths are approximately four feet by seven or eight feet in dimension and the patron may stand up or in some cases may sit down in the booths. The booths have a further feature which is a door which has instructions that it must be closed during the course of the film being shown. On the date in question, Officer Lockley went into the area of the theater which contains the booths and observed the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, in Booth No. 8. At that time, the door to the booth was open and Gardner was observed with his sexual organs exposed, and was observed stroking his exposed penis with his hand in an upward and downward motion. A film was playing in the booth, being projected on a small screen. The film depicted sexual activity between male participants, specifically fellatio. Officer Lockley passed up the aisle from where he had observed this activity on the part of the Respondent and then returned to the area of the booth in which Mr. Gardner was located. At that point, Gardner continued to stroke his penis and to look and obtain eye contact with Lockley and then to look down at his penis. Lockley subsequently arrested Gardner for exposure of sexual organs, in violation of Section 80003, Florida Statutes. Gardner later plead guilty to a municipal ordinance violation of indecent exposure, City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. 330.124. For this violation, Gardner was given a judgment and sentence of a $50.00 fine plus $2.00 court costs. In the course of the arrest, the Respondent indicated to Officer Lockley that he had bean arrested for similar conduct before in a matter in Tallahassee, Florida. This incident pertained to a situation which occurred in the Greyhound Bus Station in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 29, 1967. At that time, C. A. McMahan, an employee of the State Prison Camp, Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, was working as an agent with the Tallahassee Police Department to assist in the investigation of vice activities. In particular, McMahan was assisting in the investigation of alleged homosexual activities in the men's restroom of the Greyhound Bus Station. On the date in question at around 10:00 P.M., McMahan went into the men's restroom and entered one of the closed-in stalls in which a commode was located; Gardner went to one of the urinals in the bathroom facility. Before entering the stall, McMahan observed Gardner masturbating at the urinal. McMahan then closed the door to the stall and was seated in the area of the commode when Gardner moved into the area next to McMahan's stall and continued to masturbate as observed through a hole in the wall between the stall in which McMahan was located and the area where Gardner was positioned. After a period of three or four minutes, Gardner stuck his penis through a hole in the partition wall into the area where McMahan was located. At that point, McMahan left to tell Captain Burl S. Peacock of the Tallahassee Police Department, Tallahassee, Florida, of his observation. Both of these individuals went back into the restroom, at which point Gardner was arrested. Gardner, after being advised of his constitutional right to remain silent, admitted that he had gone to the restroom with the thought that he could get some "sexual relief", and further admitted putting his penis through the hole in the partition for the purpose of getting that "sexual relief." Gardner also admitted to Peacock that he had been involved in homosexual activities as early as the age of 18 and had performed sodomy on one occasion and had been a passive partner in homosexual activities at other times. Subsequent to the June 29, 1967, arrest, Gardner received psychiatric attention for his problem. For the incidents related in the matters of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, the Respondent has been charged with violations of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code; in that his conduct is alleged to be inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience; not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. A review of those stated sections of the Florida Statutes and the The Florida Administrative Code reveals that any substantive allegations cognizable through this complaint are found in provision of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, only. Therefore, no further reference will be made to Section 6A- 4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code. Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "(2) EXAMPLE FOR PUPILS.--Labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty and pat- riotism and the practice of every Christian virtue." The conduct which has been established in the facts pertaining to the incidents of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure of the Respondent's sexual organs and the surrounding activities in those incidents, is conduct which shows that the Respondent is not laboring faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their deportment and morals' in violation of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes. No other violation of that provision has been established. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, together with the preamble to the overall Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "231.28 Suspension or revocation of certificates. The Department of Education shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying him the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (6); to revoke the teach- ing certificate of any person, thereby denying him the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to provisions of subsection (6); or to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person, provided: (1) It can be shown that such person obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means, or has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system, or to teach in or to operate a private school, or has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, or has had his certificate revoked in another state, or has been convicted of a mis- demeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seri- ously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, or has otherwise violated the provisions of law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate, or has refused to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education or the school board in the district in which he is employed." Again, the acts of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure by the Respondent of his sexual organs and the facts therein, show that the Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. The only other possible violation under Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, which might be argued is the allegation of possible conduct which seriously reduces the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The sole testimony offered in the course of the hearing which would address that substantive accusation would be that testimony found in the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden. A review of that testimony indicates that the opinion of the principal of the school in which the Respondent teaches, to wit, the school No. 182, Juvenile Shelter School, is to the effect that the facts in these cases are not known to other persons in the school. Consequently, there is no testimony to indicate that there would be any loss of effectiveness if Mr. Gardner continued to teach. No other violations were alleged or proven.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing, matters in mitigation and aggravation were considered. In that presentation, it was demonstrated that the Respondent is a teacher with an outstanding background, as revealed by his personnel file, which is the Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It was also established that the Respondent is a man of distinguished service to his country through service in the United States Army, as established in the Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 7. Further, it was established that absent these incidents alluded to in the course of this Recommended Order, the Respondent has not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Petitioner on any other occasion. Nonetheless, in consideration of the nature of his profession, it is recommended that the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, have his Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 181441 REVOKED for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Mail: 530 Carlton Building 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida Charles E. Grabill, Jr., Esquire 168 Blanding Boulevard, Suite 2 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Mr. M. Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent (a) pushed a ten-year-old student against a wall and struck his arm with a closed fist; and/or (b) falsely answered a question on the application for renewal of her educator certificate, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be taken against Respondent's educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educational Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Respondent holds Professional Educators Certificate 730057 (certificate). Valid through June 30, 2018, the certificate covers the areas of Mathematics, Business Education, Teacher Coordinator of Cooperative Education, Teacher Coordinator of Work Experience Programs, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at WHGES in the Miami-Dade County School District (District). Respondent has been employed by the District in a variety of capacities for a total of 25 years and in a teaching capacity for the last 17 years. The charges against Respondent arise from an altercation Respondent had with a then 11-year-old fourth grade ESE student, E.A., on September 27, 2011. On that date, E.A. returned to Respondent's classroom after an in-school appointment with his therapist. Rather than entering the classroom, E.A. stood outside the closed door and knocked on the door intermittently for approximately five to ten minutes. Several students in the classroom went to the door to tell E.A. that the door was unlocked and to come in. When E.A. continued to knock on the door and disrupt the classroom, Respondent went to the door. Respondent was able to open the door part of the way and get her hand and part of her body in between the door and the door frame when E.A. pushed the door closed on Respondent and held it shut with his foot. Respondent shouted at E.A. to open the door and said repeatedly, "it's the teacher, open the door!" When E.A. removed his foot from the door, the door swung out towards the wall, trapping E.A. in a corner between the open door and the wall. Respondent yelled at E.A. to get into the classroom and struck him on the upper arm at least two times. Respondent also picked up E.A.'s backpack and threw it in the classroom. According to Respondent, she made physical contact with E.A. when he raised his arm and she believed he was about to hit her. Respondent claims she used a "defensive move" to prevent E.A. from striking her. Respondent's testimony is inconsistent with that of E.A. and several students who witnessed the event, and deemed not credible by the undersigned. According to E.A., Respondent definitely meant to hit him although he was not hurt physically by the contact. E.A. entered the classroom crying because he was very embarrassed that this occurred in front of his fellow classmates. This altercation was witnessed by another teacher who reported it immediately to administration. Assistant Principal Mary Pineiro (Pineiro) was sent to the classroom to determine what happened. Pineiro observed E.A. crying and holding his arm. Pineiro heard another student say, "I cannot believe you did that to my friend," to Respondent. Respondent refused to answer Pineiro's questions regarding the incident. The teacher and other students who witnessed the event were sent to the office and asked to provide written statements of what they observed. The statements were provided independently and students were separated when they wrote their statements. They were not told what to write and their statements were not edited. The statements corroborated E.A.'s version of events that he was playing around outside the door when Respondent came out and struck him on the arm several times. On February 15, 2012, Respondent was suspended without pay from her teaching position for 25 days which was later upheld after a formal hearing (DOAH Case No. 12-0808TTS). By certified letter dated March 14, 2012, Petitioner informed Respondent that PPS opened a case to investigate her use of inappropriate discipline.2/ On August 9, 2012, another certified letter was sent from Petitioner to Respondent advising that Petitioner had "concluded its preliminary investigation" and wanted to provide Respondent an opportunity to review the materials and respond to the allegations. The letter states that Respondent is not required to respond and that an informal conference was scheduled for August 29, 2012. Respondent wrote back to Katrina Hinson (Hinson) with PPS on August 31, 2012, thanking PPS for "putting me on this pedestal of honor" and giving her the opportunity to refute the allegations of misconduct. Respondent asserts in this letter that she is the victim of a "mafia-type, posse ring" and the victim of a conspiracy including Pineiro and others at WHGES. Rather than respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent's three-page letter appears to be a plea for help from Respondent to protect her teaching position from the "obsessive hate" of the alleged conspirators. Petitioner sent a memo to Respondent on August 30, 2012, enclosing a copy of the materials assembled during the preliminary investigation conducted by PPS. The purpose of this memo appears to be to notify Respondent to keep the materials confidential during the proceedings. This memo and the materials were received by Respondent on September 8, 2012. On September 17, 2012, Respondent wrote another letter to Hinson at PPS in which she states, "to be in compliance with your office's investigation, I am writing for professional guidance in regard to curtailing the constant bare-faced humiliation and bait-and-switch torture by Dade County Public School's [sic] employees, as my soul is longing for peace to have solace to grieve my loss in every respect of life fulfillment." Respondent asks whether PPS is part of the DOAH process, complains about the union attorney and the school board attorney and asserts that the "mafia-type posse wants me to be on an accelerated program for homelessness and malnutrition." This letter, and its reference to an "investigation," is not a response to allegations of misconduct but rather appears to be Respondent's attempt to seek help from PPS with regard to the DOAH proceeding. The final hearing in the DOAH proceeding regarding Respondent's suspension without pay occurred before Administrative Law Judge Stuart M. Lerner on September 24, 2012. On October 1, 2012, Respondent wrote another letter to Hinson which states in the opening paragraph: To be in compliance with your office's investigation, I am writing for professional guidance in regard to my mental faculty due to my mild malnourished and homeless states, as I am constantly being deprived of rightful income due to a group of vicious, hateful, and jealous so-called professional educators and so-called professional administrators of Dade County public schools. This letter states, "I am being sanctioned (mentally slaved [sic]) that if I return to employment of Dade County Public Schools. I cannot communicate further with your office, neither through writing or telephone." In this letter, Respondent asserts that E.A. and the student witnesses were "coached to give false witness against me." Regarding the incident with E.A., Respondent states, "the student kidnapped me between the door and the door jamb, and battered me with the door to my head and upper torso, that left me with a mild head trauma." A similar letter was written by Respondent to Hinson on October 5, 2012. Respondent does not mention any "investigation" but again asks for help from Hinson stating: May you please go another extra mile to help me? I beg of you. My grasp to hope is weakening as my resilience to these evil ones has been for many, many years. They have cornered me by attacking my every phase of bottom line. Please, do not allow evil to have dominion over good. A final letter by Respondent to Hinson was written on October 19, 2012, in which Respondent complains that she is being unfairly harassed by the principal at her new assigned school, Aventura Waterway K-8 Center. Notably, Hinson did not reply to any of the correspondence from Respondent. According to Hinson, PPS has no authority to address concerns or complaints about harassment or discrimination. This information was not communicated by PPS to Respondent. What is clear from these letters is that Respondent had no understanding that she was under investigation by DOE. Rather, Respondent erroneously believed that PPS would intervene on her behalf with regard to her then-pending matter before DOAH or with her assigned schools. The final order upholding Respondent's suspension without pay was issued by the District on February 13, 2013. Respondent alleges that, at that time, she was advised by her union representative that the matter was concluded and that she did not have to worry about this incident any further. On March 18, 2013, Respondent filed her annual application for renewal of her educator's professional certificate with the District. In response to the question, "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 professional license or certificate?" Respondent answered "No." Respondent certified by her application signature that all information provided in the application was "true, accurate and complete." When the District received and reviewed the application, a computerized alert was received from Petitioner indicating that an investigation was pending with PPS. Jose Garcia, Certification Officer for the District, notified Respondent by memorandum dated April 17, 2013, that Respondent needed to return a corrected application. Respondent did not believe she was under investigation and thought that by indicating "yes" on the form, she would be incriminating herself. Respondent wrote Governor Scott an email on May 17, 2013, alleging that PPS and the District Certification Office were wrongfully preventing the renewal of her application in an attempt to prevent her from working with children with disabilities. As a result of this email, the alert was removed from Respondent's certificate and it was reissued by the District. Respondent never acknowledged the DOE investigation in her application for renewal. Petitioner considers Respondent's refusal to acknowledge the pending PPS investigation as an attempt to renew her certificate by fraudulent means. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent as follows: STATUTE VIOLATIONS COUNT 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent obtained or attempted to obtain a teaching certificate by fraudulent means. COUNT 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education. COUNT 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board. COUNT 4: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS COUNT 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. COUNT 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. COUNT 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. Respondent filed a Motion for a Formal Hearing on December 26, 2013, with the EPC in which she disputed all of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for the incident with E.A., with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of 90 school days. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 22nd day of January, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent submitted work that demonstrated a high degree of overlap between his submission and that of another candidate when applying for National Board Certification, and what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Reveron holds Florida educator certificate 442908, which covers the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). The certificate is valid through June 30, 2013. Reveron has been employed as a teacher at Dania Elementary School in Broward County, Florida, since 2003. Catherine Wires (Wires) was a colleague of Reveron’s at Dania Elementary. During all times material to the instant case, Wires and Reveron taught fourth grade, and were involved in an on-again, off-again intimate relationship. During the 2007-2008 school year, Reveron and Wires decided to apply for National Board Certification through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). To qualify for such certification, candidates must submit four portfolio entries. In preparing their respective submissions, Reveron and Ms. Wires helped each other, and taught essentially the same curriculum. According to the instructions given by the National Board, the entire portfolio had to consist of the candidate’s own work. Collaboration with a colleague was permitted, but the actual written work submitted was to be authored solely by the candidate submitting the portfolio. The portfolios were due to the National Board on a Saturday in March 2008. The day before, Reveron was working in the after-school care program. In an effort to save time, he gave his flash drive, which contained his four entries, to Ms. Wires and asked Ms. Wires to print out all of his documents. He was hoping she could print all four entries, so that when he finished his work at 6:30 p.m., he could simply place them in his portfolio and mail the package. Ms. Wires did as Reveron asked, and printed Reveron’s four entries, which she found on his flash drive. That same afternoon, Ms. Wires printed her submissions for the certification. She used the same computer when printing her documents and Reveron’s documents. After he finished working, he collected the four entries that had been printed by Ms. Wires, placed them in the portfolio without checking them, and mailed them to the National Board. The National Board, in March 2009, notified Reveron that his scores would not be released because the Board identified a high degree of overlap between Reveron’s submission and that of another candidate. Reveron was notified that he would not be permitted to seek certification in the future, but that he could request a review of the decision. Reveron never requested such a review. At issue in this case is Reveron’s submission #3, which consisted of fourteen pages. There is no dispute that the entry was almost identical to Ms. Wires’ entry #3, and had been written by Ms. Wires. There were a few areas where Reveron and Wires’ submissions varied, namely, the candidate identification numbers, the classroom demographic information, and the description of a group of students in terms of their gender, seating, and clothing. The only explanation provided for the overlap in the submissions was that it was a printing and packaging error. Ms. Wires, while in the process of printing her submissions and Reveron’s submissions off of the same computer, inadvertently printed the wrong document when she believed she was printing Reveron’s entry #3. Instead of Reveron’s entry #3, Ms. Wires printed her own entry #3. Reveron never reviewed the contents of the portfolio prior to mailing the package to the Board. Thus, there was a printing and packaging error that caused the “high degree of overlap” between Reveron and Wires’ entries. At hearing, no explanation was provided as to why differences existed between Reveron and Ms. Wires’ entries. In her deposition, however, Ms. Wires explained that she was in a rush to gather all the documents needed for the portfolios that afternoon, and that she must have accidently printed one of the rough drafts of her entry #3 when she thought she was printing Reveron’s entry #3. Absent from the record is any evidence of Reveron acting dishonestly or knowingly submitting fraudulent information to the National Board. Based on the evidence in the record, the overlap in the entries appears to be a result of a careless mistake.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Department of Education dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA ENCISO VARN 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 22nd day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed an application for a Florida educator's certificate with the Respondent on June 17, 1989. In Section III of his application, Petitioner indicated that he held a permanent teaching certificate from the State of New York that entitled him to teach nursery, kindergarten and grades one through six. Petitioner signed his application for certification under oath, and thereby certified that all information contained therein was true, correct and complete. On October 14, 1988, the Petitioner was served with a formal notice that proceedings were being instituted by the Commissioner of Education for the State of New York based on allegations that he had falsely claimed to the Greenport Union Free School District where he was employed in New York that he held certification as a school administrator and supervisor. Rather than participate in a formal hearing on this charge, Petitioner stated his intention to voluntarily surrender his teaching certificate in the State of New York by letter dated December 16, 1988. However, when he failed to surrender his official credentials and file a statement of surrender, the Petitioner was informed by letter from the New York Department of Education dated January 13, 1989, and delivered to his last known address by certified mail, that his teaching certificate would be revoked unless he surrendered his certificate and filed the required statement. Petitioner did not comply with this request, and as a result, his New York teaching certificate was revoked on March 28, 1989. The evidence in the record establishes that at the time Petitioner filed his application for Florida certification on June 17, 1989, he did not hold a valid teaching certificate in the State of New York. He had attempted to surrendered his teaching certificate on December 16, 1988, rather than participate in a formal hearing on charges of misconduct. When he failed to comply with the requirement of the New York Department of Education that he relinquish his actual teaching certificate and file a letter of surrender, his certificate was formally revoked on March 28, 1989. Petitioner knew, or should have known, that the information he provided, under oath, in Section III of his application for a Florida educator's certificate was untrue, incorrect and incomplete. Petitioner never challenged the action of the New York Commissioner of Education regarding the revocation of his teaching certificate in that state. He had been placed on notice that his failure to relinquish his teaching certificate and to file a letter indicating his desire to surrender his certificate would lead to revocation. Although the Petitioner sought in this case to discredit and contradict the allegations made against him in New York, the finality of the action taken in New York cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. The merits of those allegations were never litigated in New York because Petitioner chose not to proceed to hearing. He cannot now, in Florida, attempt to litigate the allegations which he had every opportunity to contest in New York, but which he decided not to contest. His New York certificate was revoked due to his failure to surrender his credentials and to file a letter of surrender, as he had agreed to do on December 16, 1988, and that action is final and not subject to challenge in this proceeding. At hearing, Petitioner claimed that he had moved from New York to Virginia in early 1989, and never received the letter dated January 13, 1989, from the New York Department of Education warning him of the revocation of his New York license if he did not relinquish his credentials and file a letter of surrender, as he had stated he wished to do. However, this letter was sent to his last address of record in New York, by certified mail, and was signed for by a "J. Brown." Section VII of Petitioner's Florida application provides a character reference on Petitioner's behalf by "James G. Brown" who represents himself on said application to have been a friend of Petitioner's for 16 years, and whose address is shown as the same as Petitioner's last known New York address. Therefore, notwithstanding Petitioner's denial of having received the letter dated January 13, 1989, warning of revocation of his New York certificate, it is found that such notice was delivered to his last known address, and was received by the same person that Petitioner would have Respondent accept as a character reference on his behalf. Notice of the actual revocation of his New York license was also sent to Petitioner's last known address in New York. It can only reasonably be inferred that Petitioner's friend of 16 years, J.Brown, told him of the certified mail he had received and that, therefore, Petitioner had knowledge of the actual status of his New York certificate at the time he gave false information on his Florida application. Petitioner only reluctantly admitted, at hearing, that the information he provided in Section III of his Florida application was incorrect and untrue. Instead, he insisted that he had not intended to be misleading, but had simply not read the application carefully and had been hurried when he completed the form by signing it on June 17, 1989. By his demeanor and testimony, it is clear that Petitioner does not appreciate the importance of providing true, correct and complete information on an application for a Florida educator's certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's denial of the Petitioner's application for an educator's certificate be AFFIRMED by the Education Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-1405 Petitioner filed a Summary of Evidence, which has been considered, rather than Proposed Findings of Fact on which specific rulings can be made. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4 and 6. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Adopted in Findings 2 through 5. Adopted in Findings 3 and 6. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 1408 North Piedmont Way Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Clifford J. Evert, Sr. 8420 S.W. 3rd Court Apt. 201 Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Karen B. Wilde, Exec. Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 West Gaines Street, Room 352 Tallahassee, FL 32399
Findings Of Fact Based on the Respondent's admissions in the Election of Rights form and on the exhibits and testimony received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 554716 covering the subject of Spanish, issued September 29, 1986, and valid through June 30, 1991. At all times material hereto, the Respondent taught in the Hillsborough County, Florida, school district at Middleton Junior High School. On or about March 23, 1981, the Respondent was arrested by the Lumberton, North Carolina, Police Department and charged with forgery. On or about June 6, 1984, the Respondent submitted an Application for a Teaching Position to the Hillsborough County (Florida) Public Schools in which she certified that she had never been arrested for a criminal offense. On or about June 28, 1984, June 27, 1985, and July 23, 1985, the Respondent submitted applications for teacher's certificates to the Department of Education of the State of Florida in which she certified that she neither had been convicted, nor had adjudication withheld, of a criminal offense. On or about December 10, 1986, the Respondent was arrested by the Tampa (Florida) Police Department and charged with grand theft and uttering a forged instrument. On or about May 28, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty before the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, to one count of grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and 18 counts of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. Said court thereupon adjudicated the Respondent guilty of said felonies and sentenced her to six months community control and four and one-half years probation. On or about February 23, 1988, the Respondent was arrested by the University of South Florida Police Department, Tampa, Florida, and charged with four counts of uttering a forged instrument. In or about May, 1988, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty by the Circuit Court of having violated the terms of her probation in violation of Section 948.06, Florida Statutes, and she was sentenced to three years in prison.
Recommendation Based on all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations described in the foregoing conclusions of law and permanently revoking the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 22nd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2993 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings submitted by all parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. (The evidence in support of these proposed findings does not even reach the level of competent substantial evidence.) Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant in view of the lack of proof regarding paragraph 9. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted in substance, with some incorrect details modified. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Accepted. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings proposed by Respondent (None.) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemary E. Armstrong and Catherine Peek McEwen 401 South Florida Avenue Post Office Box 3273 Tampa, Florida 33601-3273 Iris Locklear Zapata Florida Correctional Institution Post Office Box 147 Lowell, Florida 32663 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
