Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: With respect to an appropriate bargaining unit: Employees of the Pinellas County School system are classified into three categories for pay purposes. These classifications are for non-instructional or support persons, administrative persons, and instructional persons. The instructional classification or teacher salary schedule is reflected in a document entitled Pinellas County School Board Instructional Lists by Job Code, which was received into evidence as Exhibit No. 10 and contains approximately 5,200 persons. Members of the administrative and supervisory staff do not appear on this list, nor do supporting services personnel. Principals, deans, registrars and substitute teachers do not appear on this list. Curriculum specialists and coordinators, social workers, psychologists, learning disability specialists and attendance officers do appear on this list. Exhibit No. 16 depicts the organization of administration of the Pinellas County School system as it presently exists. Principals would appear on this organizational chart in the place marked "x" on Exhibit No. 16 in the box labeled local schools. All personnel above that level effectively recommend the hiring and firing of employees, direct other Employees, are paid on the administrative salary schedule, and participate in the preparation of budgets, the adjustment of grievances and in the process of collective bargaining. A stipulation that all persons depicted on this chart above the level of principals (whom are not depicted, but would appear at the local school levels) be excluded from the bargaining unit could not be reached. The following persons or classifications effectively participate in the preparation of the budget, have the ability to hire and fire or effectively recommend hiring and firing and are paid on the administrative salary schedule: the Superintendent, the associate Superintendent and assistant Superintendents. The School Board, CTA & AFT all stipulated that these three positions should be excluded from the bargaining unit. Attendance officers are included on the instructional, teacher's salary list, but they do not hold teaching certificates. They report to the administrative assistant to the associate superintendent and work out of the central administrative offices. It was stipulated by all the parties that attendance officers would not be appropriate in a bargaining unit. Principals and deans effectively recommend the hiring and firing of other employees, participate in the preparation of the budget and in the adjustment of employee grievances and are paid on the administrative salary schedule. It was stipulated that principals and deans should be excluded. The duties and functions of assistant principals are essentially the same as those of principal in the principal's absence. They are certificated, but generally not do classroom teaching. They participate in the formulation of the school budget and in the disposition of employee grievances. They effectively recommend the hiring, firing or disciplinary actions of employees, evaluate employees and are paid according to the administrative salary level. Not every school has an assistant principal. The elementary schools generally do not have one, unless they are on double session. Assistant principals are approved by the School Board, as is anyone who is on a supplement. No stipulation was reached as to assistant principals. Registrars participate in budgeting, are paid on the administrative salary schedule and come in contact with confidential material from time to time. They do have an office in the school, have daily contacts with students, receive essentially the same fringe benefits as classroom teachers. They do not have the authority to direct other teachers or employees in the performance of duties. By reason of their confidential status, it was stipulated by all the parties that registrars be excluded from the unit. The Pinellas County school system hires persons known as directors, associate directors and assistant directors. In a vocational program or center, the principal is known as the director and the assistant principal is also called an assistant director. Also there is a director of the budget and other types of directors. There are now approximately 50 directors, 2 or 3 assistant directors and no associate directors. They are paid on the administrative pay scale, have supervisory functions, assist in the preparation of the budget and in the collective bargaining process, deal with confidential materials, supervise employees and recommend hiring, firing or discipline and adjust employee grievances. They are generally at the county level and not the school level. It was stipulated that directors should be excluded from the bargaining unit, but no stipulation was reached with respect to assistant and associate directors. Supervisors are generally curriculum persons who supervise the formulation of the curriculum and supervise the teacher in working with the curriculum. They are paid pursuant to the administrative salary schedule, work out of the central office, evaluate other employees and effectively recommend hiring, firing or discipline, prepare and handle confidential materials and participate in both budgetary policies and the processes leading to collective bargaining. It was stipulated by all parties that supervisors should be excluded. Activity directors work in the schools, but do not teach classes. They are more of a business management type of person. They schedule activities and events, handle ticket or club monies, and hire teachers as ticket sellers at events. While they have occasion to work in the preparation of the budget for their particular school, they do not evaluate other employees, do not assist in the adjustment of Employee grievances, do not effectively recommend the hiring, firing or discipline of other employees and do not handle or prepare confidential records. They are on the instructional salary schedule. While they are not required to hold a teaching certificate, almost all do, and they are on ten-month contracts. No stipulation was reached as to the inclusion or exclusion of activities directors. Curriculum assistants, curriculum coordinators psychologists learning disabilities specialists and social workers are all regular, full-time instructional personnel and are listed on the instructional salary schedule, are not paid for vacations and do not accrue vacation time, have no power or control over budgeting and do not hire, fire or promote. In the same manner as classroom teachers, they earn sick leave, receive group health insurance, have the same retirement benefits and pay increases, have pupil contact and are certified employees. All are located within the schools, with the exception of psychologists and social workers, who are not assigned to a specific school, but work out of the county office. There is a classification known as specialist. There are approximately twelve persons in this classification such as a computer specialists and they are paid pursuant to the administrative salary schedule. If they perform supervisory and/or managerial functions, it would generally be over service personnel rather than instructional personnel. However, there is a group of specialists who fall within a category of a federal program which is in contact with students. No stipulation was reached as to this classification. In addition to curriculum coordinators, there is a classification known as coordinators. Some are purely classroom teachers such as a diversified education coordinator. Coordinators work predominantly in the schools with children and are paid on the instructional salary schedule. There are approximately 75 coordinators, and they receive the same paid holidays, the same group health insurance, the same retirement benefits and earn sick leave the same as classroom teachers. These people are required to hold a teaching certificate, although there may be one or two who do not. Most are in the vocational field. They do not supervise other employees nor do they have the ability to effectively recommend hiring or firing of other personnel. They have no power to establish a budget. No stipulation was reached on this position, or any of the remaining positions which follow. 1/ There is also a vocational teacher coordinator. The person occupying this classification teaches students in class and then coordinates their work outside of class and sees to it that students obtain jobs. They are generally assigned to a school and report directly to the principal of that school. They have no budgetary functions and they do not evaluate other teachers. They are usually certified. Also, there is a classification known as health coordinator. Most are certified and they work primarily with students. They coordinate the various phases of the health programs in the school to which they are assigned. They are on the instructional pay scale, have no power to make budgetary determinations and do not supervise instructional personnel. There are also secondary education coordinators who deal with the vocational aspects of a school. They work with students, receive regular retirement benefits and do not evaluate other teachers. There is one person involved in a classification known as RESRVOL. This is a federal program pertaining to the recruiting of adult volunteers to help senior citizens. While she is on the instructional payroll, she does not teach and she is not certificated. On the instructional payroll, there is a classification known as self- renewal. This too is a federal program comprising about four persons. While certification is not required, all who occupy the position are certified. Their function is to deal with children who have lost confidence in themselves and attempt to restore self-confidence. They receive the same emoluments as a classroom teacher and are not involved in the evaluative process of other teachers. They are not assigned to any particular school, but work out of a county office. This description would also fit a Position known as educational self-renewal. Enhanced learning personnel supplement the classroom teachers with respect to teaching the gifted child. They do not evaluate other teachers nor do they have any role in the budgetary Process. Some are permanently assigned to a school and others are on a county-wide basis. Their emoluments with respect to retirement, sick leave and vacation are the sane as classroom teachers. A curriculum assistant helping a kindergarten teacher exists on the instructional salary list. Only one person is involved. This person does evaluate teachers, has no classroom duties and is involved in the budgetary process. She reports to the supervisor of kindergarten and receives the same emoluments as classroom teachers with respect to retirement, sick leave and pay and vacations. Other helping teachers do exist and the positions are supervisory, supportive type positions. They evaluate teachers and report to their supervisors. A junior high school work experience teacher teaches children and finds them jobs outside of school. They do not coordinate teachers and they receive the same emoluments as a classroom teacher with respect to retirement, sick leave and vacation. An adult home economics teacher teaches post high school students in the evenings. They do not evaluate other teachers and report to their supervisor in the evening program. Substitute teachers are hired and paid on a daily basis. They are not required to be certified. However, there is a distinction between a short-term and a long-term substitute teacher. The long-term substitute takes a regular teacher's place over a long period of time. After the first ten days, the long term substitute is allowed to go on a teacher's contract (whatever contract they would be eligible for were they a regular teacher) for the period of time they are going to be substituting, if it is determined that the period of substitution will be extended. It was not determined whether long-term substitutes go on the same instructional list as Exhibit No. 10, but no long- term substitutes are now on said list due to the recent opening of school. They do not participate in the same retirement or receive the same insurance that a classroom teacher does. While several other positions were discussed, there were no other employees who were in the list of instructional personnel (excluding personnel heretofore discussed) who have the ability to effectively recommend the hiring or firing of other employees, who participate in the adjustment of Employee grievances or evaluate other employees, or who work in the preparation of the budget. All remaining positions receive their pay on the same day, earn sick leave in the same fashion, participate in the same group insurance and retirement benefits as regular classroom teachers and are required by the School Board to be certified. With respect to requests for recognition and bargaining history: Pursuant to local legislation enacted in 1971 granting to instructional personnel employed by the School Board the right to bargain collectively, the CTA has engaged in collective bargaining with the School Board. The first contract was ratified in September of 1971. The last contract expired on August 1, 1975. The 5,018 employees covered by this latter contract included counselors, librarians, classroom teachers, media specialists, special education teachers, vocational teachers, curriculum coordinators, psychologists, social workers and other employees of the public schools having whole or in part classroom teaching duties. This is essentially the same group listed in Exhibit 10. The CTA made a formal request for voluntary recognition by the School Board on April 30, 1975. Certain events (unfair labor practice charges and the filing of RC petitions) then ensued, which events are well known and are on file with the Public Employees Relations Commission. On or about April 24, 1975, the AFT requested, by letter, the School Board to officially recognize the AFT for the rights to bargain collectively with the School Board for the teachers. As noted above in the Introduction, the parties agreed that the School Board is a public employer; that both petitioners are employee organizations, and that there is no contractual bar to the holding of an election. In accordance with F.S. s. 447.307(3)(a) and F.A.C. Rule 8H-3.23, no recommendations are submitted. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 112.313(2), (4), (6) and (7)(a), 112.3143(3), and 112.3145, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dennis Wardlow (Wardlow), served as mayor of the City of Key West from 1991 until 1997. In that public position, Wardlow was subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for public officers and employees. In March 1991 Lisa Macy began operating a business at Smathers Beach in Key West. The business was known as Jammin' Jim's Wave Runners. John Bigler (Bigler), a lawyer in Key West and boyfriend of Ms. Macy, went into the jet ski rental business with Ms. Macy during the early fall of 1992. The new business was named Warren Watersports, Inc., d/b/a Ridley Turtle Watersports. In addition to being a lawyer, Bigler was a retired Navy Captain and JAG officer. He was involved in a partnership that owned a mini-warehouse in the Keys and was in the business of leasing an airplane to law firms under the name of Legal Eagles. On or about October 13, 1992, Wardlow entered into a letter of agreement with Bigler to provide consulting services to Warren Watersports. The written agreement stated that Wardlow was being retained as a public relations consultant under the following terms: You will be provided a weekly expense account of $100.00 per week commencing Friday, October 16, 1992, for a minimum period of six (6) months from the date hereof. You will be paid a success fee of $5,000 each, payable at the rate of $100.00 per week upon the award of an exclusive wave runner concession for a period of not less than three (3) years by the Hyatt Hotel at Key West, by the Holiday Inn Beachside, and/or the Galleon Marina, or any of them. You will not compete with and/or divulge any trade secrets and/or plans of the company for a period of six (6) months should this relationship be terminated for any reason. According to Wardlow, he was supposed to solicit the hotels and the marina for a concession for Warren Watersports. After signing the agreement and thinking about it, he decided that, as mayor, it would be a conflict for him to solicit the hotels because it might be considered that he was trying to use his official position as mayor to influence the businesses to grant a concession to Warren Watersports. However, Wardlow did not terminate his contract with Bigler nor did he amend the written agreement. As a result of his association with Bigler and Warren Watersports, Wardlow was paid $100 per week from October 1992 until April 22, 1994. The total amount received from Bigler and Warren Watersports was $7,900. Ms. Macy was upset when she learned that Bigler had agreed to pay Wardlow $100 a week. She felt that it was an unnecessary expense for the business. Bigler personally delivered the checks to Wardlow each week. Ms. Robin Downing worked as a bookkeeper for Bigler from April 1993 to September 1994. She handled the books for Bigler's businesses, including Warren Watersports. Over the period of time that Ms. Downey worked for Bigler, the business at Warren Watersports declined, and there were times when Warren Watersports had difficulty making payroll. However, it was Bigler's policy that payment to Wardlow would be made first. At times when Warren Watersports could not make payroll, Wardlow was the only person who received a check. Ms. Downing did not know what Wardlow did as a consultant for Warren Watersports. Ms. Judy McGill worked full time as a legal secretary for Bigler from July 1992 to September 1994. In April 1993, Ms. McGill became signatory on Bigler's office accounts, including Warren Watersports. She signed only three checks to Wardlow during her employment and refused to sign the other checks to Wardlow even though she was aware that it was Bigler's desire that Wardlow's check go out each week without fail. Ms. McGill did not know what work Wardlow did for Warren Watersports. In approximately March or April of 1994, Ms. McGill spoke with Wardlow on the telephone concerning the weekly checks, and Wardlow stated that he "wished that John would quit doing this." Dan Bosco, the manager for Warren Watersports, never saw Wardlow at any of the places where Warren Watersports was operating. Mr. Bosco was not aware of anything that Wardlow did for the business except make a short speech at the company's Christmas party. Soon after Wardlow began working for Warren Watersports, Wardlow was approached by Bigler who said that he had been cited by Code Enforcement for a violation and he wanted Wardlow to get it "straightened out." Wardlow contacted Gene Favors, a Key West Enforcement Officer, and helped resolve the problem. On several occasions Bigler approached Felix Cooper, the Key West City Manager, to discuss Bigler's desire to have a franchise from the City of Key West for a sales booth for his jet ski rental business on the beach at Smathers Beach and to erect a sign on the beach with the name of the jet ski business on the sign. Mr. Cooper had not taken action on the discussions, hoping that Bigler would go away and drop the subject. However, Mr. Cooper received a letter dated October 6, 1992, from Bigler, stating Warren Watersports wanted to be a franchisee or concessionaire of the City of Key West at the eastern end of Smathers Beach. In exchange for allowing Warren Watersports to operate its jet ski rental business on Smathers Beach, to erect a sign on the beach, and to store wetsuits on the beach, Warren Watersports was willing to erect and maintain a buoy system at Smathers Beach and name the city as an additional insured on Warren Watersports' liability insurance policy. The letter was copied to Wardlow and to the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City. Mr. Cooper asked Ron Herron, Assistant City Manager for Key West, to review the letter and to make a recommendation concerning the request. Mr. Herron's responsibilities included leases, franchises and rentals of city property. Mr. Herron responded to Mr. Cooper's assignment with a memorandum dated October 14, 1992. Basically, the memorandum recommended against a franchise to Warren Watersports, stating that the city had been trying to remove the wave runner business operation from Smathers Beach since 1991, that the City Commission had previously indicated that it did not want further commercialization of Smathers Beach, and that the City would need to seek approval from the Department of Natural Resources before allowing further commercial use of the beach. Some time after October 14, 1992, Wardlow called Ron Herron to his office regarding Bigler's request to place a sign on Smathers Beach. Wardlow wanted to know the reasons why Mr. Herron had turned down the request from Warren Watersports. Wardlow's tone seemed a little hostile and a little aggressive to Mr. Herron. After Mr. Herron explained his reasoning for recommending that the request be denied, Wardlow asked Mr. Herron to contact the Department of Natural Resources to see if Warren Watersports' request could be approved. As a result of that meeting, Mr. Herron drafted a letter for Wardlow's signature to the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Wardlow signed the letter, dated December 7, 1992, and sent it to the Department of Natural Resources. The letter specifically referred to the signs that Warren Watersports wanted erected and included photographs of the signs. Mr. Herron was not aware of any other businesses for which Wardlow, as mayor, wrote a letter to the Department of Natural Resources seeking approval for a sign to be erected on the beach. At the time that he signed the letter, Wardlow was a paid consultant of Warren Watersports and John Bigler. Wardlow did not discuss the request from Bigler concerning the franchise and the sign with the City Manager. Section 3.04 of the City of Key West Charter discusses the duties of the City Commission regarding administrative officers and employees of the city and provides: (b) Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations, the commission or its members shall deal with the city manager and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the manager, and neither the commission nor its members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately. In Key West the watersports business is very competitive. Warren Watersports operated from a barge 300 feet off the shoreline of Smathers Beach, a tourist area in Key West. Other watersports businesses operated out of a public boat ramp, while another competitor, Steve Kocis, pulled his barge up to the seawall. By Kocis' business being up against the seawall, Mr. Kocis' customers were able to step directly onto his barge without wading into the water. The customers of Warren Watersports had to wade 300 feet into the water in order to rent a jet ski. Mr. Kocis' operation had a serious negative effect on Warren Watersports' business. Bigler, as well as other Key West residents, were upset that Mr. Kocis was operating his jet ski business next to the seawall. The City received numerous complaints about the operation of jet skis at Smathers Beach. On April 5, 1994, Wardlow voted in favor of an ordinance restricting the operation of jet ski rental companies to an area at least 600 feet beyond the Key West shoreline. On April 19, 1994, Wardlow sponsored and voted for an amended ordinance that restricted the operation of jet ski rental companies to an area at least 300 feet beyond the Key West shoreline. The amendment to the ordinance passed by a four to three vote of the City Commission. Between April 5 and 19, 1994, Bigler called Wardlow to discuss the 600-feet restriction. Lisa Macy placed at least two telephone calls to Wardlow for Bigler on Bigler's car telephone after the April 5 meeting. One of the conversations was on speaker telephone, and Wardlow said that he had spoken to several people on the commission about the 600-feet restriction and that they were going to have to go back and make some changes. Prior to the April 19, 1994, vote, three Warren Watersports employees, including Bigler, addressed the Key West City Commission and requested the Commission to reduce the restriction for operation of jet ski rentals from 600 to 300 feet beyond the shoreline, stating that the 600 feet restriction would be detrimental to Warren Watersports' business. Wardlow never publicly announced at the City Commission meetings on April 5, 1994, and April 19, 1994, that he had financial ties to Warren Watersports and Bigler. Sara Sally Lewis, Charles Percy Curry, Jimmy Weekly, Harry Bethel, and Joseph Pais were Key West City Commissioners at the time of the April 5 and April 19 votes on the watersports ordinances. At no time prior to the votes did Wardlow disclose to them that he was being paid $100 per week by Warren Watersports. At the time Wardlow voted to amend the proposed ordinance to a 300-feet restriction, there were approximately twenty jet ski operators in Key West. The total amount Wardlow received from Bigler and Warren Watersports in 1992 was $1,000. Wardlow earned $8,717.17 as Mayor of Key West for 1992. He also received $5,009.00 in taxable interest and had a capital gain of $441.00. On his income tax return, he reported gross income from Aqua Clean Pool and Spa Service as $4,739.00, which included $700.00 for consulting. His total gross income for 1992 was $18,906.17. The total amount Wardlow received from Bigler and Warren Watersports in 1993 was $5,300. The parties stipulated that Wardlow earned $16,347.00 in total income from his public employment. Wardlow's income tax return filed for 1993, indicated that he received $16,047.63 from his public employment in 1993. The 1993 income tax return also stated that Wardlow received $4,071.00 as taxable interest. Wardlow's income tax return listed $5,200.00 as consulting income associated with Aqua Clean Pool and Spa Service. His total gross income for 1993 was $25,318.63. Wardlow sold his business, Aqua Clean Pool and Spa Service, in November 1991. The consulting fees listed on Wardlow's income tax return attributed to Aqua Clean Pool and Spa Service were apparently those received from Bigler. However, the contract was between Warren Watersports and Wardlow and not between Warren Watersports and Aqua Clean Pool and Spa Services Wardlow did not disclose Warren Watersports or Bigler as a source of income on his 1992 Form 1 Statement of Financial Interests. Wardlow did not disclose Warren Watersports or Bigler as a source of income on his 1993 Form 1 Statement of Financial Interests. The total amount that Wardlow received from Bigler and Warren Watersports in 1994 was $1,600. Wardlow did not file a Form 1 Statement of Financial Interests for 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dennis Wardlow did violate Sections 112.313(2),(4), (6), and (7)(a), 112.3143(3) and 112.3145, Florida Statutes; imposing a civil penalty of $5,000; issuing a public censure and reprimand; and ordering restitution to the State of Florida of the $7,900 that Dennis Wardlow received from Warren Watersports and John Bigler. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Scott, Advocate Florida Commission on Ethics Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael Halpern, Esquire Michael Halpern, P.A. 209 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 Mel Black, Esquire 2937 Southwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Kerrie J. Stillman Complaint Coordinator Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's employment with the Pinellas County School Board should be terminated for just cause for violations of Pinellas County School Board Policies 8.04(4) and 8.25(1)(a), (d), and (x).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying, their ability for accurate recall and the review of exhibits in evidence and pleadings contained in the file, the following relevant and material facts are found. Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, is the governing board of the Pinellas County School District. In 1995, the Board adopted School Board Policy 8.25 "Discipline of Employees." Respondent, Thaddeus Starling (Starling), has been a teacher for 23 years with the last 17 of those years spent in Pinellas County as a full-time teacher. Starling has worked for the last three years as a physical education instructor at the John Hopkins Middle School, located on 16th Street in St. Petersburg, Florida. At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, Starling was employed pursuant to a professional services contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). Mr. James Baldwin, a principal for over 15 years and the current principal of John Hopkins Middle School, testified that he has personally known Starling for 15 to 16 years and has been his supervisor and principal for three years. As far as he knows, Starling has never done anything wrong to suggest that he was not a good man. He is good with the students and has received good annual evaluations. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Starling has ever been disciplined by the School Board. Starling has been with his wife 14 years and married to her for the last eight years. Their pastime over the years has been fishing in and around the St. Petersburg area. Starling and his wife regularly fish for mullet in and around the St. Petersburg area during September and October, when the mullet are running. Each day that fishing is planned, Starling calls his wife to identify the spot where they will fish, and she meets him at the identified spot with their fishing equipment. On September 5, 2001, Starling left school driving a 1983 Camaro by pulling onto 16th Street going toward 22nd Avenue. He turned left onto 22nd Avenue to Third Street where he made a left turn. Located along Third Street is one of the several fishing locations where Starling and his wife regularly fished. Third Street at 20th Avenue was under construction on September 5, 2002, and Starling had to detour off Third Street onto 20th Avenue. Starling followed 20th Avenue to the intersection of 20th Avenue and Fourth Street, which is controlled by posted stop signs facing the 20th Avenue traffic. Because it was raining hard, all the windows in his vehicle were rolled up when he stopped at the 20th Avenue and Fourth Street intersection. In response to complaints made to the St. Petersburg Police Department, a prostitution decoy detail was dispatched to the area of 20th Avenue and Fourth Street on September 5, 2001. Sergeant Quandt, the ranking officer, was in charge of the detail consisting of Detective Christina Bentham, posing as the prostitute decoy, and Detective Landrem, who was an observer or "eyeballer" responsible for looking out for the safety of the female decoy. The crime of solicitation for prostitution focuses on the conversation between the "John" (the person who initiates conversation with the decoy for the purpose of sex in exchange for something of value) and the decoy prostitute. No consummation need occur. The crime is committed by the specific "words spoken" by the accused. While on the decoy detail, Detective Bentham wore an electronic device that transmitted her voice to Detective Landrem, who was equipped with an electronic receiver. Detective Bentham was also wired with an electronic device that transmitted her voice and the voice(s) of persons speaking to her to Sergeant Quandt, who controlled the electronic receiving and recording device. The electronic communication devices enable the members of the prostitution detail to communicate among themselves. The electronic recording device is to record, as factual evidence, the solicitation for sex made by the "John" to the decoy prostitute. On September 5, 2001, Sergeant Quandt had the electronic recording device in his vehicle. He is the only member of the prostitution decoy detail with personal knowledge of when the recording device was actually operating during this decoy detail, but was not called by the Board to give testimony. After approximately four hours of waiting in the pouring-down rain at the intersection of 20th Avenue and Fourth Street, South, decoy Detective Bentham had not arrested anyone for soliciting her for prostitution. Sergeant Quandt drove up to Detective Bentham and ordered her to "get in he was calling it off." By her admission, Detective Bentham steadfastly refused to enter Sergeant Quandt's vehicle and insisted she would stay out longer. Thereafter, Sergeant Quandt drove away to another location. Detective Bentham went to stand under a tree approximately 20 yards away from the intersection. According to Starling, as he sat at the stop sign, waiting for traffic to clear for his turn onto Fourth Street, Detective Bentham came from the grass area, walked onto the sidewalk to the passenger side of his vehicle, and motioned for him to lower his passenger window. Detective Bentham yelled something to Starling that he did not understand, so he slightly rolled down the passenger window of his vehicle. According to Starling, he saw a lady out in the rain waving at his car, and he thought maybe she needed some help. Starling's testimony is plausible. According to Detective Bentham, Starling yelled something to her through his rolled-up passenger window while at the stop sign. She did not understand what he was saying, prompting her to walk approximately 20 yards in the pouring-down rain to the passenger window of his car. This testimony is not credible. Starling and Detective Bentham gave conflicting testimony about who initially said what to whom. According to Starling, Detective Bentham's first statement to him was, "What can I do for you?" and he replied, "Well, nothing, I'm headed to the wall." According to Detective Bentham, her first statement to Starling was, "What are you looking for?" and he replied, "Head." Considering the totality of circumstances, Starling's habit of fishing, the planned fishing at the specific location, calling home to his wife to meet him, and the road construction in the area causing detours resulting in Starling's arrival in the rain at the intersection of 20th Avenue and Fourth Street, Starling's testimony are credited. Detective Landrem was in a parked vehicle approximately 100 yards from Detective Bentham and had control of a radio that he testified "received" only the words spoken by Detective Bentham. According to Landrem, he could not and did not heard any incriminating statements allegedly made by Starling. It is undisputed that the decoy prostitution detail, with electronic recording equipment in their control and on their person, failed to record the alleged incriminating statements during the conversation between Detective Bentham and Starling. Sergeant Quant, ranking police officer in charge of this detail, was not called by the School Board to testify. According to Starling, when Detective Bentham began to speak with him, he said, "Wait a minute," and [I'm going] "fishing," and rolled his window up with the intent of turning right onto Fourth Street. Moments before making his right turn, Starling, looking in his side view mirror, saw Detective Bentham step off the curb onto the road and walk to a white car that was directly behind his car when he was on Twentieth Avenue. Unknown to Starling at that time, the white car was driven by a male, Mr. Perry, whom Detective Bentham arrested for solicitation for prostitution, again without recording that conversation. After Starling turned onto Forth Street East driving without stopping toward Ninetieth Avenue, Starling was followed by Sergeant Quant, but was stopped by and arrested by a uniformed St. Petersburg Police Office and charged with solicitation for prostitution. Under Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, this criminal offense is a misdemeanor. Starling obtained local counsel to represent him in the criminal proceeding. On November 20, 2001, Starling was advised by counsel that he would best be served by dropping his plea of not guilty and entering a plea of nolo contendere. Starling was advised that his fine would be the amount of his posted bond, and he would have to take a sexually transmitted disease test. Starling agreed with the understanding the agreement would be acceptable to the School Board. The County Court of Pinellas County accepted Starling's plea of nolo contendere, withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed Starling on four months' probation that he successfully completed. Starling was advised by his counsel that he did not have to report his arrest to the School Board until time for his professional service contract renewal in May of 2002. In January of 2002, after Starling and a colleague saw a newspaper article about another School Board employee who was disciplined, in part, for failing to report an arrest and a withholding of adjudication, they found a policy manual and talked to a school administrator who advised them to report any such occurrence to the Office of Professional Standards. Thereafter, Starling reported the arrest to the School Board. Starling failed to report his arrest to the Office of Professional Standards immediately after his release from jail on bond. Starling's failure to immediately report his arrest to the School Board was not an intentional violation of Policy but was, at worst, excusable neglect based upon the advice received from counsel. Starling reported his arrest by the St. Petersburg Police Department, the charge of solicitation and the disposition by the court to the Office of Professional Standards on January 9, 2002. Starling's prolonged delay in reporting his arrest to the Board is a violation of Pinellas County School Board Policies 8.04(4) and 8.25(1)(x). By letter of January 25, 2002, as amended thereafter, the Office of Professional Standards, the School Board's attorney and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Superintendent J. Howard Hinesley sent the following notice of suspension and dismissal letter to Starling: January 25, 2002 Dear Mr. Starling: This is to advise you that you were suspended with pay effective January 11, 2002, until the School Board meeting on February 12, 2002. The Board will meet at 1:00 p.m. in the conference hall of the Administrative Building located at the address on this letterhead. At that meeting, I shall recommend that the Board sustain your suspension and dismiss you. If the Board enters its Final Order at that meeting, the effective date of your dismissal will be February 13, 2002. My recommendation for dismissal is based on the fact that on September 5, 2001, you were arrested by St. Petersburg Police for solicitation for prostitution. On November 15, 2001, you pled nolo contendere to the charge. Your actions are violation of School Board Polices 8.04(4) and 8.25(1)(a),(v), and (x), the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and constitute just cause for your dismissal pursuant to Florida Statute 231.36. You are entitled to a hearing regarding my recommendation. This hearing, if requested will be pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Your request for a hearing must be submitted, in writing, to Staff Attorney, Jackie Spoto Bircher, no later than 4:30 p.m. on Monday, February 11, 2002. If you do not request a hearing, this failure constitutes an admission of the allegations made in this letter. Due to the nature of the charges against you, I will recommend that you be suspended without pay effective February 13, 2002, until the conclusion of the administrative hearing process, if you request such a hearing. If you have any questions regarding these procedures, you may contact the Staff Attorney's office at 588-6221. (Emphasis added.) During the final hearing, counsel stipulated to an error in the above Notice in charging a violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(v). Counsel agreed that the charge should be violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(d). The stipulation amending the charge against Starling was accepted. Dr. Hinesley testified that on those occasions when he considers his recommendation to discipline employees, he adheres to the following process: first, when an employee is alleged to have committed a criminal act involving solicitation of prostitution he listens to his Staff's version of whether or not there is any question of guilt in terms of whether this act actually occurred; and second, if in the opinion of Staff and of the people who investigated the incident, the criminal act did occur, he was limited by Board Policy to recommending dismissal based on the penalty range contained in School Board policy 8.25(a). With regard to this case, Dr. Hinesley testified that at the time Mr. Barker presented this case to him, he did not know whether Mr. Barker's investigation consisted of cross- examination of police officers or merely reading and relying upon reports, including police reports, provided by staff; he did not talk to the police officers nor did he talk to Starling. He had no knowledge of whether Mr. Barker or his staff questioned all the parties involved for purpose of determining whether, in fact, the alleged solicitation for prostitution had occurred. Dr. Hinesley affirmed that had his staff provided him with a report that Starling had not committed the alleged criminal act of solicitation for prostitution, his recommendation to the Board would not have been dismissal. Dr. Hinesley also agreed that should the result of this administrative proceeding conclude that the alleged solicitation for prostitution had not occurred, his recommendation of discipline less than dismissal is permissible under his understanding of Board's policy 8.25(1)(a). Based upon his authority and extensive experience in the Pinellas County Education system, I accept the opinions of Dr. Hinesley and find his testimony credible and conclusive regarding application of Pinellas County School Board's discipline policy. Based on the Finding of Facts herein above, the School Board has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Starling solicited for prostitution decoy Detective Bentham, on September 5, 2001, as alleged in the School Board's Notice of a Recommendation of Dismissal dated January 25, 2002. Based upon the foregone Findings of Fact, Starling has rebutted the presumption of guilt based on his plea of nolo contendere for solicitation of prostitution. However, based upon the foregone Findings of Fact, the School Board has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Starling violated Subsections 8.04(4) and 8.25(1)(x) of the School Board's Policy for not timely reporting his September 5, 2001, arrest.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), has just cause to terminate or otherwise discipline Respondent, Rayburn White’s, employment based on the conduct alleged in the “Petition” dated January 15, 2009, and filed with DOAH January 20, 2009. Also at issue is the discipline, if any, to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Palm Beach County, Florida Petitioner has entered into individual contracts with its employees. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent as an art teacher. The record is silent as to whether he has a continuing contract or a professional services contract. Prior to his reassignment after his arrest in 2008, Respondent’s assigned school was Acreage Pines Elementary School (Acreage Pines). Respondent has been employed by Petitioner since October 17, 1987. Respondent’s job performance has been satisfactory or above during his tenure with Petitioner. Petitioner and the teacher’s union have entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Petitioner has adopted rules and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is subject to the provisions of the CBA, rules adopted by Petitioner, rules of the State Board of Education, and duly-enacted statutes. Article II, Section M(6) of the CBA pertains to progressive discipline and provides as follows: (6) Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with the provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that a district school board has the following powers: (f) Suspension, dismissal, and return to annual contract status.--The district school board shall suspend, dismiss, or return to annual contract members of the instructional staff and other school employees; however, no administrative assistant, supervisor, principal, teacher, or other member of the instructional staff may be discharged, removed, or returned to annual contract except as provided in this chapter. Section 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes, provides that a school superintendent has the following powers: (5) SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL.--Suspend members of the instructional staff and other school employees during emergencies for a period extending to and including the day of the next regular or special meeting of the district school board and notify the district school board immediately of such suspension. When authorized to do so, serve notice on the suspended member of the instructional staff of charges made against him or her and of the date of hearing. Recommend employees for dismissal under the terms prescribed herein. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001 sets forth the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. Subsections (2) and (3) thereof provide as follows: The educator’s primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student’s potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. School Board Policy 6Gx50-1.013(1) requires School Board employees to “. . . carry out their assigned duties in accordance with federal laws, rules, state statutes, state board of education rules, school board policy, superintendent’s administrative directives and local school and area rules.” THE 1994 INCIDENT On or about June 27, 1994, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the following charges brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi: Interference with Government Employee, Disorderly Conduct, and Reckless Driving. A U.S. Magistrate adjudicated Respondent guilty of all three charges, imposed court costs, and placed him on probation for one year with the following special condition of probation: “Defendant shall not visit any area of the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway while on probation supervision.” On March 21, 1995, the Florida Education Practices Commission (EPC) filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent that included the following factual allegations in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5: On or about June 18, 1994, Respondent was observed masturbating in his car. When approached by an undercover federal office, Respondent fled the scene and was later apprehended. Respondent was arrested in the U.S. Northern District of Mississippi and charged with Interference with Government Employees, Disorderly Conduct and Reckless Driving. On or about June 27, 1994, Respondent plead guilty to all three charges and the Court adjudicated him to be guilty as charged. Respondent was sentenced to serve one year probation, not return to the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway and pay a $400 fine and court costs. Thereafter Respondent and the EPC entered into a Settlement Agreement which included the following in paragraphs 3 and 4: The Respondent elects not to contest the allegations set forth in the Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. The Respondent agrees to accept a letter of reprimand for the conduct described in the Administrative Complaint, a copy of which shall be placed in his certification file with the Department of Education, and a copy of which shall be placed in his personnel file with the Palm Beach County School Board. The Settlement Agreement also includes the following in paragraphs 6 and 7: The Respondent agrees that within thirty [30] days of entry of the Final Order herein he shall provide the Education Practices Commission [EPC] written verification from a professional approved by the Recovery Network Program that he poses no threat to the safety or well-being of students and that he is able to perform the responsibilities of an educator. All expenses incurred in connection with providing this verification shall be borne by the Respondent. The Respondent agrees that he shall be placed on probation for a period of two [2] years . . . The Settlement Agreement was approved by Final Order issued by the EPC on September 22, 1995. Respondent served his period of probation. Respondent did not admit the alleged facts that underpin the EPC’s Administrative Complaint.1 THE 2008 INCIDENT Okeeheelee Park (the park) is located in suburban Palm Beach County. The park’s various recreational amenities include walking trails. The park also has restroom facilities at multiple locations. Detective Van Garner of the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and his partner, Detective Peter Lazar, were assigned to conduct undercover operations in the park on July 21, 2008. Their assignment included the apprehension of people engaging in illegal sexual acts in the park. This assignment was in response to citizen complaints about such activity in the park. Both officers were in civilian dress. Detective Garner wore a tee shirt and short pants. On July 21, 2008, Respondent was exercising in the park by walking to lose weight. Because of medical problems, Respondent needed to lose weight. To work up a good sweat, Respondent wore a one-piece wet suit that covered his torso, but not his arms or his legs. The wet suit had a front zipper, which zipped in a downward, diagonal motion from his neck area to his left thigh area. Respondent wore a shirt and a pair of walking shorts over the wet suit. During that summer, Respondent typically walked from noon to 4:00 p.m. Respondent attracted the attention of Detective Garner on the afternoon of July 21, 2008, because he saw him go into more bathrooms in the park than “normal.”2 At approximately 3:00 p.m. on July 21, 2008, Respondent had been walking for three hours. He went to the area of a bathroom at the top of a hill near a pavilion where there was a cool breeze. Detective Garner pulled up in a truck, got out, and went inside the bathroom from the door on the opposite side of the building from where Respondent was standing.3 Almost immediately thereafter, while Detective Garner was standing at a urinal, Respondent entered the bathroom, walked past Detective Garner, and went to a handicapped stall. Respondent left the door to the handicapped stall ajar. Detective Garner and Respondent were the only two people in the restroom. Detective Garner testified that sometimes a man who is in a restroom for sexual activity will do things to attract the attention of other patrons of the facility. Respondent did not make any hand signal, say anything, or do anything to attract the attention of Detective Garner other than leaving the door to the stall ajar. Respondent did nothing in the restroom that would have attracted Detective Garner’s attention had Detective Garner not been a law enforcement officer. Respondent stood in the handicapped stall in the proper stance to urinate. His feet faced the toilet and his body was turned so that one looking into the stall from the door would have seen his back and side, but not his front. Detective Garner became suspicious because he did not hear a stream of urine coming from the stall. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what Respondent was doing in the stall. Respondent testified that he had unzipped the wet suit so he could urinate. Respondent testified that with one hand he was holding up his shorts and with the other he was trying to prevent the wet suit from becoming completely unzipped. Respondent testified that it is very difficult to get the wet suit zipper started once it becomes completely unzipped. According to Respondent, when Detective Garner approached the stall, Respondent was removing his penis from the wet suit in order to urinate. Detective Garner testified that when he approached the stall, he saw Respondent move his hands back and forth below the level of his waist in an activity Detective Garner believed could only have been masturbation. Detective Garner could not see Respondent’s genital area until Respondent turned toward Detective Garner after Respondent sensed Detective Garner’s presence. Detective Garner testified that he saw Respondent’s erect penis when Respondent turned. In resolving the conflicting evidence, the undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent masturbated in the handicapped stall of the park’s bathroom on July 21, 2008.4 Petitioner also failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was attempting to solicit Detective Garner or anyone else for sex. When Respondent turned towards him, Detective Garner pulled out his badge and identified himself as a deputy sheriff. Respondent immediately began to put his penis back in the wet suit and his short pants. Within 20-to-30 seconds of that identification, Respondent had accomplished that purpose and started to exit the stall. In leaving the stall, Respondent pushed Detective Garner aside. Detective Garner pushed back. Before Respondent left the bathroom, there was a brief scuffle between Detective Garner and the Respondent consisting of Detective Garner trying to restrain Respondent and Respondent attempting to exit the bathroom. No blows were thrown during the scuffle. When he left the restroom, Respondent walked down a hill away from the restroom and Detective Garner. Detective Garner walked in the opposite direction to retrieve his firearm from his vehicle. While walking to his vehicle, Detective Garner called Detective Lazar on a cell phone and requested that Detective Lazar come to the scene to assist him. As Detective Lazar was heading to the scene, he asked a uniformed officer to follow him to the scene. Shortly thereafter, Detective Lazar and the uniformed officer arrived on the scene. Respondent promptly complied with their orders. Respondent was charged with Exposing Sexual Organs in violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes; Resisting Arrest Without Violence in violation of Section 843.02, Florida Statutes; and Loitering in Public Restroom in violation of a county ordinance. Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in resolution of the criminal charges. Respondent successfully completed the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, which included undergoing supervision, paying the costs associated with the supervision, completion of the Prostitution Impact Prevention Education School, undergoing HIV/STD test, provision of a DNA sample, and no contact with adult establishments. Respondent timely self-reported his arrest as required by School Board policy. The School Board’s Department of Employee Relations conducted an investigation into Respondent’s employment history, his background, and the events that culminated in his arrest on July 21, 2008. The results of the investigation were presented to the School Board’s Employee Investigative Committee (EIC), which makes non-binding recommendations to the Superintendent of Schools. The EIC voted to substantiate the charges against Respondent and recommended to the School Superintendent that Respondent’s employment be suspended for 20 days and that Respondent be transferred to another school. Dr. Johnson made the decision that Respondent’s employment should be terminated. When he made that recommendation, Dr. Johnson thought that Respondent had been caught masturbating for the second time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and reinstating his employment with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of February, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Robert S. Garcia is the new owner of the 7th Street Beauty School. Silvia Laucirica is a cosmetologist holding License No. 0038775. Said license is either a master cosmetologist or instructor's license and is in the name of Silvia Diez. The license of Silvia Laucirica is not a subject of this hearing. The subject of this hearing is the license of the 7th Street Beauty School, License No. 165-054. Six students were in attendance at the 7th Street Beauty School, 2437 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida, who had previously been enrolled in Willfred Academy, 1102 S.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. On March 31, 1977, an inspection was made pursuant to the statutes and rules and regulations and students were at .the subject school but held no transfer to it from the Willfred Academy. A violation was written by the inspector of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the 7th Street Beauty School for a period of fourteen (14) days. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Garcia Educational Director Seventh Street Beauty School 2537 N. W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1032 LICENSE NO. 165-054 SILVIA LAUCIRICA, d/b/a 7th STREET BEAUTY SCHOOL, Respondent. /
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(4) & 477.15, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates Kemp's Beauty Salon, 404 N.E. 10th Street, Boynton Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 16286 to operate a cosmetology salon issued by Petitioner on November 18, 1971. (Stipulation). On May 22, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon and observed a man styling the hair of a patron. On May 23, the Inspector returned and observed the same man doing the same thing. He informed her that he did not have a state license. Respondent was not present on either occasion. (Testimony of Jennings) Respondent testified at the hearing that he had had no idea that the individual in question, who was a patron of the shop, was going to work on customers. On May 23rd Respondent had left the shop to have lunch. (Testimony of Kemp).
Recommendation That Respondent's salon license 16286 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Thomas Kemp Kemp's Beauty Salon 404 N.E. 10 Street Boynton Beach, Florida
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Sandra Hoskins and Michael Mancuso, (the licensees), hold license number 62-957, Series 4 beverages by the drink for consumption on the premises of Sweethearts, located at 408 U.S. 19 South, Clearwater, Florida. Sweethearts is known as a bar where, in addition to buying alcoholic beverages, the mostly male patrons can watch "exotic dancing" on stage and pay $5 plus tip for a "lap dance." The dancers are physically attractive females dressed in underwear or "T-back" bathing suits. 1/ They are engaged by the management of Sweethearts to perform at Sweethearts. As they dance on stage, the disc jockey on duty introduces them by their stage names to the patrons present and encourages the patrons to ask the dancers to perform "lap dances" for them personally. The dancers also directly solicit "lap dances" from the customers. At the end of each shift, each dancer "tips out" $10 to the "house," i.e., pays the licensees $10, and "tips out" $5 to the disk jockey. As evidenced by what took place at Sweethearts on April 13 and August 25, 1989, a "lap dance" typically lasts for one song played by the disk jockey. The dancer escorts the patron to one of the booths lining the perimeter walls of the bar area, sits the patron down near the edge of the booth bench and begins "dancing." During the "dance," which is performed to the rhythm of the music, the dancer rubs various parts of her body, including the genital area, buttocks and breasts, against various parts of the body of the customer, including his genital area and face. Although the customer remains fully dressed during the "dance," and the dancer does not remove any clothing (i.e., she remains dressed either in underwear or in her "T-back" bathing suit), the "dance" is intended to simulate various sex acts, and purpose of the "dance" to arouse the customer sexually. Sometimes, the "dancer" fondles herself and acts as if she herself is becoming sexually aroused by the "dance." Sometimes, the customer rubs the breast area of the "dancer" or grabs her buttocks in the area of the anal cleft, and the "dancers" typically do little to stop or deter this behavior. Although the "lap dancing" occurs in a part of the bar where the lighting is red and subdued, it is highly implausible that the licensees, if on the premises, or the licensees' representative(s) on the premises would not know that the "lap dancing" described above was taking place on the premises. It is open and notorious. There was some evidence that there might be a nominal official policy at Sweethearts prohibiting patrons from touching the dancers. But the evidence is clear that management "winks at" violations of this official policy, if there indeed is one, and management policies in place at Sweethearts encourage the dancers to allow the patrons to touch them. (Allowing it to continue increases the chances of getting tips from customers such as these.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking license number 62-957, Series 4-COP, issued to the Respondents, Sandra Hoskins and Michael Mancuso, d/b/a Sweethearts, located at 408 U.S. 19 South, Clearwater, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of October, 1990.
The Issue Whether the Respondent did violate Section 477.02(6); 477.27(1) and Section 477.15(8), Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology promulgated pursuant there to in that he did allow students to work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, a salon owned by licensee, prior to making application and/or renewing an application for such work from the Board of Cosmetology.
Findings Of Fact Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. received notice of this hearing and filed his election of remedies stating no contest and that he did not plan to attend this hearing. Respondent does not personally work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, therefore employs a manager to manage the salon although it is licensed in the company's name. The company of which Respondent is president is one of a chain of beauty salons. Mrs. Madge Edwards, inspector for the State Board of Cosmetology, on or about February 24, 1976 entered Respondent Lorick's beauty salon and found a student working as a cosmetologist. The student was a non-licensed person who held no permit to work in a beauty salon. The inspector wrote a violation which is the subject of this hearing.
Recommendation Advise the Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. that he is guilty of violating Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereto and that if other violations occur, his license may be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Mr. F. W. Lorick, Jr., President La Marick Beauty Salon 2350 S. Ridgewood Avenue - Sunshine Mall South Daytona, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the school Board of Pinellas County (Petitioner) should dismiss its employee, Clarence Davis (Respondent), from continuing contract for misconduct in office and gross insubordination based upon matters alleged in the Superintendent's letters of March 13 and April 24, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a teaching certificate from the State of Florida, and has been employed by continuing contract with the Petitioner since April 21, 1971. In 1986, he was assigned to Azalea Middle School, where he has since been employed. The parties stipulated that during a prior assignment at Riviera Middle School, the principal of that school had warned Respondent to refrain from aggressively touching students. During April, 1986, Dr. Scott N. Rose, Superintendent of the Pinellas County school system, removed Respondent from a counseling assignment at Pinellas Park Middle school, and transferred him to Azalea Park Middle school as a physical education teacher. The Superintendent issued a warning at the time of this transfer that he would recommend a suspension without pay or termination if Respondent's future actions at Azalea Middle school constituted insubordination. During the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent was assigned to a guidance counselor position at Azalea Middle School, but he again had to be removed by the Superintendent. He was warned again that future problems would result in a suspension without pay or a termination. John Leanes became principal of Azalea Middle School in January, 1988, and in October, 1988, he warned Respondent to avoid touching students. In December, 1988, senior administrative officials and representatives of the Petitioner met with the Respondent, and warned him not to touch students. They told him that if he could not meet the standards and expectations of the Petitioner for teachers in the Pinellas County school system, he would be recommended for termination of his continuing contract. The Code of Student Conduct in effect in the Pinellas County school system at all times material hereto provides, in part, that: No form of physical punishment, other that paddling with a paddle is authorized. Corporal punishment may be used only after careful consideration of the facts by the principal, or designee. In no case shall such punishment be degrading or unduly severe in nature. Around the time of the winter holiday during the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent became involved in an incident with a twelve year old female student named M.S. The student was not feeling well, and did not dress out for physical education class. She was lying down in the bleachers. Respondent yelled at M.S. to come down from the bleachers when he observed her talking to other students at the top of the bleachers. When she complied and approached him, he appeared to the student to be very angry, and threatening. He yelled at her so closely that saliva from his mouth struck her in the face. After yelling at her, he pushed M.S. with both hands, throwing her back onto the bleachers. This incident caused the student, M.S., to be frightened and intimidated by the Respondent. Other students observed the incident, and confirmed the testimony of M.S. at hearing. Respondent's actions in this incident reasonably caused M.S. to feel embarrassment, fear, and the threat of physical punishment. On or about March 7, 1989, Respondent yelled at a male student, J.S., and pushed him in the chest with his finger while yelling at him. It appeared to the student that Respondent was trying to provoke him into a physical confrontation. Respondent testified that he was trying to protect another student, K.W., whom he felt was being bullied by J.S. However, K.W. testified that J.S. was not bullying him on this day, and that he and J.S. are friends. Other students witnessed the incident, which reasonably caused the student, J.S., embarrassment, and fear. It is alleged that on March 8, 1989, Respondent also grabbed a student, R.L., by the shoulders, shook him, and yelled at him. R.L. is classified as an emotionally handicapped student, who has been suspended. Students who testified characterized R.L. as someone who talks alot, says bad things about, and fights with, other students, and is generally a trouble maker. Based upon his demeanor at hearing, as well as the testimony of other students about his character, it is found that the testimony of R.L. is not credible. It is reasonable to infer that R.L. heard about the incident the day before with J.S. and the Respondent, and fabricated his allegations to gain attention. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Scott N. Rose and John Leanes, who were accepted as experts in education, as well as the testimony of Stephen Crosby, director of personnel services for Petitioner, incidents such as those between the Respondent and M.S. and J.S. diminish a teacher's effectiveness by creating an improper role model, teaching students that violence is a way to resolve disputes, frightening students, and causing them to be afraid of school and teachers. This creates a negative educational atmosphere, and could potentially increase the school system's liability. In November and December, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay on two occasions based upon allegations similar to the ones at issue in this case. The period of these suspensions was three and five days, respectively. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing concerning these suspensions, and following that hearing, Hearing Officer Don W. Davis issued a Recommended Order on April 21, 1989, in DOAH Cases Numbered 88-5720 and 89-0344, recommending that the proposed suspensions be dismissed. A Final Order in this prior case has not yet been entered by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from continuing contract with the Pinellas County school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 14th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1546 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as irrelevant. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 11. 9-12. Adopted in Finding 5. Rejected as not a finding of fact but a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 6. 15-19. Adopted in Finding 7. 20-24. Adopted in Finding 8. 25-28. Rejected and adopted in part in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. The Respondent did not file specific Proposed Findings of Fact, but incorporated argument in a proposed recommended order. Therefore, it is not possible to address specific findings of fact on behalf of the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue, Southwest Largo, Florida 34640 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Jacob Francis Miller, Jr., t/a Jake's Place, held 2-COP License No. 26-00705 for the consumption on the premises and package sales, located at 315 South McDuff Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, of beer and wine. On January 27, 1983, John T. Lachman, an investigator with Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, acting on a complaint of prostitution, lascivious conduct, and soliciting for drinks at Respondent's place of business, entered the premises in the evening, purchased a beer, and sat down at one of the tables. On this occasion, he was alone. Shortly thereafter, he was approached by a white female employee of the Respondent, Monica L. Todd, who was wearing a bikini bottom-and-top dancing outfit. She asked Lachman if she could dance for him and, when he agreed, she did so through four songs. Each dance lasted the length of one song. During each of the dances, which she accomplished while standing between his legs while he was seated on the chair, she would alternate between facing him and turning her back to him. When her back was toward him, she would rub her buttocks against his groin. After the four dances, he paid her her fee of $10. Lachman came back to this bar on February 17, 1983. This time, he was in the company of Beverage Agent Wilder and Deputy Sheriff Bennett. The three men purchased beers and went to sit at a table. Shortly, they were approached by Maudine Smith, a white female who was wearing a bikini bottom-and-top dancing costume. She offered to dance for them, and Lachman agreed for her to do two dances, for which she charged him $5. Again, she danced between Lachman's legs while he was seated; and while her back was toward him, she rubbed her buttocks in his groin area. When she faced him, she removed her top and rubbed her bare breasts in his face. Monica Todd also danced for Lachman on February 17, 1983. During her dance, which was accomplished between his legs while he sat on the chair, she rubbed her buttocks in his groin. There was no evidence to show that she removed her top and rubbed her breasts in his face. However, for her dance, she was paid $3. A third dancer entertained Mr. Lachman on February 17, 1983. Linda Jean Ford came over to him, sat on his lap, and asked him if she could do a $5 dance for him. When he asked her what that was, she replied she would have to show him. He paid her the $5, whereupon she took off her bikini top and danced for him, standing between his legs and alternately rubbing her breasts in his face and her buttocks against his groin. That same evening, Lachman also saw Ford and Smith dance for Mr. Bennett, who was sitting three to four seats (approximately 10 feet) away from him. Lachman observed Ford rub her naked breasts in Bennett's face and her buttocks against his groin while she was dancing for him. He also saw Smith rub her buttocks in Bennett's groin area during her dance. The lighting in the bar on this occasion was good enough for Lachman to see the farthest reaches of the establishment. There were six or seven patrons in there while all this was going one--some at the bar and some at the tables attended by a bartender who was identified as Santiago Santiago. It was obvious that the bartender could see what was going on, but neither he nor anyone else in the place made any effort to stop this dancing. Respondent was not in the bar while Lachman was there on either January 27 or February 17, 1983. Investigator Wilder, as was stated above was in Respondent's establishment with Lachman on February 17, 1983, and was treated to similar action by Ms. Smith, who did three dances for him. The first one Lachman paid for; and during her dance, she rubbed her naked breasts in his face. During the second and third dances that evening, for which Wilder himself paid her $5, she alternated rubbing her naked breasts in his face with rubbing her buttocks in his groin area. As a special added attraction during the third dance, she also put her foot up on the edge of his chair between his legs and rubbed the top of her foot against his groin. After the third dance, Smith went away and came back about five minutes later, again asking if she could dance for Wilder. When he declined this offer, she said, "Well at least you can buy me a drink." Wilder agreed to this and gave her $2. She immediately took it, went over to the bar with it, and then took her favors off to another customer. Respondent does not deny the occurrences alleged. He contends, however, he was not aware of it at the time or of the likelihood it would take place. He was not present in the bar on either occasion and generally works from noon to 7:00 p.m., coming in again at 2:00 a.m. to close up. Respondent opened the bar upon his separation from the Navy in 1982. It is a small neighborhood establishment that employs only one bartender. When he started his business and was approached by the girls who wanted to dance in his bar, he told them he was going to run a clean place. However, though he did no background investigation of many of the girls he hired, he was familiar enough with that type of person and their proclivities to have them sign a statement of house policies that included prohibitions against drugs, prostitution, soliciting drinks, touching of customers, and husbands or boyfriends in the bar during working hours. In light of that, it is hard to conclude he did not know the risks involved in allowing that type of person to work in the bar, especially considering his Navy service. Respondent maintains a personal friendship with Deputy Sheriff Bennett, who comes into the bar periodically. Respondent contends he has requested that Bennett arrest any of the girls working in the bar who are seen doing the kind of activity complained of here. Respondent also contends he is not familiar with the practices of Petitioner, and the former district supervisor's approach to him regarding these violations was foreign to him. He relates that Capt. Caplano suggested Miller "make an offer to keep [the] bar open." As a result, he signed a stipulation which called for a letter of warning and immediately terminated the dancers. When he did that, his business dropped immediately and he put the place up for sale. To facilitate the sale, his business broker advised him to start it again so that prospective buyers could see customers in the place. As soon as he did that, his proposed settlement was disapproved and a hearing was set up.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent pay an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jacob F. Miller, Jr. 315 South McDuff Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
