Conclusions THIS CAUSE was considered by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, at its regular meeting held at 5:00 p.m. on December 14, 2004, and the Board, having received and reviewed the record and the recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge, Florence S. Rivas, and the exceptions filed by the Respondent and the response to those exceptions filed by the Superintendent, and having heard argument from counsel for the Respondent and the Superintendent, and being fully advised in the premises, THEREFORE, determines that the Respondent’s misconduct warrants the recommended penalty of termination. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, that: 1. The Respondent’s exceptions to the recommended penalty are denied. 2. The recommended order dated October 7, 2004, to terminate the employment of the Respondent, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, be, and the same is hereby adopted as the Final Order of the School Board. 3. The Respondent, Lincoln M. Loucks, is hereby dismissed and terminated as an employee of the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, effective the end of the workday, December 14, 2004. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2004. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA Cha By:'{ ry bees ‘ (ote 2 Attest: fon wil “ N.Wilorf Ex Officio Secretary This Final Order was filed with me on this / ¢ day of December, 2004, and a conformed copy of the same was furnished to Thomas L. Wittmer, attorney for the Petitioner, on said date by hand-delivery, and to Mark Herdman, attorney for the Respondent, on said date by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. Forde Was Betz Deborah Beaty Clerk of the Board NOTICE All parties have the right of judicial review of this Final Order in accordance with section 120.68, Florida Statutes. In order to appeal, a party must file a notice of appeal with Deborah Beaty, the Clerk of the School Board, 301 4" Street S. W., Largo, FL 33770, within thirty (30) days of the rendition of this order (which occurred on the date such Final Order was filed with the clerk as set forth above), and must also file a copy of the notice, accompanied by filing fees, with the Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal, 1005 East Memorial Blvd., Lakeland, FL 33801, tel. (863) 499-2290. Review proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules, and specifically, Rule 9.110 of such Florida Appellate Rules.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality, gross insubordination, or misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Walter Phillips, Respondent, was a continuing contract teacher employed by the Pinellas County School Board, Petitioner, to teach woodshop, math, graphics and drafting at Largo High School. In the 1988-89 school year, Brent Roth, a senior at Largo High School, served as teacher's aide to Respondent. Roth was interested in guns and gun magazines and often engaged Respondent in conversation regarding hand guns. On one occasion while looking at a gun magazine at school, Roth showed Respondent an advertisement for a 9 mm Baretta pistol and asked Respondent would he like to own a Baretta. Respondent indicated yes. Several times thereafter Roth told Respondent that he (Roth) knew where he could purchase a gun at a large discount over the retail price, indicating the gun was "hot" or stolen in the robbery of a truckload of weapons. Respondent knew Roth was prone to exaggeration and didn't believe that Roth could obtain such a weapon. Nevertheless, Respondent decided to proceed with these discussions and, if Roth ever procured such a weapon, Respondent would call in the FBI. At no time did Respondent ever give Roth money to purchase a weapon, nor had Roth ever before purchased such a weapon. Respondent is a member of the Coast Guard Reserve and apparently considers himself a federal law enforcement officer, despite the fact that Coast Guard jurisdiction in law enforcement is limited to the navigable waters of the United States and then only to active duty personnel. Nevertheless, Respondent purported to conduct his own investigation. During the time Roth bragged to Respondent about his ability to acquire a Baretta pistol which had been stolen, and therefore, cheap, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office was conducting an undercover investigation at Largo High School principally to find out if drugs were being dealt at school. They had an agent posing as a student. This agent, detective Wojciechowski, armed with a body recorder, taped several of the conversations in which Respondent, Roth and other students discussed the purchase of a stolen or hi-jacked gun or guns. The taped conversations were not transcribed and, although the undersigned devoted nearly two hours listening to this tape (Exhibit 3), the speakers were not identified and, without devoting an inordinate amount of time to the project, the speakers cannot be identified. Accordingly, from the posture of the evidence presented, Respondent's specific participation in the purported acquisition of a Baretta pistol cannot be determined. When confronted with the undercover deputy sheriff's tape of his conversations relative to the purchase of a stolen gun, Respondent acknowledged that he had engaged in such discussions for the purpose of discovering if the students actually had access to stolen weapons, but not for the purpose of acquiring such a gun. Had the student been able to get possession of a stolen weapon, Respondent would promptly notify the FBI (Exhibit 6). Respondent never notified his principal, Ms. Westfall, or the campus police regarding his "investigation" because he really didn't believe the student could obtain possession of such a weapon and he had insufficient evidence to support such an allegation. In the summary of the conference (Exhibit 6) between Respondent, the school principal, the school personnel officer and the PCTA member, prepared by Steve Crosby, the Director, Personnel Services, and signed by Respondent, the latter is reported to have acknowledged: If the student had been able to get the gun, he [Respondent] would have had him bring it to him at school, rather than taking a chance in meeting him alone. In his testimony at these proceedings, Respondent stated that he never intended for Roth to bring the pistol to school, only to bring some evidence that Roth could obtain such a weapon. If a weapon was to be delivered, Respondent would have arranged for an off-campus place of delivery and then notified authorities. Respondent's testimony is accepted as the factual version of this proposed transfer. It is significant in assessing the seriousness of the allegations that the closest any participant in the "plot" to purchase a gun ever came to a gun was a picture of a gun in a magazine. No money was ever exchanged, no fixed price for a gun was ever established and, in fact, no actor in this play had any real knowledge that the stolen gun or guns was available to be purchased. In his handling of the discussions pertaining to the purchase or acquisition of a presumed to-be-stolen-pistol, Respondent exercised poor judgment in failing to alert local authorities to these discussions. However, since no hard evidence was available that any student had access to such a weapon there was little to investigate; and it is unlikely that the police would have taken action other then ask Respondent to keep them advised of developments. Petitioner's expert witnesses opined that, by failing to report these conversations to school authorities and in planning the delivery of a gun on school premises, Respondent exercised poor judgement. This, in their opinion, created doubt of his ability to make a proper judgment at school and thereby impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. That part of these opinions predicated upon Respondent negotiating with a student for the purchase of a stolen gun to be delivered to the school premises did not have factual support and is disregarded. Respondent has been a certified teacher for fourteen years and, although he doesn't hold a bachelor's degree, he holds a teacher's equivalency. He has been employed by the Pinellas County school system on a continuing contract since 1979. At no time during the Respondent's tenure in the Pinellas County school system has he been subjected to disciplinary action as a result of charges being brought against him for an infraction of statute or rule.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges of immorality, gross insubordination, and misconduct in office preferred against Walter Phillips be dismissed, his suspension vacated, that he received back pay for the period his pay has been suspended, and that he be restored to his former status as a continuing contract teacher with the Pinellas County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 7th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue, SW Largo, Florida 34640 ================================================================= AMENDED RECOMMENDED ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for Petitioner, the St. Lucie County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Josephine Knight.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Respondent, Josephine Knight, is employed by the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. Ms. Knight has been employed as a teacher for approximately 15 years. At all times relevant to this matter, Ms. Knight was assigned to work at St. Lucie Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as the "Elementary School"). At all times relevant to this matter, the principal of the Elementary School was Dr. Jayne Hartman. Prior to the 1997/1998 school year, Dr. Hartman interviewed Ms. Knight for a position at the Elementary School and subsequently recommended her for a position. Ms. Knight was assigned as a temporary fourth grade teacher during the 1997/1998 school year. Ms. Knight was assigned as a third grade teacher for the 1998/1999 school year. Ms. Knight had been assigned to fourth grade class while employed by the School Board until this year. Ms. Knight was disappointed with her new assignment. During her first two years of assignment to the Elementary School, Dr. Hartman observed Ms. Knight and made suggestions for improvement. Rather than accepting Dr. Hartman's efforts to constructively criticize her, Ms. Knight grew resentful and defensive. Although the evidence failed to support Ms. Knight's characterization of her treatment during the 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 school years, Ms. Knight felt that she was being subjected to "unremitting harassment from her principal." Ms. Knight responded to Dr. Hartman's criticism by attempting to transfer from the Elementary School to another school within the School Board's district. Ms. Knight was unsuccessful in finding another school that would accept her. Dr. Hartman recommended Ms. Knight's reappointment at the Elementary School for the 1999/2000 school year. Prior to the commencement of the 1999/2000 school year Dr. Hartman directed all staff, including Ms. Knight, to attend a staff breakfast on August 16, 1999. The breakfast was to be followed by a meeting of all teachers in the media center of the Elementary School. Dr. Hartman had arranged for teachers assigned to teach the same grade to sit together during the meeting and had prepared handouts for each teacher. Those handouts were placed at each teacher's assigned seat. Ms. Knight failed to attend the breakfast on August 16, 1999. She did attend the teachers' meeting, but arrived late and refused to sit at the table with the other third grade teachers. On August 18, 1999, Ms. Knight again arrived late for a staff meeting. Later in the morning of August 18, 1999, Ms. Knight wrote a note to Dr. Hartman informing her that she intended to use comp time during lunch. Rather than follow school policy, Ms. Knight left during lunch without first determining whether her use of comp time had been authorized. On August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight in the morning and told her that she needed to speak with her. Ms. Knight went to see Dr. Hartman later that same day. Dr. Hartman verbally counseled Ms. Knight. Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight about her lateness in arriving at staff meetings, her use of comp time prior to getting approval, and her refusal to sit with other third grade teachers as she had been directed. Dr. Hartman asked Ms. Knight to explain her actions, but Ms. Knight took notes and refused to answer Dr. Hartman. Due to Ms. Knight's misconception that she was being harassed by Dr. Hartman and in anticipation of the August 19, 1999, counseling session, she had prepared a letter of resignation the night before the August 19th meeting with Dr. Hartman. During the August 19th meeting, Ms. Knight gave Dr. Hartman the letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Resignation Letter"). In pertinent part, Ms. Knight wrote the following in the Resignation Letter: The intended purpose of this letter is to inform you of my resignation from my present position as a third grade teacher so soon after starting my fifteenth year in the system. After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I've been under you supervision. This included lack if [sic] administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude towards students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in which no one should be subjective [sic] to in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal. You and I know the countless times I have tried to relocate to another school unsuccessfully. Which means as [sic] September 2, 1999 I will be resigning. [Emphases added]. The accusations Ms. Knight made in the Resignation Letter concerning Dr. Hartman, to include the allegations that she knew of Ms. Knight's unsuccessful efforts to transfer, are incorrect. Those accusations were the result of Ms. Knight's inability to deal with constructive criticism. After fully considering the Resignation Letter and Ms. Knight's negative attitude toward her, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight had threatened her and she reasonably became concerned for her personal safety. On the evening of August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman contacted Russell Anderson, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, and reported the incident to him. Dr. Hartman also contacted Jane Grinstead, her immediate supervisor, and read the Resignation Letter to her. Finally, Dr. Hartman contacted Dave Morris, the Coordinator of Safety/Security for the School Board, and advised him of Ms. Knight's reference to "going postal." The morning of August 20, 1999, School Resource Officer McGee met with Dr. Hartman. Officer McGee was assigned to stay with Dr. Hartman the entire day because of the threat contained in the Resignation Letter. Mr. Russell, Dr. Hartman, and Officer McGee met with Ms. Knight and a union representative on August 20, 1999, to discuss the Resignation Letter. When asked about her reference to "going postal," Ms. Knight admitted that she understood that it meant to "kill or shoot your boss," or words to that effect. Following the meeting of August 20, 1999, a Friday, Ms. Knight was informed that she would be placed on temporary duty assignment from Monday, August 23, 1999, until the effective date of her resignation, September 1, 1999. On Monday, August 23, 1999, Ms. Knight withdrew her resignation. Because it had not been approved by the School Board, the resignation was considered rescinded. In light of the threat of violence contained in the Resignation Letter, the School Board informed Ms. Knight on August 24, 1999, that she was suspended without pay pending a review and final resolution of the matter. Based upon a review of Ms. Knight's personnel file, Mr. Russell concluded that Ms. Knight should be terminated from employment with the School Board. In addition to the Resignation Letter, Mr. Russell considered certain incidents described in paragraph 7 of a Statement of Charges to Terminate Respondent Josephine Knight's Employment with Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Statement of Charges"). Mr. Russell conferred with Dr. William Vogel, the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the matter. Mr. Russell recommended that Ms. Knight should be terminated from employment with the School Board. By letter dated October 6, 1999, Dr. Vogel informed Ms. Knight that he would be recommending her termination from employment to the School Board due to her "violation of School Board Policies." Ms. Knight timely requested a formal administrative hearing to contest Dr. Vogel's decision. The Statement of Charges further defines the basis for the School Board's action in this case: That the foregoing acts as set forth in this statement and attached exhibits, constitutes just cause under Fla. Stat. s 231.36(1)(a) to terminate Josephine Knight's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board. See Fla. Stat. s 231.36 and School Board policy 3.57 attached as Exhibit O. School Board policy 3.57 provides, in pertinent part, the following anti-violence in the workplace policy: All employees will refrain from any speech, conduct, activity, or behavior of any type that is reasonable interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing or intimidating. No speech, behavior, activity or other conduct shall occur or be made by any employee where it is reasonably interpreted that the primary motivating intent is to intimidate, threaten or abuse any person in the workplace. The School Board has zero tolerance for violations of this policy. Any person employed by the School Board who communicates a threat of violence to any other School Board employee is subject to termination. The particular incidents which the School Board considered in concluding that there was just cause for Ms. Knight's termination and that the foregoing policy had been violated by Ms. Knight included the comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter and the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges. While the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges may indicate a lack of judgment, unacceptable treatment of students, and a hot temper on Ms. Knight's part, they are not relevant in considering whether Ms. Knight displayed conduct contrary to School Board policy 3.57 or just cause. Ms. Knight's Resignation Letter, however, does support the School Board's decision. Based upon the events of August 16 and 18, 1999, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight's comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter was primarily motivated by an intent to "intimidate, threaten or abuse" her. The day after the Resignation Letter was provided to Dr. Hartman, Ms. Knight admitted to Dr. Hartman and Mr. Russell that she knew what the terms meant and no other reasonable explanation has been offered by Ms. Knight to explain why she made the comment. Ms. Knight's suggestion at hearing that she was merely trying to get the School Board's attention so that she would be transferred to another school was not convincing and, even if true, would not diminish the reasonableness of Dr. Hartman's reaction to the threat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board finding just cause for the termination from employment by the School Board of Josephine Knight. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 18th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Coke, Esquire J. David Richeson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Florida Education Association 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 5675 Tampa, Florida 33675 Dr. William Vogel, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 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 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
