Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Donald C. Munafo was certified by the Department of Education and employed on continuing contract by the Pinellas County School Board as a physical education instructor at the 16th Street Middle School in Clearwater. He has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board for approximately 15 years. Munafo has been involved in photography for a number of years and has done professional photography for ten years as a sideline to his primary occupation as a school teacher. He is a member of Bay Photographic Association located in the Tampa Bay area, which is an affiliate of Florida Professional Photographers. In May 1984 Richard Norgrove, who also taught at 16th Street Middle School, formed Edventure Media, Inc., to provide himself and his wife with a tax shelter and to produce educational and training videos. Knowing Munafo to be a professional photographer, Norgrove consulted with him as to ideas on equipment Norgrove needed. After forming the corporation and making a few training films, Norgrove decided to produce a video of a "cat fight," which involves two females in brawl. He advertised for models to engage in a wrestling match and employed two who responded to his ad. Norgrove prepared a simple script and did the filming at his home. He requested Munafo to take some stills during the video filming to use to advertise copies of the cat fight for sale. To accommodate Norgrove, Munafo took still photographs of the models while Norgrove made the videotape of the girls tearing each others. clothes off and simulating a real fight. By the end of the video each girl was wearing only panties. This video was titled "The Dress." Shortly thereafter, Norgrove decided to make another cat fight video and again advertised for models. One of the girls answering the ad was Lisa Anderson. Norgrove again asked Munafo to take still shots while Norgrove made the videotape. Again Munafo agreed to help in the endeavor, knowing that the still shots would be used to promote the video and/or sold. Munafo received no compensation from Norgrove other than the cost to Munafo for supplies and for developing the pictures. During the taking of this video, which was titled "The Boyfriend," both of the models were reduced to complete nudity. Lisa Anderson was one of the girls involved in the video of "The Boyfriend." Lisa Anderson had answered Norgrove's ad by telephone, and they first met at a bar where Lisa was served alcoholic beverages. She had told Norgrove she was 23 years old and was anxious to make some money modeling and did not object to removing her clothes. Lisa subsequently signed a release stating that she was over 18 years old. As a matter of fact, Lisa was 17 when the video and subsequent photographs of her were taken. Lisa did not testify in these proceedings, but led Norgrove to believe she had been married twice and at the time the video was made was living with two men. One newspaper article (Exhibit 20) stated she was the mother of two children. Norgrove packaged "The Dress" and "The Boyfriend" on one cassette (Exhibit 8) and advertised it for sale in adult magazines under the title "Battling Beauties." He sold between 20 and 50 of these cassettes for approximately $60 each. Munafo took no part in promoting the cassette, mailing the cassettes, nor did he receive any percentage of the money Norgrove received for the sale of the cassettes. Following the filming of "The Boyfriend" Lisa called Norgrove several times to see if he had more jobs for her since she needed to make some money. Finally, Norgrove told her that he might be able to sell some nude photos of her to a publishing house but could not guarantee their sale. He offered to take the pictures and if they sold split the proceeds with her. Lisa agreed and Norgrove decided his sailboat would provide a good background location for the photo sessions. Again he requested Munafo to come along and take the photographs while he, Norgrove, ran the sailboat. At the appointed time they sailed out into open water where Lisa stripped and assumed various poses while Munafo took pictures. These pictures were admitted into evidence as Exhibits. Upon returning to shore, the three of them went to Munafo's house where Norgrove did another video of Lisa in the nude doing exercises. During the making of this video Munafo was downstairs and came up to the studio less than a minute before the video was completed. At this time Lisa was jumping on a small trampoline and Munafo suggested to Norgrove that he take some shots from the floor looking up. For the photos of Lisa taken in the sailboat, Munafo was again reimbursed only for the film and cost of developing the pictures he took. All told Eventure Media, Inc., paid Munafo less than $100.00 for the costs he incurred in shooting the pictures requested by Norgrove. Munafo's testimony was uncontradicted and corroborated by Norgrove that all Munafo expected to receive from his participation were his expenses and the expectation that he would meet a model he could later employ to pose for a figure study. Munafo is a serious photographer who participates in many of the competitions sponsored by photography groups, both local and statewide. Exhibit 16 was admitted as a copy of a figure study Munafo entered in a photo contest and took second place. In the interim the local police received information that Norgrove had been making pornographic videotapes and they alerted the United States Postal Inspectors. Their investigation revealed that Lisa Anderson was 17 years old at the time the videos and photographs were taken. 18 USC §2251, et seq., makes it a federal crime to use anyone under the age of 18 as a participant in a sexually explicit film or to transmit such film through the United States mail. After obtaining copies of the video cassettes and still photographs, the federal authorities obtained an indictment against Norgrove and Munafo and arrested them on March 4, 1985. The time of their arrest was the first inkling either had that Lisa Anderson was under the age of 18. News of the arrest of three Pinellas County school teachers (Norgrove's wife was also arrested) charged with distributing sexually explicit films involving minors received wide dissemination from the local press and, by reason of the implications of "kiddie-porn," the events leading to the trial in federal court and the results of that trial were closely followed and reported by the press. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the Norgroves negotiated a plea of guilty of conspiracy and received a lenient sentence. Munafo went to trial and was acquitted of all charges by the jury (Exhibit 17). Following the arrest of Munafo and the Norgroves, they were suspended by the School Board and hearings were requested. The Department of Education preferred charges to discipline their certificates based on the same allegations made by the School Board in their suspensions, and all cases were consolidated for hearing. Continuances were granted to await the outcome of the federal proceedings before conducting these administrative proceedings. Following the Norgroves negotiating a plea in the federal court trial, they withdrew their request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing and were dropped from these proceedings. No evidence was presented that Respondent showed explicit sexual films or pictures to other teachers as is alleged in the charging document by the Superintendent. Nor was any testimony presented to show that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was seriously reduced by the publicity associated with his arrest, trial and subsequent acquittal. The primary, if not sole, basis for the disciplinary action proposed by the School Board and the Department of Education is whether the actions of Munafo in taking sexually explicit photographs of Lisa Anderson and another woman constitute immorality, misconduct in office, gross immorality or moral turpitude, or conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness in the Pinellas County school system. The photographs which form the basis of these charges are similar to those published in adult magazines such as Penthouse, Hustler, Playboy, Cavalier, etc., which are transmitted through the United States mail and are displayed on the magazine racks of vendors of newspapers and magazines in drugstores, airports, bookstores, and newsstands open to the general public. Petitioner produced two witnesses to testify to the immorality of one who would take explicit sexual photographs. Neither of these witnesses is a professional photographer although one teaches photography in a Pinellas County school. He did not believe a teacher should be held to a higher moral standard respecting activities totally unassociated with the school than is a member of the general public, but his personal moral convictions would preclude him from taking such pictures. Petitioner's other witness, John F. Joyce, Ed.D., opined that it was immoral for a school teacher to take such photographs as were taken by Respondent. Dr. Joyce, however, did not think it immoral for a teacher to look at pornographic photographs in Hustler magazine with prurient interests or even to be editor of such a magazine. How the work of an editor, in deciding which I pornographic photographs will sell the most magazines and still be within the letter of the law so as to avoid prosecution or a ban of the sales in a magazine, can be all right while the mechanic (or artist), who opens the shutter of the camera to expose the film and record the pornographic pose is immoral, completely eludes me. Accordingly, little weight is accorded this opinion. Nor is the age of Lisa Anderson at the time these photographs were taken relevant to the charge of immorality. Respondent certainly thought he was taking a photograph of a woman over the age of 18; and such opinion was justified by the physical appearance of Lisa, by the model release form she signed (Exhibit 10) stating she was over 18, by her marital history, and by her reported living arrangements (with two men). The photographs taken on the sailboat (Exhibits 1-5) clearly fit the category of sexually explicit and are more pornographic than are the stills Munafo took during the videotaping of he cat fights. Accordingly, the outcome of these proceedings can be said to stand or fall on whether the taking of these photographs (Exhibits 1-5) constitutes immorality or gross immorality by a school teacher. In making this ultimate finding of fact it is significant that such photographs are protected by the First Amendment provided the model is over 18 that such photographs can be sent through the United States mail system without any violation of the law (again if the model is over 18) that the sole basis for the criminal charges preferred against this Respondent was the age of the model used that it would not be considered an offense involving moral turpitude or jeopardize any license they have if a lawyer, doctor, banker, or broker took such photographs that Munafo was acquitted of these criminal charges that in these criminal charges specific intent is not an element of the offense and that Munafo reasonably believed that Lisa Anderson was over 18 at the time these photographs were taken. Lisa Anderson had no apparent connection to the Pinellas County school system and none of the filming had any connection to a school or school system or in any way indicated the model was a minor. From these findings comes the ultimate finding of fact that taking these photographs of Lisa Anderson does not constitute immorality, gross immorality, or misconduct in office.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner timely terminated Respondent's employment, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause.
Findings Of Fact On July 22, 1997, Respondent completed his application for employment as a teacher for the school year 1997-98. He was hired to be the coordinator for the English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) program at Western Pines Community Middle School. That position is a teaching position. Western Pines is a new school, opening in time for the 1997-98 school year. Principal Peggy Campbell determined she needed extra assistance for the school to be ready in time for the students. As with any new school, floors needed to be mopped, windows needed to be washed, supplies needed to be unloaded and stored, desks needed to be placed in the classrooms, books needed to be stamped, and many other things needed to be done to get ready. She requested volunteers from the staff she had hired, and Respondent agreed to help prepare the school for the arrival of students. At the time that volunteers were obtained and began working, Campbell did not have approval to pay any of the volunteers. She subsequently obtained approval. Respondent began working as a volunteer on August 1, 1997. He labeled, stamped, and shelved books. He worked a total of 7 1/2 days. Afterward, he was given a one-time paycheck for those 7 1/2 days based upon a daily rate of pay. In computing the amount to pay him, Petitioner calculated a daily rate for Respondent by dividing his annual salary by 196, the number of duty days for teachers within Petitioner's school system. On August 13, 1997, all teachers reported for duty for the 1997-98 school year. August 13 began the five-day pre-school period for instructional employees, a time during which all teachers attend meetings and prepare for the arrival of students. On that date, Respondent began his professional duties as an instructional staff member of Petitioner's school system. That date was also the effective date for Respondent's instructional position. Starting on August 13, 1997, Respondent's duties were substantially different than they were prior to that date. Prior to August 13, 1997, Respondent's work was akin to that of an incidental day laborer. August 20, 1997, was the first day of classes for students within Petitioner's school system. On January 9, 1998, Principal Campbell met with Respondent and gave him a letter advising him that she was recommending to the superintendent the termination of Respondent's employment, effective January 15, 1998. She told him not to report to the school for those interim days but that he was assigned to his home for those additional days for which he would be paid. On February 21, 1998, the School Board ratified that termination, effective January 15, 1998, as part of its consent agenda at a regularly-scheduled Board meeting. At the time Respondent was notified he would be terminated and at the time of the School Board meeting, annual contracts for that school year had not yet been prepared. There is a normal delay with finalizing annual contracts due to extended negotiations with the teacher's union once the budget is final.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that Respondent's employment was terminated within his probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Joan Kowel, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire JenniLynn Lawrence, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked for conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail which is allegedly violative of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the argeements of counsel, the stipulation of the parties entered on June 7, 1979, and the entire record compiled herein, the following facts are found. The Florida Professional Practices Council (sometimes referred to as "Petitioner") received a report from the Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools on October 24, 1977, indicating that the district had reason to believe that there might be probable cause for revocation of the teaching certificate of John A. Lettelleir, Respondent. Pursuant to this report, and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's staff conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on January 9, 1978, made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teacher's certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause and directed the filing of a Petition on January 9, 1978, pursuant to the authority vested under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, and Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. In conclusionary allegations, the Petition cites that the Respondent engaged in acts which are "immoral, seriously reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee and was not a proper example or model for students and not in the best interests of the health and safety of students" contra to Section 231.09; 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent currently holds a Post-graduate, Rank II, Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 347804, covering elementary education, early childhood and junior college, which is valid through June 30, 1985. Respondent was employed in the Public Schools of Pinellas County as a teacher at Maximo Elementary School during the 1976-77 school year. Respondent resigned from his teaching position in the Pinellas County School System in October, 1977. Respondent chaperoned a three day Easter trip for male and female school children from Maximo Elementary School in April of 1976. The trip required three nights away from home for these children. On two of these nights, Respondent shared a sleeping bag with one of his male students. On both nights, Respondent improperly touched the student. During the fall of 1976, three male school children from Maximo Elementary School spent the night at Respondent`s home. The boys slept in Respondent's bedroom. Respondent slept in a double bed with one of the three students and improperly touched the student. Sandra McMichael and Louanne Crawford, teachers in the Pinellas County School System, appeared and testified respecting their relationship with the Respondent. Ms. McMichael and Ms. Crawford both related their professional involvement with Respondent and it suffices to say, in summary fashion, that they considered the Respondent a person of unquestionable character. (TR 20-57 of Joint Exhibit 2.) During the hearing, Respondent testified respecting the agony which the subject incident has brought to his family. Among other things, he stated that he only stipulated to the facts contained in Joint Exhibit 1 based on counsel's advice and their considered joint opinion that without regard to the outcome of his proof or innocence by a contested hearing in this matter, that ultimately he would have gained nothing based on the wide publicity which attaches to such hearings involving public figures. Therefore, Respondent, while maintaining his innocence of the material accusations against him, reluctantly entered into the stipulation which admits improper touching of a male student, in order to satisfy the apparent interpretation of Rule 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education during a prior hearing in this matter on August 15, 1979. Such an interpretation requires an admission of wrongdoing as a predicate to surrender of a teacher's certificate for less than permanent revocation. Based on the foregoing and the parties' joint stipulation for less than permanent revocation, i.e., five years, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that sufficient basis exists to support a favorable recommendation to the Board of Education for a five (5) year revocation with the running of the revocation period commencing in October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's teacher's certificate, No. 347804, be revoked for a period of five (5) years with entry of the revocation period commencing on October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact At the administrative hearing which was scheduled for the time and place shown above, Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., father of the minor student named as Respondent herein, announced that his son, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., had been moved to Los Angeles, California, by his Mother. The student, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., has been enrolled in the school system of Los Angeles, and removed from the Dade County School system. The principal at South Miami Junior High School where Carlos Viciedo, Jr., was enrolled prior to the transfer to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South, verified that papers have been received from the Los Angeles, California, school system to demonstrate that the student has requested a transfer from the schools in Dade County to the schools in Los Angeles. Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., plans to join his family in Los Angeles, and the enrollment of his son in the school system there is permanent.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County dismiss the proceeding it initiated to effect a transfer of the Respondent, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., from South Miami Junior High School to the Alternative Education Program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 17th day of February, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Suite 300 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Carlos Viciedo, Sr. 1122 Southwest 134th Place Miami, Florida 33183 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public School 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent, David L. Smith, is a teaching veteran of twenty years and holds a teacher certificate by Florida. He is employed by Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, as a teacher by means of a continuing contract. During times material, Respondent was assigned as a teacher at Pinellas Park High School. At the beginning of the 1991-92 school year, Respondent's father passed away and Respondent was allowed bereavement leave for a period of approximately eight days. The incidents alleged in Petitioner's charging letter and which is at issue herein occurred over a 5-day period from September 9-13, 1991, after Respondent returned from the burial of his father in the Midwest. During early September 1991, Respondent found a black student, Gregory Mills, sitting in his chair whereupon he replied to the class, "How far to you think I can throw this negro?" The term "negro" is offensive to some black students and Petitioner discourages the use of racial slurs in the school setting. The student to whom the remark was made, Gregory Mills, did not view the remark as offensive and considered that Respondent was making a joke of the incident. Mills view Respondent as a good teacher who gets along well with all students and was particularly concerned about the welfare of minorities, exemplifying such by assisting them in achieving their career objectives. At least one student, Robia Brown, who was in Respondent's class when Respondent made the "negro" remark to Mills thought that Respondent used the term "nigger" instead of "negro." However, the facts failed to support Robia Brown's recollection and it was not borne out by the testimony of Respondent and the student to whom it was directed, Gregory Mills. During times material, Bihn Vo was an oriental student at Pinellas Park and was an office assistant whose duties included taking messages and information from the office to individual classrooms. On one occasion following September 9, 1991, Vo was delivering information to Respondent's classroom. When Vo entered the wrong door, Respondent replied, "What do you want, you oriental son of a bitch?" On a separate occasion during early September 1991, information was delivered to Respondent's classroom for Kelly Slusser, a student. When the file which contained the information was given to Respondent, he threw the open file across the room and remarked, "[I] do not like her anymore." Also, during the same time period, Respondent grabbed Slusser by the neck and pushed her backwards leaving marks on her neck which were later visible by the assistant principal, Pamela Jones. As a result of those incidents, Slusser and another student, Robia Brown, withdrew from Respondent's class. During this period of time in early September 1991, Respondent openly used profanity in the presence of students. On September 9, 1991, Respondent experienced restlessness and an inability to sleep because of the mental state that he was experiencing following his father's burial and the internal strife that was brought upon him by his family members and some chicanery that was ongoing between Respondent and other family members about estate property which his father left. Respondent and his father enjoyed a very close relationship. His father's death was untimely occurring during a period when he (Respondent's father) appeared to have been enjoying good health. Respondent's father would spend most summers with him and they would vacation in and around Central Florida. As a result of the depression that Respondent appeared to suffer following his father's death, he visited his physician, David R. Newsome, M.D., for medication which would allow him to sleep at night. All of the incidents which are at issue occurred over a 5-day period from September 9-13, 1991. Following those incidents, Respondent took an 8-day leave from September 16-27, 1991, and received psychotherapy. On September 27, 1991, Respondent returned to his teaching duties and continued his employment with Petitioner until October 19, 1991, without further incident, at which time he was suspended by Petitioner. It is undisputed that Respondent was a popular teacher who often kidded with students. He appeared sleepy and drowsy during early September 1991 and at least one of Petitioner's supervisory employees questioned him about his well-being and suggested that he request administrative leave, which he did. Respondent's actions during the period September 9-13, 1991, came about as a result of his despondency over his father's death and he received medical treatment which appeared to have alleviated the problem. Respondent enjoys teaching and it does not appear that his effectiveness has been reduced to the point whereby he would be an ineffective teacher if he is afforded an opportunity to return to a classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner enter a Final Order (1) reversing its recommendation that Respondent be dismissed from his position of employment with Petitioner as an instructional employee, (2) that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year under terms and conditions designed to assure that no further similar acts/occurrences that were displayed by him in September 1991 are manifested, and (3) that Respondent be reinstated with all other rights and benefits of a tenured instructor employed by continuing contract with the Pinellas County School Board. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: BRUCE P TAYLOR ESQ SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942 LARGO FL 34649 2942 LAWRENCE D BLACK ESQ 650 SEMINOLE BLVD LARGO FL 34640 3625 J HOWARD HINESLEY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942 LARGO FL 34649 2942 BETTY CASTOR COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29th day of May, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute is operated by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida and consists of the Police Academy and the Pinellas Corrections Academy. The Corrections Academy and the Police Academy are housed in separate buildings and offer different curriculum and degree programs, although certain faculty and staff members are shared. Students enrolled at the Police Academy or Corrections Academy are usually employed by a police department. The employer police department serves as the sponsoring agency for the student at the Academy. While employed with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, the Petitioner, a black male, was enrolled in Class XI at the Corrections Academy. The Petitioner was removed from his class at the Corrections Academy on December 3, 1984 by Mr. Paul Drolet, the instructor and class coordinator. The Petitioner was subsequently discharged from the Academy by Mr. Mario Vitelli, the Assistant Director. On December 3, 1984, Mr. Drolet called roll in class and discovered that a white female student, Donna Harper, was not in her assigned seat. Mr. Drolet asked Ms. Harper why she was not in her assigned seat. Ms. Harper, who had been sitting next to the Petitioner, stated that she was annoyed by the Petitioner and the things that he was doing. Ms. Harper complained that the Petitioner constantly annoyed and bothered her. Ms. Harper stated that the Petitioner constantly opened and closed his briefcase during class and generally displayed a disinterested attitude. This apparently disturbed Ms. Harper. Ms. Harper also complained that the Petitioner's legs and knees were constantly touching hers because he would spread his legs real wide and have them over on her space. The class had been in session for approximately six days and Ms. Harper complained that the Petitioner's actions had been going on since the beginning of class. After Ms. Harper informed Mr. Drolet of Petitioner's actions, he requested that she give a statement to her sponsoring employer, the Hillsborough County Police Department. After Ms. Harper gave her statement, Mr. Drolet called the Petitioner out of class and asked whether or not the Petitioner wanted to talk about the allegations. The Petitioner stated "I didn't do it, and I have nothing to say". Later, Mr. Drolet informed Petitioner that he was being withdrawn from the class. The Petitioner had been enrolled in the previous class (class IX) at the Corrections Academy. While in class IX, the Petitioner was late to class on several occasions, was found in the Police Academy building (students in the Corrections Academy are not allowed to go into the Police Academy building without permission) and was caught using the non-public telephone at the academy for personal reasons. The Petitioner's major disciplinary problem while in class IX was a complaint made against him by Tia Throckmorton, a white female student. Ms. Throckmorton complained to Larry Wagner, the class coordinator, about a series of events involving the Petitioner. Ms. Throckmorton complained that on one occasion, after the class was shown a .22 caliber gun that a female inmate had attempted to smuggle into a local jail by hiding it in her vaginal area, the Petitioner told Ms. Throckmorton that she could probably hide a .38 caliber gun in her vaginal area. Ms. Throckmorton also complained that during class breaks, the Petitioner would constantly touch her on the shoulders and neck, even after she would pull away to demonstrate that she did not want to be touched. On another occasion at the firing range, the Petitioner stood behind Ms. Throckmorton and squeezed next to her in a "grinding" fashion even though there was plenty of space to pass by. Subsequent to that, the Petitioner attempted to follow Ms. Throckmorton home one day after class. Following this last incident, Ms. Throckmorton decided to complain. The administration of the Corrections Academy, through Mr. Larry Wagner, informed the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department of the complaint by Tia Throckmorton. Upon receiving the information concerning Ms. Throckmorton's complaint, the Sheriff's office withdrew the Petitioner from the Corrections Academy and conducted an internal affairs investigation into the incident. The internal affairs investigation resulted in a finding that there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations of Ms. Throckmorton. Thereafter, the Sheriff's office re-enrolled the Petitioner at the Corrections Academy for the next class. Due to a large number of students entering the Corrections Academy in the next term, the administration decided to operate two separate classes simultaneously, numbered X and XI, with Larry Wagner and Paul Drolet as the respective class coordinators. Due to the prior problems that Petitioner had experienced in Wagner's class, Wagner suggested to Drolet that the Petitioner be placed in class XI, so that Petitioner would feel less stigmatized by his previous withdrawal. Drolet agreed, and the Petitioner was assigned to class XI. While in class XI, and prior to the complaint against Petitioner by Ms. Harper, Mr. Drolet had experienced problems with the Petitioner. On several occasions, the Petitioner fell asleep in class, including a class on unarmed self-defense. On another occasion, the Petitioner wore a utility uniform to class after the students had been specifically instructed to wear their dress uniforms. The Petitioner had also been enrolled in a previous class at the Police Academy. While at the Police Academy, the Petitioner fell asleep on several occasions, and wore an improper uniform on at least two occasions. The Petitioner graduated from the Police Academy on January 3, 1984 with an overall rating of "poor" and the lowest grade average of all students in his graduating class. After Ms. Harper made her complaint against the Petitioner, Mr. Drolet considered the Petitioner's past performance and complaint record at the Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute and recommended to Mr. Vitelli, the Assistant Director, that Petitioner be withdrawn from the academy. Mr. Vitelli instructed Drolet to question the Petitioner about the incident. When Drolet questioned the Petitioner, the Petitioner stated that he didn't do anything and that he had nothing to say. Based on the Petitioner's past record of complaints and discipline problems, and on Petitioner's response to the latest complaint, Mr. Vitelli discharged the Petitioner from the Academy on December 3, 1984. Vitelli explained to Petitioner his right to appeal his dismissal from the Academy to the Director of the Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute, to the Director of Adult Education and to the Superintendent of the School Board of Pinellas County. The Petitioner did not avail himself of any of these direct appeals. The Pinellas County Sheriff's office initiated an internal affairs investigation into the complaint made by Donna Harper, which was scheduled to commence on December 5, 1984. On December 5, 1984, the Petitioner resigned from the Sheriff's office. In classes I through XV at the Corrections Academy, a total of 15 different students were withdrawn for disciplinary reasons, 4 of whom were minorities. During the same period, 56 minority students entered the Corrections Academy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the complaint and the Petition for Relief filed by Mr. Jeffrey C. Harris. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County Post Office Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Jeffrey C. Harris 2805 West Horatio Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Miles A. Lance, Esquire Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4748 Community Relations Board City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4748 Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute 6100 154 Avenue, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Rejected as a recitation of testimony. a. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or misleading. a. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or misleading. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26 Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Facts 10 and 18. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 25. Rejected as subordinate. 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 32. Rejected as subordinate. 33. Rejected as subordinate. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25.
