The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the employment of the Respondent, who is a continuing contract teacher, on several grounds alleged in a three-count Notice of Specific Charges. The Respondent is charged in Count I with incompetency; in Count II with gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty; and in Count III with misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher-on-special-assignment and a Language Arts (English) teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School, Lake Stevens Middle School, and other work sites within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to a continuing contract of employment and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board. During the 1992/93 school year Respondent exhibited erratic behavior, mood changes, engaged in altercations with staff, was excessively absent, and chronically arrived late to the Chapter I Office, her assigned work site at that time. On November 6, 1992, a meeting was held with Respondent to notify Respondent that, due to her excessive absenteeism, repeated tardiness, mood swings, and altercations with other staff members, Respondent was being referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (hereinafter "EAP"). At the November 6, 1992 meeting, Respondent became verbally aggressive and combative in her demeanor and stated that, since there was nothing wrong with her, she did not need to go to the EAP. On November 10, 1992, Respondent's then immediate supervisor requested a medical fitness evaluation due to, among other things, Respondent's excessive absenteeism, inability to accept directives, confrontations with staff members, lack of respect for authority, and because of Respondent's refusal to comply with the supervisory referral to EAP. On November 17, 1992, Respondent was directed to report for a Conference-for-the-Record (hereinafter "CFR") at Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (hereinafter "OPS"). On December 14, 1992, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform assigned duties, as well as her excessive tardiness, excessive absenteeism, and non-compliance with administrative directives. At the December 14, 1992, CFR, it was decided that, because Respondent's duties at the Chapter I office were unclear, Respondent would be given a chance to return to her duties as a teacher-on-special-assignment at the Chapter I Office. At the conclusion of the December 14, 1992, CFR, Respondent agreed to strive to maintain a professional work environment. On January 19, 1993, Respondent's EAP case was closed after Respondent failed to appear at the scheduled EAP conference and after Respondent refused to participate in the program. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach an English for Speakers of Other Languages ("ESOL") class at Miami Beach Senior High School. During the first week of school in August of 1993, Respondent became involved in a verbal altercation in front of students after she was told that her classroom had been changed. During the altercation described in paragraph 14 above, Respondent, in front of the students in the classroom, became so upset over being notified of the room change that she screamed and yelled at her Department chairperson and pushed 15 to 20 books off a table. On September 1, 1994, several students in Respondent's ESOL class accused Respondent of directing disparaging statements to them, belittling them, and threatening to have her nephews harm them, if they reported her actions to the school principal. On September 2, 1994, as a result of Respondent's persistent erratic behavior and inappropriate conduct, including, but not limited to, calling students "bastards," and demeaning, accosting, and harassing other teachers in the hallways, the principal at Miami Beach Senior High School requested that Respondent undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On September 14, 1994, Respondent was involved in a verbal confrontation with another teacher at her school in the presence of students. Because of Respondent's agitated and irrational behavior, the other teacher was afraid that Respondent might hit her. Due to Respondent's expressed desire to transfer to a middle school, and because of her continuing behavioral problems, Respondent was transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School with the assistance of the principal at Miami Beach Senior High. Prior to Respondent's transfer to Lake Stevens Middle School, the principal at Lake Stevens Middle school was not informed of Respondent's history of behavioral problems until Respondent was involved in several incidents with other staff members at her new school. On December 4, 1995, a conference was held with Respondent and the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School in an attempt to resolve a dispute between the two employees. The conference was held after Respondent had been involved in an altercation with the school clerk. At the December 4, 1995, conference, Respondent was directed to avoid contact or communications with the school clerk unless initiated through a school administrator. On May 4, 1995, during a parent-teacher conference, the conference had to be terminated after Respondent became enraged and started yelling and screaming at the parent, the student, and an assistant principal. Respondent continued screaming even after the parent and student had left and persisted in shouting and yelling at the assistant principal while Respondent followed her around the main office. On February 8, 1996, another conference was held with the Respondent at Lake Stevens Middle School by the assistant principal to address a complaint filed by Respondent against a school secretary. As the conference was about to be concluded, Respondent started shouting and making disparaging remarks against the school secretary, and was generally "out-of-control." On May 2, 1996, Respondent was cited with insubordination after she entered the main office area and started yelling at the assistant principal and refused to cease her tirade after twice being directed by the assistant principal to stop shouting and explain her problem. On May 15, 1996, a formal observation of the Respondent's classroom performance was not conducted because Respondent was unable to provide her lesson plans and grade book to the administrator who was to observe her. Rather than place Respondent on prescription, the principal decided to give Respondent another opportunity to get her documentation in order for another observation. Prior to the May 15, 1996 voided observation, the assistant principal at Lake Stevens Middle School had noted that Respondent did not have her roll book, lesson plans, or student folders during the first thirty days after she had been transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School. During the beginning of the summer school session, on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in a verbal altercation with the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School. This second altercation with the school clerk commenced when the school clerk, who was now the principal's secretary, told the Respondent that the Respondent could not walk into the principal's office without first contacting the principal's secretary. When an assistant principal intervened to resolve this altercation, Respondent became irate and refused to leave the assistant principal's office and instead told him to "push" her out. At the end of the school day on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in an altercation with the principal's secretary after the Respondent purposefully pushed the secretary with her briefcase in the main office and thus provoked a verbal altercation, which required the intervention of school administrators. After the school buses had left, on July 8, 1996, the interim principal at Lake Stevens Middle School met with the Respondent to discuss the physical confrontation that had occurred earlier that day and verbally reprimanded the Respondent, advising her that the school administration would not tolerate another incident of this nature. As a result of the July 8, 1996, incident, a personnel investigation was conducted by the Division of School Police, which determined that the charge that Respondent had committed a battery was substantiated. On August 28, 1996, a temporary restraining order was issued against Respondent after Respondent allegedly threatened to kill her former boyfriend, who is also employed on an hourly basis by Petitioner. On October 7, 1996, a CFR was held with Respondent to address numerous incidents involving inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, the personnel investigation on the charge that Respondent had committed a battery, and Respondent's classroom performance and attendance. At that CFR, Respondent was directed to avoid any further altercations (verbal or physical) with other staff members. Respondent was also advised that her failure to comply with previous directives regarding altercations with staff members was considered insubordination and was in violation of School Board rules on employee conduct and violence in the workplace. Respondent was also advised that any further incidents would be considered gross insubordination. At the CFR held on October 7, 1996, Respondent was assigned to her home as an alternate assignment due to her repeated involvement in altercations at the school sites and her unprofessional conduct. Due to Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees--even after being repeatedly directed to avoid same--and because of Respondent's history of erratic behavior at her work site, Respondent was further required to undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On October 8 through 11, 1996, a psychological evaluation was conducted by Dr. Michael Hendrickson, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist. Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent become involved in psychotherapy through the EAP, and that Respondent be required to undergo a neurological evaluation to rule out a neurological basis for Respondent's reported behavioral problems. He also recommended that Respondent be required to undergo psychotherapy once a week for a full year. On October 15, 1996, Respondent was allowed to return to Lake Stevens Middle School. On October 22, 1996, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, and in assessment techniques in accordance with the Teacher Assessment and Development System. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist her in overcoming her deficiencies. On the day of the formal observation described immediately above, the administrator who conducted the classroom observation noted, among other things, that Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete; that Respondent's grade book did not contain grades for at least two of her classes; that there was no evidence of tests or quizzes given to the students; that students' work was piled on the teacher's desk, table, and cabinets; and that students' folders were incomplete. By November 5, 1996, Respondent had yet to complete the prescriptive activities that had been assigned to her as a result of the formal classroom observation conducted on October 22, 1996. At the and of the school day on December 12, 1996, Respondent approached the school principal, in the presence of students who were just getting into their school busses, and accused the principal of taking part in a plot to fire her and stated that she wanted to be assigned to the region office rather than work at Lake Stevens Middle School. The principal advised Respondent that this was not the appropriate place to hold such a discussion and that she should meet with him later in his office. On December 12, 1996, upon entering the principal's office, Respondent began to cry, used profanity, started shouting and screaming at the school principal, refused to leave the office, and, ultimately, had to be escorted out of principal's office into the main office, where Respondent continued to scream and shout in the presence of parents, students, and staff. While in the main office area on December 12, 1996, Respondent had to be restrained by other staff members after she started directing her verbal attack--in a threatening manner--at a school counselor. Respondent was finally escorted out of the school. On December 17, 1996, a follow-up CFR was held with Respondent to review the results of the psychological evaluation of Respondent and her continued inappropriate and unprofessional conduct as evidenced by her involvement in the December 12, 1996, incident in the main office of Lake Stevens Middle School, and her continuing acts of insubordination. At the December 17, 1996, follow-up CFR, Respondent was directed to attend psychotherapy once a week, for one (1) year, to undergo a neurological evaluation, and to immediately report to the EAP. Because of the school district's concern that Respondent had a propensity for violence, as evidenced by her numerous altercations with other employees, Respondent was also directed to remain on alternate assignment at her home. On January 31, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to comply with the administrative directives issued at the follow-up CFR held on December 17, 1996, constituted gross insubordination. Respondent was again directed to comply with the directives listed immediately above, within five (5) work days or face further disciplinary action. On March 6, 1997, Respondent underwent a follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson, the psychologist that had conducted the initial psychological evaluation. The follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson was necessitated by Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees at her work site after she had completed her psychological evaluation on October 11, 1996. After the follow- up consultation, Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess the cause of her various conflicts and aggressive outbursts. On March 27, 1997, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson. At this CFR, Respondent was directed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation as a condition of Respondent's continued employment with Petitioner and to report the results of that evaluation within five (5) work days. On or about April 29, 1997, Respondent was directed to report on May 1, 1997, to OPS for a CFR, to discuss, among other things, Respondent's failure to comply with administrative directives regarding her medical fitness to perform assigned duties, specifically Respondent's failure to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and Respondent's failure to adhere to previously issued administrative directives relative to her unprofessional conduct, and her unacceptable and disruptive behavior. On or about May 1, 1997, Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for that day. The May 1, 1997, CFR was rescheduled to May 2, 1997, after Respondent indicated that she would not attend unless escorted by a police officer because she feared for her personal safety. On May 2, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to attend the CFR scheduled for that day would constitute gross insubordination. Due to Respondent's failure to attend the May 2, 1997, CFR, on May 9, 1997, Respondent was directed to attend a CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997, at OPS. Respondent was also advised that her failure to attend the May 13, 1997, CFR would be considered gross insubordination and that Respondent would be subject to dismissal from further employment with Petitioner. Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997. At its regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1997, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent on the grounds of incompetency, misconduct in office, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida ordering that: Respondent be found to be guilty of incompetency, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office, as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges; Respondent's suspension without pay from employment on May 21, 1997, be sustained and that she receive no back pay for the period of her suspension; and that Respondent be dismissed from all employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 2nd day of July, 1998.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Darrell Timothy Roundtree (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 30, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Respondent has denied any and all wrongdoing.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a teacher employed by the Broward County Public School District. He was assigned duties as a physical education teacher during the 2003/2004 school year at Walker Elementary School. The Respondent holds a Florida Educator’s Certificate and is subject to the provisions of law governing the conduct and discipline of teachers within the state. The Petitioner is responsible to investigate and prosecute complaints against persons who hold Florida Educator’s Certificates who have allegedly violated provisions of law. In this case, the Petitioner filed a six-count Administrative Complaint against the Respondent following an investigation of charges that came from the Broward County School District. Although the allegations in the instant case are not the first disciplinary concerns regarding the Respondent, the instant charges, if proved, are sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against the Respondent's teaching certificate. Prior allegations against the Respondent resulted in a Letter of Concern being placed in his file based upon a claim that he had tweaked the nipples of a seven-year-old student. A second charge was not prosecuted due to the lack of cooperation by the alleged victim and his parent. The Respondent resigned his employment with the Broward County School District on September 16, 2005. The resignation followed an investigation into the conduct that is the subject matter of the instant proceeding. Sometime in 2003 the Respondent started a business for the purpose of providing male escorts. As depicted in this record, males hired through the Respondent's company were dispatched to parties or events and asked to dance and provide male companionship for the attendees of the party. Although prostitution was not the stated goal of the enterprise, it was not without possibility given the nature of the information describing the males. Pictures of the males were posted to the Respondent's website with listings as to sexual preference, age, and dimension of the males' anatomy. Although he initially denied involvement in the website, the record is clear the Respondent took pictures of partially nude males for the purpose of posting them on the website, SouthFloridaThugz.com. One of the males was a student in the Broward County GED program. The student, J. M., heard about the Respondent's business through a friend. A partially nude picture of J. M.'s friend was posted on the Respondent's website. According to J. M., the Respondent would take pictures of the males, post them for review, and schedule "parties" for the "clients" to attend. J. M. was scheduled to attend one such party. Based upon his conversation with the Respondent, J. M. expected to attend a party, dance nude for the attendees, and receive $300.00 for compensation. From that $300.00 J. M. expected the Respondent to receive a portion of the compensation. J. M. believed that the party would have women as well as men in attendance. J. M.'s friend had suggested that sometimes "safe sex" might occur. When he got to the party, J. M. was stunned to find that only men attended. He did not expect to be watched by gay men. He did not agree to that and insisted on leaving. He returned the $300.00 and told the Respondent he would not "do business" with him. Later J. M. went to authorities to file a complaint against the Respondent. J. M.'s complaint led to an investigation by the Broward County School District. Thereafter, the Respondent's school-issued computer was examined. The school-issued computer was used to access adult websites, chat sites, and other inappropriate sites. Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 8 show a complete listing of the sites. The Respondent claimed that the computer use was not his, but such denial has not been deemed credible. After the matter was fully investigated by the Broward School District, it was determined that the Respondent had lost his effectiveness with the school system. The instant case was investigated and prosecuted over a period of time within which the Respondent and others gave multiple statements. The Respondent gave inconsistent and contradictory statements on more than one occasion. The student, J. M., was deemed the more credible of the two. Further, it is determined that the computer history of the Respondent's school-issued computer clearly and unambiguously established that the Respondent accessed inappropriate websites and chat rooms. It is determined that the Respondent did not verify the age of J. M. before making the pictures of his nude torso and groin area. Further, the Respondent did not maintain records to verify that the other nude and partially nude males depicted on the website were adults. Finally, it is determined that the purpose of the website was not for "dancing." The depiction of the males' penises in a state of arousal would not suggest or relate to any dancing ability. The Respondent's claim that his privacy has been invaded is unfounded. Teachers in the State of Florida are held to a high standard of conduct. It is expected that a school- issued computer may be subject to inspection by school authorities. The Respondent has taught for approximately 21 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking the Respondent’s teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 5th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Darrell Timothy Roundtree 2388 South Oakland Park Drive, Apartment 202 Oakland Park, Florida 33309
The Issue Did Respondent leave the Southside Middle School campus without permission in the 1989-90 school year; in that same year, did Respondent make a threatening complaint in writing to Vice Principal, Peggy Williams; in that same year, did Respondent fail to submit a written report of a fight between students; did Respondent use profanity in the school year 1990-91 while employed at Southside Middle School; did Respondent leave campus without permission and leave his classes unattended in the school year 1991-92 while employed at Lake Shore Middle School; did Respondent engage in inappropriate conduct with students by grabbing a male student, M.F., by the shoulders and squeezing that student's shoulders and making that student go to his knees in the school year 1992-93 while employed at Lake Shore Middle School; did Respondent in that same year grab and hit A.H. in the chest and in the stomach; did Respondent in that same year pull the student, J.W.'s ear; did Respondent in that same year plan a field trip to Walt Disney World, Florida, without approval from the Duval County School District; did Respondent fail to follow district procedures for purchasing t-shirts and sweatshirts for students; did Respondent in the school year 1993-94 while employed at the Lake Shore Middle School fail to comply with guidelines in submitting a "no show" list related to student attendance; and did Respondent engage in profanity in the presence of students in that same year?
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate number 638543 covering the areas of health, biology, and physical education. In the fall of 1989, Respondent began employment with the Duval County, Florida, School Board in a teaching position at Southside Middle School. While serving as a teacher at Southside Middle School, Respondent broke up a fight between two students that was occurring in a hallway. Following the incident his obligation was to file a written report detailing the facts. That report was due immediately. The Respondent had to be reminded twice before rendering the report. The report was rendered before the students met with a school hearing officer to resolve the incident. In the fall of 1991, Respondent voluntarily transferred to an assignment at Lake Shore Middle School. That school is also part of the Duval County School District. On one occasion while Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School, Timothy Hamel, another teacher at that school, observed that Respondent's class had been left unattended from approximately 3:40 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. On another occasion, while Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School, Respondent left campus at a time when he did not have classes and did not return until after school had concluded for the day. As a consequence, he missed instruction periods for some classes that he was responsible for teaching. This circumstance was established through testimony from Arlene Guthrie, Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Lake Shore Middle School. The proof submitted at hearing did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the Respondent had made arrangements to cover classes which he missed on this occasion. In the spring of 1993, Respondent was interested in taking some students on a field trip to Walt Disney World, Florida. A conversation was held between the Principal at Lake Shore Middle School and the Respondent concerning this field trip. The principal was persuaded that it was too late in the year to schedule a field trip. Nonetheless, Respondent replied that he was going on the field trip and would rent a van on his own to transport the students, separate and apart from school sanctioned transportation. In the conversation concerning the field trip, the principal asked Respondent if he had obtained parent/guardian permission slips for the students to attend the outing. Respondent replied in the affirmative. A permission information sheet directed to the parents or guardians pertaining to the nature of the field trip was prepared on the Lake Shore Middle School letterhead and signed by Respondent, as sponsor for a school club known as Manhood, Achievement, Community Service. That information sheet indicated that the trip would take place on May 28-30, 1993. Further, it indicated that expenses would be taken care of, except for meals and spending money for the students. The correspondence went on to indicate that the parents or guardians would be informed of the hotel address after receipt of confirmation of room reservations. The information sheet indicated the departure and return time. Respondent confirmed the knowledge of the parents about those details by having them sign the information sheet. As discussed between Respondent and the principal, there was no mention in the information sheet about Respondent arranging for transportation on his own by renting a van. When the principal asked Respondent about the duration of the trip, Respondent indicated that it was more than a single-day trip. The principal wanted to know if Respondent had made arrangements for a place to stay. At that time, Respondent replied that no such arrangements had been made but that Respondent would obtain a place to stay. The principal was not convinced that the parents and guardians were sufficiently apprised of the nature of this outing and told Respondent that Respondent could not take the trip. After the conclusion of the conversation between the Respondent and the principal, Respondent still insisted that he was going on the field trip to Walt Disney World. In the conversation between the principal and Respondent concerning the field trip, the issue related to the payment for the trip was addressed. The principal was concerned that there was not enough money to pay for the trip and asked the Respondent how the balance of the money was to be paid. Respondent replied that the parents would pay. When the principal asked if Respondent had consulted with the parents concerning this additional cost, the answer was no. The conference between the principal and Respondent was held two or three days before the trip was to take place. When it became obvious that the school district, from the principal's perspective, did not wish to sanction the trip, matters were left in the posture that if the Respondent wanted to go on the trip as an adult in charge of those children, then that arrangement would have to be carried out between Respondent and the parents. In that setting of a private trip the school district did not want the Respondent to create the appearance that the trip was a trip sanctioned by the school district. Eventually correspondence was given to the Respondent from Gerlieve R. Oliver, Assistant Superintendent, Middle Schools, Duval County School System, confirming that the Respondent did not have permission to take an official school trip to Disney World. The correspondence also informed the Respondent that he could not take a non-school related trip, given that the written communications to parents concerning the trip was made on school letter head, thus creating the appearance of being a school sponsored trip. This appearance caused the school district to instruct the Respondent that he could not take a non-school trip either. This communication dated May 26, 1993, informed the Respondent that the parents or guardians of the students who were to be taken on the trip would be made aware of the telephone conversation between the Respondent and Ms. Oliver concerning the field trip. The conversation between Respondent and Assistant Superintendent Oliver was instigated by Respondent. It is that telephone conversation that led to the preparation of the correspondence. The correspondence from the assistant superintendent to the Respondent reminded the Respondent that if he failed to follow the directions that he might put himself in jeopardy concerning employment with the district and admonished Respondent to be more careful in adhering to directions. The correspondence from Ms. Oliver to Respondent also mentioned that if Respondent were more careful about following procedures in the future that this would result in the Respondent being able to provide opportunities for his students. This is taken to mean opportunities such as field trips. While Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School there was a policy related to what is referred to as a "no show" list. In particular, at the commencement of the school year a given school counts the number of students in attendance as a means of determining the amount of money the school is entitled to for conducting its operations. The expectation is that the individual school teacher will document this count by calling a roll each day and turning in a slip to the administrative offices verifying the students who did not attend school on that day. Respondent did not comply with that requirement. While Respondent was teaching at Lake Shore Middle School an incident occurred between male students K.A. and M.F. in the school lunch room. K.A. and M.F. were arguing. Respondent came over and broke up the argument by grabbing both of the students by their respective shoulders. On two other occasions while Respondent was in the lunch room with the students, he grabbed A.H. around the neck in the first encounter and the second encounter grabbed that student by the shoulder. When Respondent grabbed A.H. around the neck the student winced and frowned. The reason for that initial encounter between the Respondent and A.H. is not clear. On the second occasion Respondent grabbed A.H. by the shoulder, A.H. had similar expression in that he winced and frowned. Again it is unclear concerning the reason for Respondent's actions. In the experience of K.A., while attending a class taught by Respondent, he observed Respondent curse in class on a somewhat frequent basis. That frequency was as much as four times a day, three days a week. On one occasion K.A. observed Respondent grab D.A. around the neck and tell D.A. to sit down or Respondent was going to be "kicking his fucking ass." Other curse words that K.A. heard the Respondent use were words like "ass", "damn", and "asshole". According to Ms. Guthrie, an expert in education, cursing in front of students, using inappropriate discipline such as grabbing necks and shoulders of students and leaving the class unattended on more than one occasion, constitutes a circumstance in which the Respondent has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. That opinion by Ms. Guthrie is accepted.
Recommendation Based on the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of the four counts in the Administrative Complaint and suspending the Respondent's teaching certificate for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan L. Bond, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way, Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 J. David Holder, Esquire 1408 Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Steven A. Williams 6200 South Barnes Road, P-20 Jacksonville, Florida 32216-5633 Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct with and S.L. when they were students at a district high school, and should be terminated for violation of Volusia County School Board Policies.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the School Board of Volusia County. The Petitioner is charged with the operation of the public schools in Volusia County to including directing, controlling, and disciplining teachers employed to teach in those schools. The Petitioner has entered into contractual agreements concerning the discipline of its teachers. The instant case arises from Petitioner's execution of its duties to direct, control and discipline a teacher whom it had employed. The Respondent is Reuben Mordecai, Jr., who was employed as a classroom teacher and athletic coach at Mainland High School by the School Board of Volusia County. The Respondent had been employed as a classroom teacher and athletic coach for girls' basketball and track teams since 1989. On or about September 6, 2000, L.G., a female student at Mainland High School, alleged that the Respondent spoke to her in a sexually explicit and improper manner. On or about September 7, 2000, L.G. further alleged that the Respondent had touched her in a sexually inappropriate manner. These allegations were reported to the Board's Department of Professional Standards and to the Daytona Beach Police Department. Pursuant to policy, the Board limited its interviews of the alleged victim and delayed its investigation of the incident pending resolution of any potential criminal charges. While awaiting further investigation, the Board initially reassigned the Respondent to a non-instructional position in Facilities Maintenance Department. He was in this position from September 11, 2000, until the Board transferred him to the Educational Development Center in August 2001. After the police had finished their investigation, the Board conducted an investigation into the allegations. Based upon its investigation, the Board suspended the Respondent without pay and initiated termination proceedings against him. While the case was pending, the Board became aware of allegations made by S.L., a former student of the Respondent, who also alleged that he had made improper sexual comments to her and had improperly touched her. The charges against the Respondent were amended to include these allegations. S.L. and L.G. knew one another and had a friendly relationship with one another both in and out of school. The essence of S.L.'s allegation was that, while she was a student at Mainland in 1998, the Respondent let her use his coaching office in the morning to make telephone calls to her boy friend who was not in school; that during these calls, the Respondent was present on more than one occasion. The Respondent talked to her about having sex with his wife, talked about sexual matters with her, and on one occasion kissed her neck and fondled her buttocks and thighs. S.L. testified that she said nothing to the Respondent about his conduct and left for first period class. Thereafter, she stopped going to his office. S.L. testified that she reported this to Susan Lewis, a teacher at Mainland, but did not identify herself as the victim. She also testified that she reported the Respondent's actions to Walter Brunson and Rose Rowland, the assistant principal. Mr. Brunson was called to testify, but not asked if he recalled S.L.'s mentioning this to him. Ms. Rowland was asked if she recalled S.L. having reported this incident to her. She did not remember S.L. telling her about an incident involving inappropriate touching or speech by the Respondent. The Respondent denies having touched, kissed, or spoken to S.L. in an inappropriate fashion. He did not remember her being in his class, although he accepted that school records reflected that she was enrolled in one of his classes. I do not find the testimony of S.L. credible. L.G. testified that she had been a member of the girls' track team and the following year had been an assistant manager for the football program. She stated that she and the Respondent had made bets about various things, the outcomes of meets, individual performances, etc. The loser had to buy the other a soda or snack. They also discussed various matters, including her relationships and school. She stated that at some point, their discussions included sexual content. She stated that he had observed her in track shorts and commented on the imprint of her vagina. With regard to the allegations of improper touching, she stated that they had commenced a discussion about her boy friend who was bothering her. During this discussion, he discussed having had sex with his ex-wife. This alleged encounter between L.G. and the Respondent moved from the bench outside the gym, to the Respondent's classroom, where L.G. was going to wait for her ride to pick her up and the Respondent was going to grade papers. While in the classroom, L.G. testified that she was playing with the computer and a discussion occurred which led to a bet about the definition of oral sex. She stated that she wrote her answer on a piece of paper and gave it to the Respondent, who said it was wrong. Because she lost the bet, he wanted her to pull her pants down and show him her vagina. She testified that she said okay, and pulled down her shorts. L.G. testified that he asked her to sit on the front of his desk and spread her legs, which she did. When he touched her vagina, she jumped down, pulled up her shorts and left. L.G. did not explain why she abruptly ended the encounter when she had freely engaged in all of the previous conduct when refusing earlier would have been much easier both physically and emotionally. She testified that she did not initially report the incident because she was scared; however, her fear did not keep her from participating in the acts leading up to the touching. L.G. testified that she continued to go to school, but people asked her if she was okay. She assumed something about her manner was different. The Respondent asked her in the auditorium if she was okay, and she said she was. She stated she went and sat by herself, and Mr. Brunson came and asked her if she was okay. He asked her about rumors that were circulating in the school that the Respondent had said inappropriate things to her. L.G. denied having spoken to anyone about the alleged events prior to Mr. Brunson's speaking to her. See Page 82 of the Transcript. No one could have overheard L.G. and the Respondent. It is highly doubtful that the Respondent told anyone about the alleged events. L.G. says that she did not talk to anyone about the incident until several weeks after it occurred when she told her boy friend, R.M., about it. See page 94 of the Transcript. This contradicts her testimony on Page 82. The Respondent denies having made the statements attributed to him or touching L.G. I do not find the testimony of L.G. credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That no action be taken against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Gonzalez, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Hall, Superintendent Volusia County Schools Post Office Box 2118 Deland, Florida 32721-2118 Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Compensatory Education Teacher at Lake Butler Middle School. Additionally, he served as Assistant Football Coach and Junior Varsity Baseball Coach. The Petitioner is over the age of eighteen years. During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner possessed a temporary teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education (Certificate Number 562142) disclosing "Highest Acceptable Level of Training - Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner also possesses a permanent teaching certificate with a validity period of July 1, 1987, through June 30, 1992. Superintendent of Schools, James H. Cason, III, met with M. H. Boyd, Principal, Lake Butler Middle School and Petitioner's principal, prior to formulating his decision to recommend Petitioner to Respondent for additional year of employment. Boyd advised Superintendent Cason that she was not entirely satisfied with Petitioner's performance but that she could "live with" Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason also conferred with the head coach, James F. Niblack, Petitioner's supervisor for the athletic duties performed by Petitioner, prior to formulating a recommendation to Respondent concerning Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Coach Niblack recommended Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason made a timely written nomination that Petitioner be reappointed by the Respondent in an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. On April 27, 1987, Respondent conducted a meeting for the purpose, inter alia, of acting upon the recommendation of Superintendent Cason for personnel appointments. The Respondent voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of Superintendent Cason that Petitioner be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. No reason for the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was verbally stated at the April 27, 1987, meeting nor spread upon the minutes of such meeting. During the hearing, and after conferring with the members of the board, counsel for Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the statutory requirement to be eligible for appointment to a position with Respondent in that he is of good moral character, is over the age of eighteen (18) years and holds a certificate issued under the rules of the State Board of Education. School Board member, W. S. Howard, Jr., a cousin of Boyd, requested that Boyd prepare an evaluation of Petitioner. The record is not clear as to whether the evaluation was made before or after the Superintendent conferred with Boyd on Petitioner's reappointment. Petitioner was evaluated "satisfactory" in ten (10) of the eighteen (18) areas measured on the evaluation instrument that was utilized, "unsatisfactory" on two (2), "not applicable" was marked on two (2) criteria and four (4) were left unmarked by the evaluator. The evaluation instrument utilized by the Respondent in evaluating the Petitioner's performance was not the instrument which should have been utilized during the 1986-87 school year although such instrument was utilized by the principal for other employees at the Petitioner's school. The Respondent officially sponsors, maintains and funds the athletic programs in which the Petitioner rendered services during the 1986-87 school year. Such programs constitute an integral part of the overall educational program offered by the Respondent to children of Union County. The Petitioner's service to the athletic program conducted by the Respondent was rated satisfactory or above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, School Board of Union County, enter a Final Order GRANTING the Petitioner an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year and reimbursing Petitioner for any loss of wages due to his non-pay status which resulted from Respondent's rejection of his nomination. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2536 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 11, respectively. 12.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 16, respectively. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact and 6. The fact that Boyd had some reservations concerning Petitioner's abilities to teach the compensatory education class is adopted in Finding of Fact 5, the balance of paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Niblack recommended Petitioner for reappointment is adopted in Finding of Fact 6, the balance of Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Union County School Board voted not to rehire Petitioner is adopted in Finding of Fact 9, the balance of paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the reason for Respondent's vote to reject Petitioner's reappointment was not verbally stated or spread in the minutes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, the balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that the testimony of the individual School Board members lacked credibility. Rejected as being presented as an argument and not as a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bobby Lex Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 James H. Cason, III, Superintendent The School Board of Union Co. 55 Southwest Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. O’Neill holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 470617, covering the areas of early childhood development and elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 2007. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. O’Neill was employed as a third grade teacher at Lakemont Elementary School (Lakemont) in the Orange County School District (School District). Dr. Susan I. Stephens has been the principal at Lakemont for 12 years. Dr. Stephens was Ms. O’Neill’s supervisor at Lakemont. On September 30, 2005, Dr. Stephens received a call late in the afternoon from a student’s parent complaining that she had smelled alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath during a teacher-parent conference a few days before the call. Dr. Stephens went to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom to discuss the issue with Ms. O’Neill, but Ms. O’Neill had left for the day. The following Monday morning, October 3, 2005, Dr. Stephens confronted Ms. O’Neill in her classroom before school started about the allegations made by the parent. At that time, Dr. Stephens smelled alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath. When Dr. Stephens told Ms. O’Neill that the parent wanted the child removed from her class, Ms. O’Neill acted very nonchalant and began to talk about other things that were not responsive to the issue being discussed. Dr. Stephens has had training to detect the use of alcohol and was of the opinion that Ms. O’Neill was under the influence of alcohol. After her discussion with Ms. O’Neill, Dr. Stephens sent her assistant principal, Randall Hart, to talk with Ms. O’Neill and to observe her. Mr. Hart returned and reported to Dr. Stephens that he also smelled alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath and thought that Ms. O’Neill had been “acting differently.” By the time Mr. Hart had returned from observing Ms. O’Neill, students were arriving in the classroom. Dr. Stephens sent Mr. Hart back to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom to remain in the classroom while the students were present. Dr. Stephens called the Employee Relations Office of the School District and was given the name of a principal in a nearby school, who was trained in the detection of the use of alcohol. Dr. Stephens contacted the principal, Suzanne Ackley, and asked her to come and observe Ms. O’Neill. Ms. Ackley and Dr. Stephens went to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom. The students in Ms. O’Neill’s class had been sent to other classes for art, music or physical education. Ms. O’Neill was “giggly” and was slurring her words. She talked about things which were not related to the issues raised by the two administrators. Ms. Ackley agreed that Ms. O’Neill was under the influence of alcohol. Dr. Stephens and Ms. Ackley went back to Dr. Stephens’ office and called the Employee Relations Office for guidance. They returned to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom, and Dr. Stephens asked Ms. O’Neill to accompany her to an alcoholic testing center. At first, Ms. O’Neill agreed to do so, but wanted to go home first and get her medications. Dr. Stephens refused to let her go home before going to the test center. Ms. O’Neill then refused to go for testing and left her classroom headed for her car. Dr. Stephens did not feel that Ms. O’Neill should be driving in her condition and followed Ms. O’Neill to her car. Dr. Stephens had called for the police officer who was the school resource officer to meet them at Ms. O’Neill’s car. The police officer, Lina Strube, had over nine years of experience and had been trained to detect when a person was under the influence of alcohol. By the time Officer Strube got to the parking lot, Ms. O’Neill was in her car driving toward Officer Strube. Before Ms. O’Neill could get to the gate of the parking lot, Officer Strube stopped her and asked her to roll down her window, which Ms. O’Neill did. Officer Strube could smell alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath and told Ms. O’Neill that she wanted to talk to Ms. O’Neill. Ms. O’Neill became agitated, and Officer Strube had to call for assistance. Based on her experience and training, Officer Strube felt that Ms. O’Neill was under the influence of alcohol. As a result of the incident on October 3, 2005, Ms. O’Neill employment with the School District was terminated. Ms. O’Neill’s was under the influence of alcohol while in the classroom and such conduct seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School District and showed her failure to make a reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions that are harmful to learning and/or to the students’ mental health or physical safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) and revoking her educator’s certificate for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 30th day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Michele O'Neill 110 Wigwam Place Maitland, Florida 32751 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to terminate a teacher’s employment for just cause based upon the charge that he committed misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Sapp is a teacher in the Broward County Public School System. At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, Sapp was serving as a teacher, track coach, and Athletic Director at Silver Lakes Middle School (“School”). As Athletic Director, Sapp was entrusted with a “master” key that allowed him access to most buildings and offices in the School, a privilege not available to all teachers. Most of the School’s teachers, including Sapp, were assigned a laptop computer. A teacher’s laptop was either an IBM-compatible Dell or an Apple Macintosh. The School did not have on hand a surfeit of laptops but rather just enough for most teachers to have one. Sapp’s was an Apple Macintosh. The School’s technology specialist was Julian Kuilan, who had started work in that capacity in January 2001. Among other things, Mr. Kuilan was responsible for taking care of the computers that were assigned to the teachers. On Thursday, February 22, 2001, Mr. Kuilan was in possession of a Dell laptop computer that he intended to assign to a teacher the next day. When he left work that afternoon, Mr. Kuilan stored the Dell laptop under his desk,1 where it was concealed from casual visitors, and locked the door to his office, which was situated in the School’s media center. The media center, too, was locked for the night. At around 8:00 p.m. that evening, Sapp returned to the School after a track meet. He remained on campus until all of the adults and students who were with him had left the vicinity. Then, at around 8:30 p.m., when Sapp knew that he was alone except for the custodial crew, Sapp used his master key to enter, first, the media center and, next, Mr. Kuilan’s locked office. Once he was in Mr. Kuilan’s office, Sapp located the computers hidden under the desk and picked up a Dell laptop. Sapp left Mr. Kuilan’s office with the computer and departed the media center through the back door (not the front door through which he had entered). He took the laptop to his own classroom and stashed it there. Sapp then left to go home. In the parking lot, he bumped into the School’s security specialist, Mr. Stevens, who was washing a bus.2 Sapp did not mention the computer to the Mr. Stevens. When Mr. Kuilan arrived for work the next morning, Friday, February 23, 2001, he quickly discovered that one of the laptops which had been placed under his desk the previous afternoon was gone. He promptly notified the administration of the loss. The School’s principal, Mr. Traeger, immediately initiated an investigation to determine the whereabouts of the missing computer. The police were called, as was the School’s Special Investigative Unit (“SIU”). The SIU assigned an investigator named Kathleen Andersen to the case. Meanwhile, that Friday morning, as others were trying to find out what had happened to the laptop, Sapp returned to the media center to borrow a VCR. Sapp did not mention to anyone in the media center, including Mr. Kuilan, that he had entered Mr. Kuilan’s locked office the night before and removed a computer——which, as only Sapp knew, was presently located in Sapp’s classroom. Later that day, around 3:00 p.m., Mr. Traeger convened a meeting in his office to interview persons, such as the night custodial staff, who had access to the media center and might have been on campus when the computer was taken. Sapp was summoned to this meeting because he held a master key and had been at the School after hours due to the track meet. When Sapp arrived at the principal’s office, Mr. Traeger told him that a computer was missing and inquired whether Sapp had seen anyone enter the media center on Thursday night.3 Sapp answered that he had not and was excused.4 When he left work that Friday, Sapp did not take the laptop computer home with him for the weekend of February 24-25, 2001. The computer remained in his classroom. That same weekend, Ms. Andersen (the SIU investigator) obtained data from the motion detectors in the media center. This information enabled the investigator to home in on the likely time frame during which the computer had been taken and to pinpoint the areas in which the culprit had been present. Knowing these facts would facilitate the review of the surveillance videotapes that were the product of the many security cameras located around the School’s campus——cameras that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. On Monday, February 26, 2001, Ms. Andersen arranged to watch the surveillance videotapes the next day.5 For his part, Sapp came to work as usual that Monday——and said nothing to anyone about the laptop he had taken from Mr. Kuilan’s office. When he left in the evening, Sapp took the laptop home and placed it in his attic. On Tuesday morning, February 27, 2001, Ms. Andersen reviewed the surveillance videos. When she did, she discovered that the cameras had captured the image of the man who had taken the computer——and it was someone she knew. Right away, Ms. Andersen recognized Sapp as being the person shown in the film exiting the media center with a laptop computer. Ms. Andersen informed Mr. Traeger, who then personally viewed the tapes. He, too, identified Sapp without difficulty. They decided that Sapp needed to be questioned right away. Sapp was attending an athletics-related off-campus meeting that morning when he received a telephone call from Mr. Traeger, who instructed Sapp to return to the School immediately. Sapp complied, and he arrived in the principal’s office around noon, where he met Mr. Traeger and Ms. Andersen. Sapp was asked whether he could provide any additional information concerning his activities on the night of February 22, 2001, that might shed light on the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the laptop. Sapp became upset and asked that Ms. Andersen leave the room so that he could speak privately with Mr. Traeger. She left. Alone with Mr. Traeger, Sapp finally admitted that he had entered the media center the last Thursday night, although he still did not reveal that he had taken the computer. The principal asked Sapp if he was confident enough about these facts to write a statement. Sapp said that he was and wrote the following in longhand:6 When coming back for the track meet on Thursday 22nd of Feb. I open the boys locker room for the boys to dress from the track meet. After boys dress me and the girl track coach went to the back and check and see if all the kids was gone. We entered the school east side of the school. Going up the hallway. Then we stop by the teacher lounge. Then went in the west hallway. I stop by the media center on the west side for a min. The girl track coach kept walking. So I caught up with her to walk her to her classroom. We stay in the classroom for about five min then she walk out the west side to her car. We talk for a min or so. Then she left. I walk back up the hallway. I went into the teachers’ lounge. Then I came out enter the media center. I came out the back of the media center. I went into the east hallway into the locker room to pick up my books. Then I went to the classroom and check and see how things was left after the sub. Then I walk out to the park lock. Mr. Stevens was in the park lock. I spoke to him. Then his son drove up. Mr. Stevens told me that he lock his keys in the car and that why his son came back. I told him that I am going to go. I was very sleep and I would see him tomorrow. Arnie Lee Sapp 2-27-2001 Sapp’s written statement was not the whole truth and, indeed, was misleading in its omission of the material fact that Sapp had taken the computer out of Mr. Kuilan’s office. At some point in the ensuing discussion, Mr. Traeger confronted Sapp with the evidence of the videotapes and offered to let him resign if he would confess and return the computer. Shortly thereafter, Sapp confessed to Mr. Traeger (but he did not resign). After Sapp had admitted taking the computer, Mr. Traeger called Ms. Andersen back into the room. By this time, Sapp was visibly distraught and crying. He continued to make incriminating statements, such as “I’ve done something really stupid” and “I’ve let a lot of people down.” Sapp also alarmed the others present by talking about “end[ing] it all on Friday”——which they interpreted as a possible threat to commit suicide. Eventually, Sapp calmed down and assured Mr. Traeger and Ms. Andersen that he was not going to hurt himself. Notably, however, despite being asked, Sapp did not disclose why he had taken the computer, giving only the vague explanation that “personal issues” had forced him to do it. As the meeting ended, Sapp agreed promptly to return the computer. Ms. Andersen and another officer followed Sapp to his house, where the laptop was retrieved. Sapp’s Exculpatory Scenario Except as noted, the basic material facts in the above account were largely undisputed. Where the litigants mainly part company is over the veracity of Sapp’s present explanation for his actions. What follows is a brief summary of Sapp’s exculpatory scenario. Sapp claims that he “borrowed” the Dell laptop on February 22, 2001, so that a friend with good typing skills would be able to use it to prepare the program for a March 8, 2001, track meet while Sapp and this friend attended Sapp’s college reunion in North Carolina, where they were scheduled to be from Friday, March 2, 2001, to Sunday, March 4, 2001. According to Sapp, an IBM-compatible Dell was needed for this task because he was having trouble printing documents stored in the Apple Macintosh laptop that had been assigned to him. Sapp, in sum, maintains that he had a legitimate purpose for taking the computer. On the surface, Sapp’s story has, at best, a patina of plausibility, and a bit of probing wipes even that away. To believe Sapp would require the making of too many assumptions that are out of step with common sense and everyday experience—— assumptions that are, in the final analysis, incompatible with a reasonably likely hypothesis of innocence. To start, there is the manner in which Sapp acquired the laptop. The facts are that Sapp took the property at night when the campus was nearly empty; that he used a master key to open locked doors and enter another employee’s office; and that he removed the computer from a location in that office which can fairly be called a hiding place. To explain this suspicious conduct, Sapp asserts that the School’s equipment checkout policy was not always strictly followed and that he had been permitted, in the past, to borrow property without observing the formal sign-out procedures. Assuming this is true, however, there is no credible evidence that the School ever tolerated conduct similar to Sapp’s. Moreover, common sense instructs that, barring an emergency,7 a teacher having a legitimate reason to use school district property will not simply take the property by stealth but will ask, at least informally, for permission. It is, therefore, not likely that Sapp would have taken the computer as he did if his intentions were good. Next is the fact that, time and again, Sapp never mentioned to anyone that he had taken the computer, when common sense dictates that an innocent person would have done so. It is, of course, highly probable that Sapp, as a reasonable person, knew that the disappearance of a laptop computer from Mr. Kuilan’s locked office likely would cause a stir——which is why, if Sapp truly had taken the computer for the reasons he now claims, Sapp almost certainly would have told someone (probably Mr. Kuilan) at the very first opportunity on Friday, February 23, 2001. Sapp’s continued silence is inconsistent with innocence. Making matters worse for Sapp is that he remained silent even when asked by the principal on the afternoon of Friday, February 23, 2001, about suspicious activity in the media center the night before. Sapp now concedes that it was a “mistake” not to tell the Mr. Traeger the supposedly exculpatory truth that day, and clearly it was——but it was more than that. If Sapp were innocent as he now claims, common sense teaches that he would have revealed everything to Mr. Traeger then and there. Sapp’s silence at this point is not only inconsistent with innocence but also circumstantial evidence of guilt; the reasonable inference is that he was covering up a known wrong. By now, Sapp’s story is so discredited that to note that on February 26, 2001, Sapp secreted the computer in his attic seems gratuitous, but that is the incriminating fact. Of greater significance, however, is that on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, during the second meeting with Mr. Traeger concerning the missing laptop, Sapp again failed to tell the whole truth and signed a written statement for Mr. Traeger that omitted the material fact that he had taken the computer. It is nearly impossible to imagine that Sapp, if innocent, would have continued actively to conceal this fact; common sense suggests that an innocent person would have spoken up long before it became necessary for Mr. Traeger to produce the inculpatory surveillance videos. At bottom, to fit Sapp’s story to the undisputed objective facts concerning his conduct demands belief in an improbable set of circumstances that ultimately defies belief. The simpler explanation for Sapp’s conduct, in contrast, is credible and probable: Sapp stole the computer and then attempted to cover up the misdeed until, when confronted with the videotapes, he was compelled to confess. Ultimate Factual Determinations Sapp’s taking of the laptop computer on February 22, 2001, was, if not theft as defined in the criminal law, at least dishonest and hence in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings). In addition, by using the master key with which he had been entrusted as a perquisite of his position as Athletic Director to gain unauthorized access Mr. Kuilan’s office, Sapp violated Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage). Sapp committed separate violations of Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, when he knowingly concealed material information from his principal on February 23, 2001, and again on February 27, 2001. Sapp violated Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities), when, on February 27, 2001, he tendered a signed, written statement to Mr. Traeger that omitted material facts and was, as a result, false and misleading. Sapp’s misconduct, which violated several principles of professional conduct as noted above, also violated Rule 6B- 1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct). This ethics code violation, it should be mentioned, is secondary to the previously described misdeeds, inasmuch as acts of dishonesty and fraud necessarily demonstrate a failure to sustain the “highest degree of ethical conduct.” Sapp’s violations of the ethics code and the principles of professional conduct were serious and caused his effectiveness in the school system to be impaired. Contrary to Sapp’s argument, the evidence amply supports this finding. Indeed, Sapp’s own testimony, in which he admitted having breached the confidence and trust that had been reposited in him as a teacher and Athletic Director, was powerful proof that, after the incident, he could no longer be as effective as he previously had been. Further, as a teacher and coach, Sapp was required to be a role model for his students. To be effective in this position of trust and confidence, he needed to maintain a high degree of trustworthiness, honesty, judgment, and discretion. Yet, as Sapp admitted at hearing, if a student athlete had engaged in conduct similar to his own, that student would be dismissed from the athletic program and probably expelled from school. Obviously, having committed acts that would subject a student to severe repercussions, Sapp’s effectiveness as a role model has been seriously compromised——perhaps (and hopefully) not irreparably, but grievously nonetheless. Based on the above findings, it is determined that Sapp is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order ratifying Sapp’s suspension without pay effective September 11, 2001, and discharging him from further employment in the Broward County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 24th day of September, 2002.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend and terminate the employment of Respondent, a teacher, for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began his employment with the District in November 2014. Respondent was employed as a math teacher for grades 9 through 12 at PBLHS until December 12, 2018, which was his last day in a classroom. Respondent is an experienced teacher who was trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent completed the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. Respondent signed the District’s Code of Ethics each of the three times he received it and was aware it governed his behavior as an employee of the District. Circumstances Giving Rise to Respondent’s Discipline Respondent met former student, S.E., in Haiti in 2015 when she was approximately 15 years old. S.E. and Respondent worked on a political campaign together. While in Haiti, Respondent became friendly with S.E. and her family. Respondent was aware that S.E. was planning to come to the United States to attend high school. In 2018, while S.E. was an 11th grade student at PBLHS, Respondent was a teacher at the same school. Respondent exchanged phone numbers with S.E. so they could communicate outside of school hours. Respondent and S.E. frequently communicated outside of school hours between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. by telephone and text messages in Haitian-Creole because S.E. did not speak English. According to Respondent, these conversations were primarily personal, as they had “all kind of conversation from family matter[s], from life, from a sexual content, from – you know, everything. Everything like two normal people. Any conversation that two normal people would take. It was about everything.” On or about December 3, 2018, a student reported to school staff at PBLHS that Respondent sent S.E. an inappropriate text stating, “send me a picture in your underwear.” Respondent allegedly also asked S.E. to go to a hotel with him. Detective Eulises Munoz was called to PBLHS to conduct an investigation regarding Respondent. As a part of Detective Munoz’s investigation, he conducted an audio recorded interview with S.E., with the assistance of an interpreter. As part of the investigation, Detective Munoz had the text messages between S.E. and Respondent extracted from S.E.’s phone and transcribed from Haitian-Creole to English. S.E.’s cell phone call log report revealed 48 calls and 94 messages between S.E. and Respondent between October 26, 2018, and December 4, 2018. Respondent admitted to asking S.E. on November 27, 2018, at 8:04 p.m., for “your picture while you are wearing only your underwear.” S.E. refused but instead sent a picture of herself clothed. Respondent told S.E. that she was “mistreating” him because she would not send a naked picture of herself to him. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted that he was aware that it was against Board policy to have asked S.E. for a photograph of her in her underwear while she was a student at PBLHS and he was a teacher at the same school. The investigation also revealed that on December 4, 2018, Respondent told S.E. that she was having headaches because she was not having sex and then sent her an article regarding stress headaches being relieved by sex. Respondent denied asking S.E. to meet him at a hotel. Disciplinary Action After Detective Munoz completed his investigation into the text conversations between Respondent and S.E., he drafted a criminal Probable Cause Affidavit, which was ultimately forwarded to Human Resource Manager Brenda Johnson for further investigation. Ms. Johnson provided Respondent with a letter acknowledging opening an investigative file based on inappropriate interactions with a student. As of December 18, 2018, Respondent was removed from the classroom and directed to have no further contact with students. He was instead assigned to a District warehouse. Respondent was provided with a Pre-Determination Meeting (“PDM”) Notice dated March 9, 2020, signed by Vicki Evans-Pare, Director of Employee & Labor Relations, explaining to him that the investigation was concerning the allegations levied against him and that a meeting was needed to discuss the findings. Prior to the PDM, Respondent was provided with the PDM Notice, as well as a copy of the investigative file. Respondent’s PDM was held on March 13, 2020, at which time he was given the opportunity to provide a response to the allegations against him. After the PDM was completed, Ms. Johnson typed up the notes and summary from the PDM, which were provided to Respondent who was given three business days to review the documents and make any edits or revisions he felt were warranted and add any additional information relative to the investigation. Respondent did not make any changes to the PDM Summary or Notes. After Respondent’s PDM, Ms. Evans-Pare decided to have the investigative file reviewed by the Employee Investigative Committee (EIC), which found the following allegations were substantiated: Soliciting an Inappropriate Relationship with a Student; Ethical Misconduct; Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment; and Failure to Follow Policy, Rule, or Directive. The EIC recommendation was that Respondent’s employment be terminated despite Respondent not having any prior discipline history. The EIC proposed skipping the Progressive Discipline steps (verbal reprimand with written notation, written reprimand, and suspension) because Respondent’s inappropriate interactions with the student, his admission that he had the text conversations with the student, and his request to the student for a picture of her in her underwear posed a direct threat to the District and the student. On May 21, 2020, Respondent was notified that Dr. Donald Fennoy, II, the District Superintendent, would recommend Respondent’s termination to the Board at its June 17, 2020, meeting. Termination was the same disciplinary action that was taken against other employees who engaged in the same or similar conduct. Respondent acknowledged that “[a]lmost everybody” at PBLHS found out about the text conversations between Respondent and S.E. Respondent knew that his co-workers knew about the text conversations because people were calling him and asking him about it. Respondent’s co-workers lost confidence in him as a teacher after they learned about the text conversations between him and S.E. Respondent was also aware that S.E.’s guardians lost confidence in him as a teacher as a result of the sexual text conversations he had with S.E. Respondent acknowledged during the final hearing that his conduct was inappropriate and in violation of the Board’s policies. Respondent only contests the level of discipline (termination) as too harsh. He argued that the Board skipped intervening steps of the progressive discipline policy and claimed that his level of discipline was a result of his complaining that he was not physically capable of the work to which he was assigned in the warehouse.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the suspension and termination of Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Jhonny Felix 5938 Ithaca Circle West Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
